2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Scrat wrote:

Nimh - Do you think that a more stable Middle East would lower the terror threat worldwide?

Yes.

Of course, the question back would be: do you think the current Iraq, with its bomb attacks and mob violence, is "more stable" than Saddam's dictatorship? More free, yeh, for sure, but more stable?

Of course, its funny how the roles are reversed here - traditionally, before the neocon age, it was the left that always idealistically argued that we would just have to tolerate the instability that comes with suddenly increasing freedom, while it was the realpolitik right that argued that having one's "own sons of bitches" dictatoring here and there is well defendable in terms of the fruits of stability ...

Georgeob is a good example of that old-style conservative, while Sofia and you seem to be more of the we-gotta-change-the-world type neoconservative idealists. To, ahem, just go right in there with my broad brush ... Embarrassed

0 Replies

The current condition in the Middle East is that there has been a battleground created for the day to day fighting. Depending on supplies and politics of the day, more attacks.

0 Replies

Good evening BillW, BrandX, McGentrix, Nimh, Scrat et al.
Mr Kerry made a comment today that struck me as odd; something to the effect that leaders of "other countries" hoped that Mr Bush would lose. The White House spokesman challanged Kerry to name the countries. Kerry's people came back with the suggestion that the appropriate response should have come from the Bush campaign staff, not the White House staff.
This is shaping up to be a nasty race!
But, Nimh, for example (Your own opinions aside)...any comments?

0 Replies

To quote Jay Leno:

Quote:

They say this race is shaping up to be the nastiest ever............ohhhhh goody!!!

I agree.

0 Replies

"ohhhh goody" is right! They're both losers. May the best loser win.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Nimh - Do you think that a more stable Middle East would lower the terror threat worldwide?

Yes.

Good. Now, next question:

Do you think the INTENT of the Bush administration and the multinational coalition that toppled Saddam is to create in Iraq a strong, free nation that will be a stabilizing force in the region? (I'm not asking how well you may think that's going, just whether or not you recognize that it is the goal. Thanks.)

0 Replies

Scrat
My goal was to become a millionare by 30. I did not reach it either. As for Bush's intent you will have to ask the one who is pulling his strings.Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

0 Replies

I think the issue isn't so much the stability of the Middle East. A more stable Middle East obviously would help. But how should this be accomplished is the question. Attacking Saddam when we had our hands full with Osama.....why did we go that direction.....and all alone, dragging some few other world governments with us, at risk of their own safety? It's the unilaterism that's the problem. This administration has been bull headed and impulsive......rash and irresponsible. They've lied to the American public, the Congress, the UN, and to the other governments of the world in order to push their agenda. In a way, they're not much better than the terrorists. It is really a form of terrorism to decide that we know best and to hell with those who don't see it our way. The world is a much more dangerous place with the neo-cons in power. And now even some of the neocons are saying this administration is guilty of terrorist-like activity.

0 Replies

scrat said:

Quote:

Do you think the INTENT of the Bush administration and the multinational coalition that toppled Saddam is to create in Iraq a strong, free nation that will be a stabilizing force in the region?

NO

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, and the road to 9/11 was paved with Clinton's good intentions. You and others would have us continue his policy of failing to respond to terrorism. Thank God we have an administration that knows better.

0 Replies

Lola - The "why did we go alone" nonsense is just that. You and others seem to want to give us a list of which countries had to be on board for us to be able to say we weren't "alone". When you are redefining words to suit your needs, it's a sure sign your argument lacks merit.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you think the INTENT of the Bush administration and the multinational coalition that toppled Saddam is to create in Iraq a strong, free nation that will be a stabilizing force in the region? (I'm not asking how well you may think that's going, just whether or not you recognize that it is the goal. Thanks.)

Leaping in here...

We know from Paul O'Neill (if we didn't already) that the Bush administration wanted, from the beginning and long before 9-11, to go into Iraq militarily.

Humanitarian motive? There's no historical reason to assume the US would be so motivated. Eg, the happy co-operation with Sadaam even while he was committing atrocities.

To create a free democracy where there was oppression? Again, no historical reason to suppose this altruistic motive.

To create 'stability'? Sure. If by 'stability' we mean some set of circumstances which facilitates perceived US (and client state) interests.

Real motives? Oil, Israel, and a permanent military footprint in the region.

0 Replies

Blatham - The "real" goal was to stabilize the region. The fact that the region has oil is the reason the region has power and is unstable, so saying it's about oil is a bit simplistic. If the oil weren't there the entire region would not be what it is.

Bush was planning to go into Iraq before 9/11 because Saddam was already in breach of the cease-fire, the region was already unstable and a crucible of terrorism, and Bush recognized that Saddam had given us a way to make a bold move to reshape the balance of power in the region. Is that good for the US? Absolutely. What country do you think the US government is supposed to be working to benefit?

I only have two questions regarding Iraq these days:

1) How long will it take to have a stable, autonomous society there.

2) How many people who were against the Iraq war will be disappointed when that day comes.

==============

Oh, and you may find this of interest:
Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Quote:

Lola - The "why did we go alone" nonsense is just that. You and others seem to want to give us a list of which countries had to be on board for us to be able to say we weren't "alone". When you are redefining words to suit your needs, it's a sure sign your argument lacks merit.

Scrat,

There is no substance to your comment above. How is it "nonsense?" There is nothing you've written for me to comment further on. Should I just say, "oh, I see, Scrat, I was full of nonsense, I don't know why, but if you say so, well, it must be so?" Try to elaborate, please.

I think it makes a lot of sense to be respectful when negotiating with those countries who might be our allies. After all, did you ever think that those governments like France, Germany and now Spain might have an opinion worth considering? Maybe we couldn't get agreement because the plan of the Bush administration was a bad one. There is that possibility.

There are many many people the world over, including many in the US and Britain who believe it was very foolish. The opposition is huge and growing stronger every day. (observe Spain.) And now, as we see the results of the fool hardy plan, there are still some who believe it was fine. It's true that we don't always do what others want us to do just because they want us to do it. However, when I face as much opposition in my own life to any plan of action I anticipate, as the Bush administration has encountered over the Iraq war, especially when it involves the safety and well being of others, I at least try to see it from the point of view of the objectors before going on. I didn't see Bush hesitate one minute. This is my objection to Bush. He's arrogant and doesn't even seem to know any better.

0 Replies

Lola - There is no "substance" in claiming that the actions of a coalition of at least 45 countries can be called "unilateral" action. Your position stands at odds with reality.

0 Replies

I'm so glad Scrat thinks that the fact that Tonga is offering "support" makes the unilateral actions of the Bush administration a "coalition." Scrat, the "coalition" thing was dealt with about 9 months ago. No one but you seems to believe they actually exist.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

nimh wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Nimh - Do you think that a more stable Middle East would lower the terror threat worldwide?

Yes.

Good. Now, next question:

Do you think the INTENT of the Bush administration and the multinational coalition that toppled Saddam is to create in Iraq a strong, free nation that will be a stabilizing force in the region? (I'm not asking how well you may think that's going, just whether or not you recognize that it is the goal. Thanks.)

LOL! It doesnt work like that. You cant cherry-pick the parts of my answer you would like to hear. Its bad enough that you can cherry-pick the parts of my posts you respond to or ignore ;-)

Do you think it was the INTENT of most Cuban communists to create a strong nation, in which the citizens were freeer than under the dictator - and all equal, at that? Did those intentions do the Cubans any good? Were people warning at the time that they had damn little chance of achieving their intentions if they were going about it the way they did?

<shrugs>

For the record, I am not one of those who suspect an insidious, decade-old conspirational neocon clique plot to conquer Iraq for oil. Nothing as simple as that. On the other hand, I also dont buy the case of a rationale that was purely a sincere desire to see a "strong, free Iraq". For example, I don't think the US would tolerate a strong, free Iraq in the least if it involved the Iraqis freely electing a stridently anti-American government.

Stability, yes. I do believe those behind the invasion truly and sincerely believed they were serving long-term Middle Eastern stability when hatching their plans for war. Kinda in a "it'll get worse before it gets better" way (yet another parallel to bolshevik logic). Personally, I think that's exactly the point on which they're least likely to get what they want.

I think the invasion of Iraq has created a freeer, less stable country. And I don't think either of that is going to change any time soon. Which is ironic, considering the "stable" part is what the Bush admin did it for, while the "freeer" part, imho, was more of a collateral benefit.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

Mr Kerry made a comment today that struck me as odd; something to the effect that leaders of "other countries" hoped that Mr Bush would lose. The White House spokesman challanged Kerry to name the countries. [..] But, Nimh, for example (Your own opinions aside)...any comments?

Depends on whether by "other countries" you mean governments or populations.

Opinion polls here - I've quoted two here already - show an overwhelming preference for the Democratic candidate - any democratic candidate.

<looks it up> Yes, SBS6 "Voice of the Netherlands" has done four opinion polls on it already. In three January polls with a choice of Bush, "another Republican", a selection of the main Democratic contenders and "another Democrat", Bush polled in between 7-9%, and "another Republican" 3-4%; 57%, 60% and 61%, respectively, opted for one of the Dem contenders or "another Democrat". In the last poll, late February, Kerry polled 73% vs Bush 11%.

And thats the Netherlands. We may have had a radical name in the 80s, but these days we are perhaps the most Atlantic-minded of Western Europe after Britain. Popular majorities against Bush will be at least as big in Germany, France, the Scandinavian and Mediterranean countries.

Governments are harder to tell. In a recent column called, I think, "it has come to this", a columnist sighed that Britain now has a Labour PM hoping for the Republican to win the US Presidential elections. For Berlusconi and the Romanian and Croatian governments, too, a Bush II administration would mean perks and "special status" for their countries, since their support for Bush has gained them some precious extra attention and recognition. Other seemingly pro-Bush governments, like the Polish one, however have the problem that they also want to accede to the EU without having to do the splits all too often - so even if they sympathise with Bush, they might still prefer Kerry because he wouldn't force them into conflictuous choices all the time.

0 Replies

The "Foreign leaders" thing was apparently a misquote.
Reporter issues corrections

Quote:

The weeklong furor began with an offhand remark March 8 by Kerry at a reception for donors at an oceanside hotel in Hollywood, Fla.

The campaign allowed only one newspaper reporter into the fundraiser. Under an agreement within the press corps, that reporter, Patrick Healy, provided a description and transcript of comments at the event.

On Monday, Healy said he listened to his tape again because there had been such a strong reaction to Kerry's remarks. In an e-mail to other members of the press corps, he said he realized he had misheard the candidate when he had originally transcribed his tape.

Kerry's assertion was made in reaction to a comment by his Florida finance chairman, Milton Ferrell, who spoke of animosity toward Bush abroad.

"I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya," Kerry responded, according to Healy's corrected transcription. "The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders, who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy, they look at you and say: 'You gotta win this. You gotta beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that. So there is enormous energy out there."

0 Replies

If it was a mis quote then why didn't Kerry say he talked to no one instead of arrogantly telling Mr. Brown it was none of his business who he talked to.

0 Replies

2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know