posted on March 4, 2003 06:15:03 PM new
LindaK, I am not on the left. I am right in the middle with just a little lean to the left on this topic...war with Iraq. Some people are so far right that anyone that is not like them must be left. I'm not.People on the way far left are just as silly as those on the far right.
That said. Since we have clearly tried to kill Saddam and he is the President of his country then clearly he is perfectly correct to want to do us harm?Is that what you guys are saying?? What is ok for us must then be ok for other leaders of other countries.
Bill Clinton was on Larry King one evening awhile back and during the conversation he said the worst,most tense time in his time in office was when he was dealing with NK. I guess that means that they have been trouble for many years..not something that is newly started. Longer than ten years I would guess. Clinton said that talking to them is what works...diplomacy. Not something I feel this administration is any good at and a lot of better educated people than me agree. It was an interesting conversation, you might want to look it up on the net to see if it is still available to read.
In my opinion, not coming from the left but from the middle, the difference in what Clinton and Bush said on the Iraq is this:
Bush said Saddam had to go and began to bang the drums of war in the region and indeed about half the world, building up troops and calling leaders pygmies, evil etc.It isn't doing any good.Simply escalates the problem and now we have more countries gearing up to make even more arms. If you are trying to get someone to disarm you don't camp your troops on his doorstep and tell him you are coming to get him. Isn't going to work.You work through diplomatic means.If you want the world to disarm you can't threaten the leaders/people of other countries. You can't bring democracy to a population by killing the women and children. They have to want it badly enough to fight for it themselves,just like we did.It isn't very democratic to force democracy on a country or a region. We wouldn't stand for it here and they are not likely to stand for it there. We are acting in an imperialistic manner and it isn't cutting it in the region. [would you toss away your guns if say a neighbor was telling you to get rid of them or they were going to come and kill you? I don't think so!You'd think they were nuts and you'd go get more ,bigger guns! At least I would!]
Clinton did say that Saddam had to go...[I happen to agree that Saddam has to go by the way] BUT Clinton was trying to take care of the problem using covert actions , trying not to inflame the region potentially causing a horrid conflagration or at worst WW3.He was also trying to use...and here is that word again..diplomacy .He wasn't name calling and making the world feel threatened. The difference then, in what they said wasn't really so much what they said but the way they would go about riding the world of Saddam. Clinton was also trying very hard..and with some small successes to try to work on the real problem in the Middle East. Israel and Palestine.If you ask virtually any Arab what the problems stem from in the ME they will say the Palestinian problem, not Saddam.
Even containment is not a bad thing. Regan did it with Khadaffi [sp]and he was a terrorist and a bad guy that threatened the whole region. Castro has been contained and he is really not much threat but when I was a child he was the big threat to mankind. We can't go kill every leader we hate. We just can't. Russia too was a huge threat! That's why we built bomb shelters and hid under our desks for practice. Should we have tried to bomb Moscow then or did diplomatic means work?
Diplomacy. It's a great word and a useful tool that I wish this administration would just give a try.
To the rest of the world we look like a bunch of terrified people that are going way overboard to deal with the problem. Yes, 9-11 was a horrific event that we can never forget but we are lashing out in a manner that is scaring the rest of the world and not just the bad guys. They have been living with terrorism for decades...why when it comes to our own shores is it necessary to act in this frightening manner?Why not go after the people that did the deed..like the ones we just caught? No country did it. Not Iraq, not Syria.None.A nutty religious faction did it.
Just so you know, I don't hate Bush.I don't trust him,I don't much care for him, but hate is way too strong a word. My fervent hope is that Bush IS right and I am wrong. My gut tells me otherwise but really I want him to be right. I do not want all this to only lead to war upon war...I would hope it will lead to peace. I have a terrible feeling of foreboding. I am not alone.
Probably didn't answer your question to your satisfaction but this is my opinion.
posted on March 4, 2003 10:15:57 PM new
Yes, beautifully eloquent, Bunzer!
Most of the world considers bush to be the most dangerous man in the world - a much bigger threat to peace, prosperity, and life itself than anyone like saddam.
posted on March 4, 2003 10:24:57 PM new
>That said. Since we have clearly tried to kill Saddam and he is the President of his country then clearly he is perfectly correct to want to do us harm?Is that what you guys are saying?? What is ok for us must then be ok for other leaders of other countries.
LOL! That's so true! We DID try to assasinate Saddam, didn't we? And Fidel Castro and some others. The reasoning that it provokes legitimate War (which it does do) on a huge moral scale is one reason why we don't do assassinations as a open policy (hasn't it changed since Bush took office?) The other reason is that America is supposed to be holding the Torch of Liberty and Enlightenment for the rest of the world to see and assassination isn't Democratic or civilized or enlightened behavior in the least.
I guess Saddam DOES have every right to use WOMD on us at any time that he pleases after all! And all this time I thought that he had nmo moral right to do so, but there it is in Black & White: Saddam has the Right!
posted on March 5, 2003 08:47:06 AM new
rawbunzel - Thank you for your well thought out post, expressing your position.
When I used to refer to the left as "democrats" you stated you weren't a democrat. So I started using 'left leaning'...suggesting those who oppose the administration's position. Now you say your not left leaning...okay but I have yet to see a 'little lean' to the right in any of your posts. That's why I've formed my opinion that you 'tend' to usually agree with the positions on the left.
That said and addressing your post, Clinton dealing with NK and using diplomacy. IT DIDN'T WORK. Not saying he didn't give it his best shot...but it changed nothing.
On if you are trying to get someone to disarm you don't camp you troops on his doorstep. I disagree strongly with you here. The US didn't have troops on his doorstep previous to this....and he still didn't disarm...in 12 years. It's only because we DID put troops there that he's done the little bit that he's done to cooperate with the UN inspectors. If you've read about his past actions, he never has done anything unless he is forced to.
They have to want it badly enough themselves. Sometimes the underdogs need support and help to get out from under a tyrants thumb.
Clinton was trying to use covert actions -- diplomacy I don't doubt that for a minute. But it didn't work in his 8 years of trying.
Containment Saddam hasn't been contained. While you may not believe reports of items he's known to have purchased under the 'oil for food' program..he has purchased much that was in violation of his agreements. For just one example...the 340+ missile engines for his missile program.
Castro was contained Only because the US let the Russians know that they were NOT going to be placing missiles on Cuba soil without a war. US military strength is what held them back. No one knows what the turn of events would have been IF we had chickened out and let the missiles stay. Whole different ball game had that happened and the US had Russian missiles, so close, pointed at our shores.
To the rest of the world we look like a bunch of terrified people going overboard - The have been living with terrorism for decades - why when it comes to our shores is it necessary to act in this manner. I am surprised you even ask that. Terrified? No, mad. Sounds to me like you're suggesting we just 'get used to it' 'deal with it'...others have. And that type of thinking is exactly the reason American's are going to keep a republican in the White House. While others do live this way....America is not going to....or will go down fighting.
I do wish people could see that the countries that aren't supporting the position of the US...aren't doing so because they 'think we're overreacting'. But rather because their own connections with Iraq are more important to them than giving their support to the US when that would be counter-productive to the deals they have made with Saddam.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:10:03 AM newthe countries that aren't supporting the position of the US...aren't doing so because they 'think we're overreacting'. But rather because their own connections with Iraq are more important to them than giving their support to the US when that would be counter-productive to the deals they have made with Saddam.
Canada hasn't come out in support of the U.S. position and as far as I know we don't have any connections with Saddam. We have plenty of oil for example.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:15:34 AM new
Irene - Russia, Germany and France....are the major countries who are in partnership against the US decision to go to war with Iraq. Does Canada have veto power in the UN??
Perhaps you need to edit your initial post as you now are saying you meant certain countries. That's not what you said. You appear to have been exaggerating (a lot), particularly as you were responding to Rawbunzel's comment about "the rest of the world".
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Mar 5, 2003 09:32 AM ]
posted on March 5, 2003 09:37:06 AM new
Yeah but most people know that if UK goes in, Canada will follow... has always been the way... they don't need to come out for or against... UK makes that decision.
posted on March 5, 2003 09:39:08 AM new
The only people exaggerating are the one's claiming the "whole world" is against the United States, and the United States is acting "unilaterally", when in fact the majority of European states are with the United States and the United States is not moving unilaterally against Iraq.
We do have a minority of countries that do have interests in Iraq measured in the Billions of dollars.
France, Russia, and Germany are using their trade in defiance of the UN embargo with Iraq to prop up their failing socialist economies. They have no interest in a war that is against their economic interests and therefore are helping propr up a murderous diatator. Then you have the duped peacenics that "admire" France and Germany and don't have a clue why these countries are the "peace" movement.
posted on March 5, 2003 11:20:12 AM new
Yes, Irene...I should have been more specific.
On Canada....not sure what your papers are saying about your country's position on supporting [or not] the US ...but I have read that Canada has sent 2 or 3 warships to the gulf. ?????
posted on March 5, 2003 11:43:30 AM new
Linda, our official position is we support the U.S. if it has U.N. backing. What our position will be if Bush goes ahead without U.N. backing is kind of up in the air at the moment. The politicians seem to be sitting on the fence. I think it could go either way, even though there seems little confidence in your President's ummm... judgement (and that's an understatement!).
We have committed our forces to duty in Afganistan this summer.
posted on March 5, 2003 12:06:57 PM new
> So I started using 'left leaning'...suggesting those who oppose the administration's position.
LOL! Linda - I have a Question for you! I know several hundred STAUNCH Old-Time Conservative Republican party members who voted for Bush, but now, they don't like him and don't support him, his frightening policies, or this War on Iraq. The Question is, would you also call them "left leaning"?
posted on March 5, 2003 12:07:40 PM new
Bravo Bunz, you can speak for me anytime.
Perhaps another difference with Kennedy and Clinton as opposed to Bush is respect (please don't bring up the BJ I don't mean it pertaining to that, OK?) I mean their relationships to other countries and their leaders. They didn't stoop to name calling, they showed strength they didn't bully, they listened they didn't cut off communication. When they spoke they spoke with authority not defiance.
Somehow with all the those bad guys out there our country got stronger and the world wasn't facing WWIII.
posted on March 5, 2003 12:25:22 PM new
LindaK, if you read the post in my very first sentance I admit to leaning left on this issue. On other issues I may be a little to the right or a little to the left, it really all depend on the issue and not a polititcal affiliation.For instance, I own guns myself and am not for restrictive gun control.Does that make me a right winger? Hardly. I am in the middle. How would you define someone that is in the middle? Is there only left and right to you? I see varying degrees of either.
I'm not going to bicker about my opinion as it is after all just that and you will not likely sway me to the right by trying to point out things I already see but see differently than you do...as many people do.
Borillar is correct. A lot of people that are conservatives are not with Bush on this war. I have a sister that is a staunch republican that is not with him on this although she tried very hard to be for a long while she has just recently come around to the correct way of thinking. [that's just a little joke, please don't get your panties wadded up.]
I am not anti war. Just anti this war. There are times it is necessary, though always distasteful and should always be the absolute last resort.But to you, because I am anti THIS war, I am a "leftist"? No, not so.Nothing you can say will make it so either.I was apprehensive about the last gulf war but saw the necessity for it. I see none now. That is my perogative as yours is to think it is the right thing to do.
posted on March 5, 2003 02:25:59 PM newBorillar - The Question is, would you also call them "left leaning."? No, but that's because they don't post here and I haven't had a chance to view hundreds of posts they made and form my own opinion of who leans which way.
But when posters, like yourself, continue to post "the republican party are Nazi's or our president is a nazi" that pretty much tells me the don't lean right.
Chococake - they listened they didn't cut off communication. When they spoke they spoke with authority not defiance.
Bush is doing to Saddam exactly what Kennedy did to Cuba/Russia. Both administrations worked to make them back down. Difference is they backed down....Saddam hasn't.
And I fully support Bush in withdrawing our financial support [read BRIBE money clinton was paying him] when his administration found out he was producing WOMD even though we were paying him not to. That's NOT 'sweet talking' that's a bribe for peace. There's no talking/working out a situation where they are demanding we both continue our financial/fuel support and allow them to continue building WOMD or else. But then, maybe you feel we should? Maybe you feel their demands aren't unreasonable? Maybe you're in the group of American's who just think the US is the 'great monster' when we take a stand against these madmen who threaten the world.
Bush was right in calling these country's the 'axis of evil'....they are.
Somehow with all the those bad guys out there our country got stronger and the world wasn't facing WWIII. We sure were, during the Kennedy administration. Everyone was making these same negative predictions that you guys are now. And now we have experienced 9-11, taking a hit on our home ground...take a major hit to our economy as a result. Just a little different than during the Clinton administration.
posted on March 5, 2003 02:39:25 PM new
rawbunzel - I understand what you're saying....about 'sides'. But few people support 100% of their partys positions. But if memory serves me, I don't remember you supporting the US bombing Afghanistan either. Maybe I'm wrong.
I doubt few here EVER expect to change anyone's mind.
but I have yet to see a 'little lean' to the right in any of your posts. That's why I've formed my opinion that you 'tend' to usually agree with the positions on the left.
