Michael Moore and Freedom

[ABQShredHead]

Call me an isolationist, but at this point foreign relations is lower on my list than other topics, such as the economy and terrorism. Yay, the political motivations of the terrorism warnings may diminish their impact, but turning a blind eye to any intelligence information would be ridiculous in anybody's mind.

The Arab world hates the Israelis for ancestral reasons and, as a result, hate any supporter of Israel. Israel has long been a friend of the US and other western allies. The Arab hardliners exploit this relationship and use it as a means of recruiting more soldiers, stating the Israeli mistreatment of Arabs in Israel as a primary theme. That is in fact not true.

Israel prospers by itself, though it is surrounded by hate. Israel has no oil fields, yet it is by far richer than any surrounding Arab lands. Why? Arab lands are typically ruled by a tyrannical government that keeps the oil money for itself - nothing trickles downward. As a result, the people are poor, uneducated, and led to believe their status is dictated by suppression from the evil US. In fact, the US provides as much support to the Arab nations as it does for Israel. What is wrong with this foreign policy.

The US and UK stepped over the UN to enforce UN doctrine in Iraq, and that has led to further anti-Americanism in several countries. Why? The UN continues its anti-US bias and propaganda, and other nations eat it up like candy.

Afghanistan and Iraq now are on the road to better governments at the hands of the US and other nations. Perhaps these governments will fail. I am more of an opitimist to think these governments will succeed. What will make them fail? Arab fundamentalists who are against the idea of a "free" Middle East and would rather have political tyranny supporting their ideals and furthering their cause with oil money stolen from the people. Who's suppressing whom now? Gullible, indeed!

 

[TotenMitMacht]

Though I am not anti-semetic, I am 100% againts Israel. They are an oppressive force occupying land that is not theirs, all the while killing thousands of Palestinian refugees for little or no reason. Shown vividly on our news and newspapers are the Palestinian suicide bombers, but nothing is said about the Israeli forces who take revenge by bulldozing the home of any known suicide bomber, regardless of who is in it. As you may or may not know, most Palestinians are poor and live in large tenemants. Thus, when the Israelis come to destroy the tenement, hundreds are left homeless. When my brother went to Israel with our Church, he met a woman whose son was shot and killed by an Israeli sniper while he played basketball with his friends. Though it seems ironic, Ariel Sharon is closer to Hitler than most other leaders, yet we continue to support Israel and their methods.
Another thing- If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they still had missiles capable of only a few hundred miles of travel. The only US ally they oppose that they could have hit would have been... Israel. Thanks for fucking things up, Israel, and may vengeance be wrought upon you for all of your oppressive and malicious policies.

 

[ABQShredHead]

I think they have every right to the land they won in their 1948 war of independence. The Arabs tried to win the land by instigating war on Israel in 1967, but lost in a short six days (not even six days, actually). Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula and Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israeli occupation. Israel was skant kilometers from the capitals of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt when the war ended - had Israel taken these capital cities, the Middle East landscape would be much different today.

Israel gave back lands "won" in this war through the Camp David Agreement. Promised autonomy for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip never comes from the Israelis though, and is about the only picking point one could argue in the treatment of the Pallestinians.

President Bush supports an autonomous Pallestinian state. But he has wrecked our foreign policies, or so everybody says.

The Six Day War proved the deficiencies of the Arab states and gave rise to many fundamentalists. Do away with these fundamentalist (i.e., terrorists) and perhaps peace can be furthered throughout the Middle East. It is the fundamentalists that have no respect even for other Arabs (the terrorist activity in Iraq is obvious proof therein) who are destroying the peace process in the Middle East, not solely the Israelis.

 

[OfSinsAndShred]

Weapons of mass destruction still haven't been found up til now, and you seriously still believe they are "hidden"?

I'm not even a war supporter, and even I can say "yes." With as long as the UN dicked around, he had all the time in the fucking world to hide weapons.

What I don't get is how everyone keeps saying "we never found the weapons." Well, let's see. Saddam has a whole COUNTRY of his own to hide them in, let alone the countries of his allies. Hm. Yeah, I'm sure the ONLY possible reason we still haven't found them is that they don't exist. No other possibilities.

Anyway, this is a really great thread, you guys are making great points.

 

[TotenMitMacht]

I don't agree with you on this, SinsAndShred, but why would that matter? I realized that this whole argument is completely pointless because everone in it (myself included) has entered with what they think is right and probably won't change their views due to what other people say. This argument is tired and I can't believe that it's still going on and that I've been participating in it. Michael Moore is an idiot, Michael Moore is a genius, what does it matter?
Let's get back to something we can agree on- Symphony X kicks ass! Also, http://www.pudikatzcattery.com/cats/male seal lynx kitten.jpg
Go there and all of your anger will disappear!

 

[ABQShredHead]

Sweet picture, Toten.

 

[TotenMitMacht]

Thanks. I wanted to alleviate the tension.

 

[TotenMitMacht]

Is that not the most excellent kitty ever? It doesn't matter if you support dubya or not, everybody loves a kitten.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

The only thing more humorous than Michael Moore's clowning is the equally zealous and emotional response of his critics. Guess what, people like YOU created Michael Moore. His goal in life is get attention and further his cause, and you're helping him - the fact he angers those on the other side of the fence is why many "liberals" love him.

"This is the best and most concisely written article I've read on Michael Moore yet."

So you actively go out and seek anti-Michael Moore articles? Hahahhaha, talk about getting played - this is exactly what Moore wanted and planned on.

Oh please. I simply happen to be into film and this article was part of a libertarian newsletter which I happen to subscribe to(check the site). And I thought it was interesting.

You don't know a damn thing about me. You're in no position to try to pigeon-hole or to categorize me. You're only making an ass out of u not me. And clearly, all you're doing is trying to start shit.
I love Symphony X and I love this board and in all sincerity you aren't worth even a scintilla of scorn.

FYI, I'm not part of the "other side of the fence"(as you call it) and I don't support George W. Bush. But that should hardly matter as you obviously haven't really read my posts or my sig.

As for my responses seeming emotional or zealous(as you put it) to you, that's just my style and my own personal temperment. I don't believe in P.C. speech, euphemistic language, sugar-coating, or brown-nosing. A lie is a lie; and a rose by any other name would still smell like shit. If my answers bother you so, why don't you just move on to another thread?

Maybe you aren't giving me too much credit after all and I should just make my own mockumentary.

 

[-Rivfader-]

Prismatic Sphere, good to see more people lean towards the libertarian party. I have taken lots of political quizzes online and I always get libertarian. I visited their website about a year ago and checked out their views and policies and agreed with about every one of them.

For those of you who are unaware of the Libertarian party, here is a link, www.lp.org

Check it out.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Dude, I actually feel exactly the same way you do. The only difference is, I know that realistically, the only two parties that matter in this country are democrats and republicans. Sad but true. You will never see an independant party in the white house. So picking "the one you hate the least" is really the only way to go about it

For every person that has said that; we'd have a Libertarian America. The only "wasted vote" is a vote for the "lesser of two evils". I understand your thinking behind this; but I'm not sure you fully understand mine.
My primary goal is to get a Libertarian in the White House; yes, that is true. But that isn't the real bulk of my focus. My real goal right now is to get enough of a percentage of votes to make the media pay attention to us(as there are way more Libertarians than Greens) and to perhaps utilize that influence to catapult us into the presidential debates.
Because only then will the real issues and questions be addressed(like Doesn't the War On Drugs do more harm than good? Does any form of prohibition really work?
and
Isn't Social Security a fraudulant system which started as a temporary remedy and is destined to destroy itself?
and
Is the income tax really necessary???

When I met with Michael Badnarik after hearing him(I've never been behind one person more in my life), I told him I'd sell my left nut on EBay to get him onto the platform for the presidential debates to which he laughed and
agreed with a somewhat differently funny and modest response.

I hate a lot of aspects of liberalism. Lets not forget it was a democrat's wife who started the PMRC in the 80's and I'm against all forms of censorship (omiting of course any sort of racist stuff)

They say that most everyone thinks that free speech should apply in all areas except for only one tiny exception. If one goes along with this; it gives rise to the seed which will permit statism to grow.
Racial slurs can be devastating. But remember that if you woke up and didn't hear anything offensive, you wouldn't be living in a free country. If one encounters propaganda which one finds offensive; one should have every equal right to make equally offensive anti-propaganda instead of invoking the power of the state to clean up their mess(and eventually yours).

If you don't like it; don't look at/listen to it.

And yeah, Tipper and her sowing circle were indeed evil.

I don't particularly love Kerry, but at this point anything is better than Bush. He's done more to fuck up our foriegn relations than probably any other president in the history of our country. He had the world's support after 9/11 then threw it all away by waging an unjust and unwarrented war. Fuck at this point if Bush were running against a grapefruit I'd vote for the grapefruit. At least if you drew the right kinda face on the grapefruit it might actually look smarter than Bush too...

To this, I'll just respond with a quote by Michale Badnarik:

If you were in prison(which is not that inaccurate an analogy) and you had a 50% chance of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair, and a 5% of escape; would you vote for lethal injection just because you thought it was your highest probability of liklihood?

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Prismatic Sphere, good to see more people lean towards the libertarian party. I have taken lots of political quizzes online and I always get libertarian. I visited their website about a year ago and checked out their views and policies and agreed with about every one of them.

For those of you who are unaware of the Libertarian party, here is a link, www.lp.org

Check it out.

Thanks and I'm glad to hear it. I happen to think that the vast majority of my generation(Generation X'ers) are libertarian and don't know it. It's amazing to me how many twenty-something year olds have said that they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal and most of them don't know about the Libertarian Party.

 

[TotenMitMacht]

WOAH THERE, SNACK ATTACK!
What happened to the kitty?

 

[Tabs]

ABQShredHead, you sir scare the hell out of me.

The liberal side will do nothing but destroy America. Eight years of a democrat in the White House destroyed much of the prosperity seen from the Reagan era. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has had to right the ship, which nobody seems to give him credit for. The economy is climbing again and things are looking good. But, everybody only looks at "the war" as judgement of his presidency.

Reagan did nothing but run up the incomprehensibly massive national debt that our children, grandchildren, and probably even our great-great-great grandchildren will still be paying off. (If it ever gets paid off at all) Don't tell me he "beat Communism" either - he was in the right place at the right time - it was already failing under it's own crushing weight and through the efforts of moderates like Gorbachev. Aren't Republicans supposed to be for fiscal responsibilty and small goverment? Why is it then that Bill Clinton was the one who ran budget surpluses and succesfully started paying down the debt? Please explain to me how the Bush philosophy of "tax less and spend more" is sound fiscal policy? The economy is not on the rise - just take a look at the job figures released the other day.

I want a strong leader in the White House who is not afraid to protect his/her country. John Kerry will take three years to make a single decision - who knows what Al Qaeda may accomplish during that time. The country will definitely be "in a handbasket" if Kerry wins this election. Somebody please tell me one issue Kerry's platform is based upon - the only thing I hear from his camp is that "we must beat Bush". What are his plans for leading this country? There are none.

You're insane. Do you honestly think John Kerry is not going to go after the people that attacked our country? Do you honestly feel that a guy who shirked his military duty in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era along with a bunch of cabinet officials who never served in the military are more qualified than a decorated veteran to lead a war? Bush's people can say whatever they like about Kerry's supposed "flip-flops", but the fact remains that he's actually been in a war and knows what it's like. To use your words "Who knows what Al Qaeda may accomplish" - during the time that Bush has been off on his tangent in Iraq. I've read the *BIPARTISAN* 9/11 Commission Report - have you? There's NOTHING to substantiate the claims you're making that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda showed up there after we invaded. We have 10 times as many troops in Iraq as we do in Afghanistan - why? It's amazing how this adminstration and the people who support it will continually make up new justifications for this war out of thin air. First it was WMDs, then it was links to 9/11, then it was "liberation" and the fact that Saddam was a "bad guy". I won't dispute the fact that he was, but why him and why now? Why not North Korea, Iran, or even China - countries that pose a far more serious threat to our security.

As for Kerry's plans, it's obvious to me that that you won't read or consider them, but they are posted at his website and I thought he did a good job of outlining most of them at his convention speech.

To quote the great Calvin Coolidge, "America's business is business". Democrats all too often forget this little addage and instead work toward big government and even bigger taxes. Keep the Republicans in the White House another three terms and your life will be much better.

Again, what the hell are you talking about? Has Bush not made the government far bigger than virtually any other modern President? How exactly do you propose that the goverment cut everyone's taxes and still continue to spend ridiculous amounts? Do you think that it's play-money the current administration is running on? If you just don't worry about it it will never have to be paid back?

Amazing. Arab fundamentalists blow up two of the tallest buildings in this country, resulting in 3,000 people killed. George Bush takes to the offensive to clean up what Clinton was too cowardly and politically motivated to do over the last eight years and you people call him a right-wing fundamentalist nutjob and other choice words? It appears to me you people would be better suited to get off your own medications and wake up to the world we live in. I feel much safer with the "nutjob" in office than I will if another wuss-ass democrat is in office.

Again, how exactly does invading Iraq "clean up Clinton's mess"? Where exactly are you getting your information on how Clinton handled terrorism anyway? If you're talking about that supposed offer Sudan made to "turn Bin Laden" over, it was a crock - the guy claiming to be able to do that wasn't even a goverment official and Sudan's government is on level with the Taliban anyway. All I know is that the Bush adminstration was EXTENSIVELY briefed on Al Qaeda by the outgoing national security team and that Richard Clarke (a man who served more Republican presidents than democrats and is a registered Republican by the way) begged the Bush team to go after Al Qaeda right as they came into office. The plan sat on the table with nothing done until 9/11 happened. Tell me why Bush invited officials from the Taliban to Texas while he was governor so they could discuss business with Texas oil firms? (when they weren't even recognized by any civilized country as a legitimate goverment by the way) - why would he want to do business or want his state's companies doing business with such terrible people? Why is there a video of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddamn Hussein on a visit to Baghdad in the 1980s, right at the same time that we knew he was using chemical weapons on the Kurds. Funny how we didn't decide to bring that up as a bad thing that we should go after Saddam for until 20+ years later... Why did the first Bush capitulate to the demands of the Saudi royal family and not take Saddam out in 1991 when he had the chance?

I believe the Israeli's took there own land (in a mere six days, mind you, and that doesn't include the rest of the land they occupied during that war either, since Britain pressured the Israeli's to return it to Egypt and Syria) rather than had it given to them by the US. And I believe they allowed the Palestinians to inhabit the Gaza Strip after the Palestinians were booted out of Jordan.

Israel subsists on US military tanks, aircraft and weapons. They'd have been overrun decades ago if it wasn't for our support. I happen to support Isreal and I do think the Palestinian leadership is to blame for most of what goes on over there. However, that doesn't mean you can diminish the role we play in ensuring their ability to fight.

I, for one, stand by President Bush for keeping us safe. He has been on the offensive to keep America safe. Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda - there were several Al Qaeda training camps within Iraq. Iraq also had a deadline from the UN to prove they destroyed their weapons of mass destruction. They never did. The UN ruined its legitimacy by not taking action against Saddam as they idly threatened they would. The weapons were hidden rather than destroyed, but I won't argue that point.

See, this rationale is just unbelievable to me - we are no safer right now than we were on Sept. 10th 2001. Have you flown recently? Airport security is a complete JOKE. They pass you through no matter what. Did you happen to read that recent account of what a group of Arab men did on a Northwest 757 from Detroit to Los Angeles. Those guys were so clearly conducting a dry run (or even an actual attempt) at blowing the plane up with an improvised explosive assembled in the bathroom. You watch - it will happen. My father is a 767 pilot for a major US airline and he is scared shitless that one day his plane is going to be blown out of the sky from within or shot down by a terrorist standing under his climbout path with a surface to air missile. How safe are you going to feel if a Spain style Al Qaeda attack happens here just before the election?

Ten years from now when the dust settles in the Middle East and there are more legitimate governments with better peace (not perfect peace), will you then finally give President Bush his due?

And how misled will you feel if 10 years from now it's not democracy that's taken hold there, but an Islamic theocracy worse than Saddam? That's where it's headed - the Shiite majority would like to see their fundamentalist clerics in power, not the US backed interim goverment. Do you really think we can force democracy on these people? What are we going to do, kill anyone who opposes that, even if they're the majority? How democractic of us!

The US and UK stepped over the UN to enforce UN doctrine in Iraq, and that has led to further anti-Americanism in several countries. Why? The UN continues its anti-US bias and propaganda, and other nations eat it up like candy.

It's funny you should mention the UN. The UN was damned if they did and damned if they didn't with regards to inspections in Iraq. If the inspectors said there were no WMDs (which they did), then Bush would say "Oh it's just because Saddam is hiding them and you can't get access." If they said there were WMD's, that's material breach of 1441 and grounds for war. Exactly how was the inspection system supposed to NOT end up in war under the doctrine Bush set forth?? It was a set up from the start. You seem to imply that the UN has to go along with anything the US wants or else it's "anti-US." We had full world support for Afghanistan and going after those who attacked us on 9/11. It's when Bush started expanding it to any other country he deemed worthy of attack that the world put their foot down. Keep in mind that the US is a MEMBER of the UN, not the sole authority over it and the rest of the world.

I doubt you'll take what I have to say seriously, but I hope that others in this thread who are more open minded will.

Ryan

 

[jaimek]

I consider myself a social libertarian, but I don't have enough trust in humanity to let them run the economy without at least *some* governmental regulation. That's just asking for dog-eat-dog anarchy, which is self-destructive in the long run.

The hardcore Libertarians are scary, too - they're every bit as self-righteous and obnoxious and play-by-MY-rules-you-ignorant-fuckers as the Dem/Reps who can't think past the party line.

 

[BastrdDrmr]

gotta go with whirling on this one, tubs.

You fatty... aren't you supposed to be at Krispy Kreme or something right now?

 

[ABQShredHead]

ABQShredHead, you sir scare the hell out of me.

Woo hoo! I scare somebody. Move over, Wes Craven.

Clinton failed the nation in his token attempts at restitution for the USS Cole and World Trade Center bombing. Richard Clarke expressed similar frustrations with Bill Clinton as he does with the Bush administration. Was 9/11 preventable? Hell yes. Was the country prepared for the attack? Hell no. Is it prepared even no? Not even. Al Qaeda has been allowed entirely too much free space to operate its business over the past 10-15 years, and it will take a very long time to rid the world of their organization. I don't feel John Kerry will do enough on this front. From what I have seen, he does not make decisions well enough and waffles over points. He has zero charisma and will not do well enough as the President and leader of this country.

Talk about scaring the hell out of somebody - do you actually propose the US invade China? That thinking is seriously insane.

North Korea and Iran, though, I agree with you on. Ooh, I'm being scary again. But, all kidding aside, Kim Jong Il is a nutcase and knowing his finger is on the button of nuclear weapons with capabilities to reach California is not a pleasant thought.

Iran is the reason Rumsfeld was shown in the video shaking Saddam's hand in the '80s. The climate was very different from today - Iraq was locked in a war with Iran and the US backed Iraq to hopefully defeat the Ayatollah.

As for the deficit, you present a good argument. However, the current world economy lessens the overall impact of the national debt. Future generations will be stuck with a tab, but many fears from the '80s about Reagan's overspending have proven wrong and are even being reversed. A good editorial appeared in the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26402-2004Jun8.html.

As for Israel, they subsist on their own abilities. They have American-made weapons, yes, and they receive monetary aid from the US, as do many other Arab nations. Israel was not overrun decades ago; in fact, the Six Day War showed the Arabs are not at all capable of overrunning the Israelis.

I fly, on average, twice a month. I don't lose sleep knowing I'm stepping on an airplane.

The UN was not "damned if they did and damned if they didn't with regards to inspections in Iraq". Iraq continued to disobey Security Council Resolution after Security Council Resolution, and the UN did nothing but issue more resolutions.

As for an open mind, one's mind can only be open so far before one's brain falls out. I am impressed with at least one Democrat though - Bill Richardson, governor of NM. He has done some good things since taking the reins - and some bad things, like draining Elephant Butte to 2% capacity. But, overall, I must say I'm impressed with his leadership. My political views are still Conservative in nature.

What will 10 years show us in the Middle East? Who knows. It could be liberation for the people, or it could be a new evil as you propose. I will take the lead from Ronald Reagan and remain optimistic we did the right thing.

 

[Tabs]

Hey man,

Nice reply, I'm very impressed - maybe I was a bit too harsh there toward you.

Couple things though:

Clinton failed the nation in his token attempts at restitution for the USS Cole and World Trade Center bombing. Richard Clarke expressed similar frustrations with Bill Clinton as he does with the Bush administration. Was 9/11 preventable? Hell yes. Was the country prepared for the attack? Hell no. Is it prepared even no? Not even. Al Qaeda has been allowed entirely too much free space to operate its business over the past 10-15 years, and it will take a very long time to rid the world of their organization. I don't feel John Kerry will do enough on this front. From what I have seen, he does not make decisions well enough and waffles over points. He has zero charisma and will not do well enough as the President and leader of this country.

Ok, I agree with you to a certain extent. You won't ever catch me saying Clinton was a perfect President - I'm not that far to the left that I think Dems/Liberals are infaliable. I do however think that he did more to bring the terrorism threat into focus than any of his predecessors. He did attempt to kill bin Laden with a cruise missile attack in Afghanistan following the African Embassy Bombings. (and probably would have had the CIA bureaucracy not been so slow in getting the information to the people firing the missiles)

After the Cole bombing (and this is according to Woodward's book "Plan of Attack", Clarke's book "Against All Enemies" and the 9/11 Commision Report - Clinton authorized Clarke to start coming up with a plan to eliminate Al Qaeda - this is the same plan that was tabled when Bush took office. Should Clinton immediately have invaded Afghanistan after they determined Al Qaeda was behind the Cole attack? It's hard to say - it may have prevented 9/11 but at the time Clinton had been impeached and was a lame duck in his last few months in office. A war would not have been looked on favorably after everything that happened during his scandal/trial etc... As I said before, his national security team begged the incoming Bush team to focus on terrorism. According to Paul O'Neill's book "The Price of Loyalty" though, they were already talking about going after Iraq less than 2 weeks into Bush's term. Neither President anticipated that Al Qaeda was capable of something like 9/11, but had our intelligence agencies been operating as they should have been and had they really listed to what Richard Clarke was telling them, they should have. Hell, Tom Clancy had a terrorist crashing a 747 into the U.S. Capitol during a joint-session and taking out the whole government at the end of his novel "Debt of Honor" and that was 10+ years prior!

As for Kerry - I think you're wrong man, I really do. I will say though that he was not my choice for the Dem nomination, (I voted for Gen. Wesley Clark in the primary - he's awesome) but I don't think he's going to sit idly and wait for Al Qaeda to attack us again. You have to realize too that if Kerry's elected, it's a virtual guarantee that John McCain will be nominated for Secretary of Defense and possibly Clark as Secretary of State. I don't think there's any better choice out there for either position and both of those men won't hesitate to recommend using the military if they think it's necessary. I do trust them to tell us when it's necessary unlike the current administration.

Kerry has explained his so called "waffling" before and while I do still have some reservations, I think he has a point when he says that the world is a complex place and that people's minds DO change with time and new information. A person who never changes his/her mind and can never admit they were wrong (ala Bush in press conferrences) scares me. A lot of this too is Bush's people distorting his actual record - did you know for instance that when Bush says Kerry flipped by voting for the war but then against the $87 billion, he leaves out the fact that Kerry voted FOR an alternate funding bill that would have repealed Bush's tax cuts to get the $87 billion instead of paying for it out of more deficit spending that wasn't even in the budget? It doesn't sound so heinously anti-military and "flip-flop" when you know that does it?

Another example of the same type of thing - Bush continues to state that Kerry has voted some ridiculous number of times (300 I think) to "raise taxes." What he fails to mention is that he's including every vote that Kerry cast against a tax cut or a vote for lowering taxes *but by not as much as the Republicans wanted* as "raising taxes." Neither of those constitues a vote to raise anything. I think it's insane that Bush and his people get away with that kind of distortion of the facts.

Talk about scaring the hell out of somebody - do you actually propose the US invade China? That thinking is seriously insane.

Of course not, I'm just pointing out that if the reason for going into Iraq was "liberation" and stoping injustice, then there's a bunch of countries that are 10 times worse. Why do we give the Chinese Oligarchy "most favored nation" trading status when they're one of the worst, if not THE worst human-rights offender out there?

I'm much more worried about that psychopath Kim Jong Ill giving a nuke to terrorists for the right price than I ever was about Saddam doing it. Saddam and bin Laden are religious enemies anyway - bin Laden has publicly stated that Saddam is too secular and was a threat to the fundamentalist brand of Islam himself.

Iran is the reason Rumsfeld was shown in the video shaking Saddam's hand in the '80s. The climate was very different from today - Iraq was locked in a war with Iran and the US backed Iraq to hopefully defeat the Ayatollah.

Oh I know what the climate was - we were playing both freaking sides. Who in their right mind decided that it was a good idea for us to secretly support both parties in a bloody lengthy war? This is what continually gets the US into trouble - why did we have to support EITHER of them?? - They were both bad as all hell - let 'em fight it out. And then for cryin' out loud, don't go 20+ years into the past right now to get Saddam for something we knew he was doing and turned the other way on at the time.

The UN was not "damned if they did and damned if they didn't with regards to inspections in Iraq". Iraq continued to disobey Security Council Resolution after Security Council Resolution, and the UN did nothing but issue more resolutions.

I still don't agree - how exactly was Saddam supposed to comply with these resolutions other than by saying he didn't have WMDs? I don't think anyone even considered the notion that maybe he was telling the truth for once. People always say he "kicked the inspectors out" too, which isn't true, they left on their own accord. IF he said he didn't have them, he was hiding them from inspectors and was in material breach = war. That was the only option on the table. There was a huge pressure I think on the inspectors right before the war started to say that they weren't getting access etc. I just don't think we can explain away the unwillingness to really assess Saddam's claim that he didn't have WMDs this time just because he broken previous resolutions 11 years prior.

And on the topic of UN resolutions being disobeyed - just to be fair and play the devil's advocate - I think there's something like 50+ on Israel that are outstanding.

As for an open mind, one's mind can only be open so far before one's brain falls out. I am impressed with at least one Democrat though - Bill Richardson, governor of NM. He has done some good things since taking the reins - and some bad things, like draining Elephant Butte to 2% capacity. But, overall, I must say I'm impressed with his leadership. My political views are still Conservative in nature.

Agreed - I live in your neighbor state to the west (AZ) and I like Richardson - he would have made another good VP choice IMO.

What will 10 years show us in the Middle East? Who knows. It could be liberation for the people, or it could be a new evil as you propose. I will take the lead from Ronald Reagan and remain optimistic we did the right thing.

For all our sake, I hope you're right.

Ryan

 

[TotenMitMacht]

Meh.

 

[ABQShredHead]

Ryan,

Good counterpoints all the same. We can go for days on this issue.

Political stances aside, John Kerry promises to "bring the troops home" when elected. What does this statement mean? To me, at face value, he is using this statement as a pawn in the election. It only capitalizes on what has made Bush unpopular and does not speak to any real issues. Again, to me, it will only lead to failure in the Middle East and leave Iraq vulnerable and open to the "Islamic theocracy" you mentioned earlier. I don't like this "empty promise" (a promise made with no scope or course of action) by Kerry and feel he should make more responsible campaign promises. We may be in this "mess" now - leaving it altogether will do nothing but leave a bigger mess.

As for Richardson, I feel he didn't accept the VP offer because he knows Kerry is not a good choice to be President (and I'm not saying this as a Republican outsider) - Richardson has publically criticized both Kerry and Bush (at least in the local media) for their weak foreign policies, and I believe he feels Bush will win the election and Richardson will have a cake walk to the White House in '08. He has definite aspirations to be in the White House, but he wants it on his own terms.

And what will fall out if it is indeed shown that France, Germany, and Russia were effectually bribed by Saddam to keep the UN out of war with Iraq, as it has been reported earlier this week? A finding as such would be the biggest free campaign contribution to Mr. Bush one can imagine.