rexbo 104 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 President Bush responds directly to the question of the justification of regime change and the US and the UK taking the initiative, and not continung the diplomatic approach. I don't think he could have explained it any more clearly. The democrats and liberals don't understand this basic concept, and that is the reason why when they are in power that the brutal dictators and tyrants in the world have nothing to fear from the civilized world. Go to the about the 17 minute mark to hear his explanation. Bush interview with Sir David Frost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 When I first saw the title to this thread I was thinking it belonged on the football forum . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 rexbo, the basic concept that Democrats and liberals and all other free-thinking people understand is that Bush lied to get what he wanted. In his explanations last year through the beginning of the war, regime change was the effect that was needed as a result of causes a, b, c and d. As was known then and now, causes a, b, c and d did not exist. If those 'causes' did not exist, how can the effect be justified? If cause 'e' was that Hussein was a bad guy and needed to be run out of town, then why not make THAT case to the U.N. and gather the multilateral support of the world in THAT cause? You and others seem to think that because many people in the US and the world don't buy into the 'effect' in the absence of the 'causes' that Bush gave, we are somehow deficient. I disagree. You say the end justifies the means. I say that if the means is corrupted then the end, no matter how honorably it began, becomes corrupted as well. We become no better than those tyrants we oppose because, in the absence of law, we use the same tactics they do. Look at this a different way. If you went to your doctor with a backache and he gave you five reasons why you needed to have back surgery, you'd probably believe him. Suppose, however, that after getting a second opinion you found out that all five reasons he gave were wrong. Would you still have back surgery? Maybe something IS wrong with your back, but nothing as drastic as surgery is needed. Same thing here. Maybe something WAS wrong in Iraq, but not for the reasons that were given. This should've been handled through the UN. As a result, two divisions were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq and now it looks like it is becoming just as much of a problem for the US as Iraq is, at least, according to General Abizaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted November 16, 2003 Author Share Posted November 16, 2003 If those 'causes' did not exist, how can the effect be justified? I believe those causes did exist; I do not accept any argument that Saddam deserved to stay in power because of what we found compared to what our intelligence thought we were going to find. This is where we disagree, the "means" as they existed then and as we found out after, justified the "end". And just because you question the "means", it doesn't mean that the "end" is not politically important. The bottom line is that the US, after 12 years of UN discussion and diplomacy in trying to remove a brutal dicatator failed, finally took action. This will have a huge affect on the thoughts and actions of brutal dicatators now, and in the future. And this affect is a positive one for the peace and freedom loving peoiple of the world, not a negative as the democrats and liberals think. This is where they have completely missed the boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 rexbo, the "causes" did not exist. He had no WMD's, no terrorist connections, especially with al Quada and bin Laden, he posed no threat to his neighbors or us (Colin Powell's words in 2001), he had no nuclear capability. He was a bad guy, but, as I've asked many times and never gotten an answer, "Do we want our role in the world to be that of a policeman who eliminates all the "bad guys" we don't like?" The bottom line is that the US, after 12 years of UN discussion and diplomacy in trying to remove a brutal dicatator failed, finally took action. The goal of the U.N. was never to overthrow Hussein. Its' goal was to disarm him. The UNMOVIC inspectors who were in Iraq, unfettered as we wanted them to be, for three months prior to the war were confirming the fact that Hussein was, indeed, disarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 The goal of the U.N. was never to overthrow Hussein. Exactly, that's why Bush had to do something, and your argument to use the UN makes no sense. Or, is your argument that Saddam should STILL be in power in Iraq? I think there is about 23,995,000 people in Iraq that will disagree with you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 I don't think I have EVER made the statement or the argument that I think he should be in power. However, it does seem strange that the U.S. suddenly got a conscience about what he's done ever since WE brought him to power in the 80's. If we were so appalled by his methods, then why didn't we attack him in 1988 when he gassed those Kurds? Going through the U.N. makes perfect sense. That's what it's for. The U.S. should've made its' case for action against Iraq based on Hussein's crimes against humanity. If the proof was there, the entire world would've supported action against him. But, you STILL didn't answer my question. Do you want the role of the U.S. to be the world's policeman who arrests the 'bad guy' leaders of other countries? Do we want to go through Iraq after Iraq after Iraq simply because we don't like other countries leaders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 However, it does seem strange that the U.S. suddenly got a conscience about what he's done ever since WE brought him to power in the 80's. If we were so appalled by his methods, then why didn't we attack him in 1988 when he gassed those Kurds? There was a little thing called the Cold War going on then, and could have resulted in World War IV with the Soviet Union if we had decided to go into Iraq. BTW, did you hear or read the President's speech about democracy in the Middle East? I think he addressed directly your comment. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said. Do you want the role of the U.S. to be the world's policeman who arrests the 'bad guy' leaders of other countries? Do we want to go through Iraq after Iraq after Iraq simply because we don't like other countries leaders? I don't think the US should be the policeman of the world, but after years of diplomacy, the last resort of military action by the US should always be an option. Otherwise, the dictators of the world will ignore the diplomatic efforts. I think it should only take some very drastic situation for us to make war on someone (we didn't make war on Iraq, but on their leader). Saddam was about the worst dictator in the world, and given the current political situation in the Middle East, and the real threat that he held over his people and the neighboring countries, and the potentially incredibly horrific threat he held over the US if he had provided WMDs to terrorists, I think that Bush made an incredibly brave and heroic decision to remove him. Every situation, country, and region is different. Certainly, if the US could take out the dictator in North Korea, the people there would be better off, but politically and especially militarily, it is much too high a risk. Therefore, from what I can see, much multilateral diplomatic pressure is being used. And don't think that the North Koreans were not paying attention to what we did, they know the US (at least as long as Bush is in office) will not roll over, and our talks with them now may actually result in some concessions. If Dean is elected next year, watch how fast they thumb their noses at the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CShine 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 It's hard to care about some other regime when our own regime is 6-5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,044 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Are there no links with Iraq and international terrorists? This all started with 9/11. We are at war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Unfortunately, your man has an exit strategy that will hand power over to the Iraqis way too soon but just in time for the elections of 2004. How convenient. To Hell with the eventual outcome as long as we look like heroes in time for the elections!! A fast handover by US will fail With Saddam Hussein still the most powerful force in Iraq, an early exit could be handing the reins of power right back to him. Saddam believed leading insurgents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Are there no links with Iraq and international terrorists? This all started with 9/11. We are at war. No. There are no known sources between Iraq and Al Queda, even though this administration has looked in every nook and cranny to find one. Meanwhile, the man we swore to bring to justice after 9-11, Osama Bin Laden, is free and re-organizing his terrorist network. It seems he's just a footnote to those yelling "have you forgotten" today!! Saddam Hussein, with no links to 9-11, is now this administration and it's puppets boogieman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 One final word on regime change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 One final word on regime change... I'll second that emotion!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted November 17, 2003 Author Share Posted November 17, 2003 One final word on regime change... Are you implying that the current administration is equivalent to the Saddam regime????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,336 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 One final word on regime change... Are you implying that the current administration is equivalent to the Saddam regime????? That's why you have a vote. Because of men like Bush who use the office of president to help sustain a great, free, nation and also present to the world that eventually it will be free. And we will lead the way. Vote for one of your spineless little wimps. But many people like being a strong nation once again. Base your vote on WMDs and nuclear falsehoods (according to your masters) and if it works out that there are more of you than more of me, I guess we'll go back to the spineless, ass-kissing country that we were turning into under your BELOVED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 That's why you have a vote. Because of men like Bush who use the office of president to help sustain a great, free, nation and also present to the world that eventually it will be free. And we will lead the way. Vote for one of your spineless little wimps. But many people like being a strong nation once again. Base your vote on WMDs and nuclear falsehoods (according to your masters) and if it works out that there are more of you than more of me, I guess we'll go back to the spineless, ass-kissing country that we were turning into under your BELOVED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.