main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

War Crimes and the Bush administration

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Dec 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    As someone who has spent time in the Middle East and knows and is related to Muslims I can say with a great deal of confidence Mr44 that "the Muslim world" most certainly does share "the same concerns" on the basis of the information which is conveyed to them through the press (such as it is) but more importantly through clerical and tribal leaders. Much like "the West" shares the "same concerns" about the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism on the basis of information conveyed through the press and through its political leadership.

    Have you not listened to way America is portrayed in countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine etc etc?

    OK, you are starting to travel down the road of condescension. Are you seriously suggesting that these "brothers of the book" have never historically been in conflict?

    You are now firmly on the road of condescension now Mr44. I have read quite a bit on Al Qeada and Bin Laden. I know what Bin Laden has said and I've quoted him quite a few times in various threads on terrorism and the Middle East right here in the Senate. Al Qeada is a franchisor organization, they sell a methodology. Part of that methodology is the recruitment of cannon fodder for the cause. Part of that methodology is to place the conflict in religious terms because for most peasants the Koran is the only thing they know and understand. It is much easier to recruit if the message is one of a "holy war" rather than a geopolitical struggle or the tyranny of US foreign policy and the implications for Islamic sovereignty.

    The key word here Mr44 is 'perception'. That is what we are talking about. Are we suggesting that Bush based his foreign policy on the bible passages quoted by Rumsfeld? No. But as I said earlier, this practice (if leaked) gives rise to the perception that the President?s religious beliefs are shaping U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. This in turn helps fuel the perception that US operations in Iraq form part of a 'holy war' against the Muslim world which in turn feeds the fire for militant Islamic fundamentalist recruitment.

    Agreed, but I don't think anyone suggested that in the first place.
     
  2. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    LOH, the perception that you speak of comes from the fact that the US drops bombs on certain segments in the Middle East. It was like that with Ford, with Carter, with Reagan, with HW Bush, with Clinton, with Bush and with Obama. It has nothing to do with the fact that one SecDef out of many included some passages from the Bible in private briefings that were only made public until now, especially since such passages from various sources are routinely included.

    That's all my point is.

     
  3. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Well; it certainly doesn't help, I think that much we can all agree on.
     
  4. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    I agree that is most certainly one aspect of the perception of which we speak. However, the act of dropping bombs has to be accompanied by a motivation, a mindset. Why is the US dropping bombs on certain segments of the Middle East? It is the answer to this question which frames the "Muslim" mindset. Is it a temporary engagement driven by political alliances or is it something more fundamental and eternal, driven by religious convictions and imperatives?

    The whole point of this discussion has not been to suggest that Rumsfeld's actions have escalated the conflict or have created the conditions for continuing attrition, but rather that it was a stupid thing for Rumsfeld to do. It was stupid because it potentially gives ammunition to the militant Islamic fundamentalist and assists them in providing the answer to the question raised above, ie, placing the mindset and motivation of US action in Iraq and the Middle East within a religious "holy war" context. Such an image also serves to undermine the differentiation between US policy and the policy of militant Islamic fundamentalist regimes which tend to use religious motivations to support their causes and wars, which is not a good look nor something US allies would want to subsribe to.
     
  5. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    And, to be quite honest, I'm getting a bit sick of some of the attitudes around here. I want to post on a variety of topics, but when I do, it seems like I get 3-4 people all jumping on me at once, trying to beat me into submission. And if it takes me a while to reply, or I can't get back to everyone, it's treated as though I'm admitting "defeat" or something. I don't really have the time or patience to deal with that anymore.

    Not only that, but as you pointed out, the Senate Floor has been losing a lot of conservative voices over the past few years. Quite honestly, many of them have been driven off by others here through poor treatment. Others, like me, have simply gotten extremely busy and no longer have much time. For some, it is a combination of the two. One thing I can say is that there aren't that many people left in the Senate that make it all that welcome to dissenting voices, and that is a real shame, because the Senate deserves better than to just become a one-sided echo chamber.


    I think it was a recent run-in that reminded me how that feels.

    Not to shatter anyone illusions, but TF.N is not the only board I frequent (Ye Gods!!!). I also have been doing some posting on Batman related things to the Dark Knight. I recently made a post interjecting my thoughts into an argument where people were comparing the death of Harvey Dent and the death of the Joker in the original Batman film. And I said -- or thought I said -- that basically, come on, there's a cinematic difference between a guy dropping 20+ stories (Joker) and Dent dropping 4-5.

    And oh my GAWD would you believe the crapstorm THAT eventually let loose. Like seriously, you have no idea. And after I took a thrashing by primarily one poster -- who I thought was condescending at first but then tapered over into rude, accused me outright of several falsehoods and was then backed up by just about every poster thereafter. Those that took my side of it seemed to be quite scared off.

    And at the end of it I was just sort of sitting there in half daze thinking "you know, I'm not certain I technically owe KK an apology... but damned if I don't owe him a little more appreciation".

    I mean it's one thing for you to post and 10 people post back, but do it in a polite enough manner if they're interested in communication. It's another thing to get drubbed over and over because you had the temerity to not sufficiently identify with the accepted wisdom of the day.

    (and oh, congratulations on your forthcoming nuptuals! I'm sure we'd all attend if it wasn't a recipe for outright epic fail.)
     
  6. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    Gonk that's a shame about the Batman discussion. If it helps I would have backed you up had I been there, as I'm in the crazy minority that still prefers Burton's film to TDK.


    As to K_K's comment about conservatives being 'driven away', I'd like to echo Watto's sentiment that things were much worse in the other direction five or six years ago.

    Also, if the place seems more hostile to conservative viewpoints these days, I'd imagine a good deal of that has to do with the fact that most of the conservative views being expressed are coming from posters like BoC. Such poorly-reasoned diatribes EARN the comtempt they receive. If there were less conservative posts like that, there'd be less bashing of conservative posts.
     
  7. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Looks like Pelosi may be speaking the truth.

    Also, I agree with J_K_H. Intellectual conservatism (which I should note that KK has always had, and this isn't directed at him in any way) has undergone a serious drain in recent years, and this has been written about a lot of late in various publications (both online and in print). When you lose your intellectual base, what could be considered your ballast as a set of binding ideals or academic principles (or rather, the people who espouse them), you start losing credibility among people not already committed to you, and a few who previously were. Intellectuals have fled the GOP for various reasons, and I think it has a lot to with the party (especially the base) not being overly attached to reality these days and spending far too much time and resources fighting for things that are neither truly conservative or wise.

    Things were not friendly for liberals in 2002-03, and I remember because I was there (and that was before I was a liberal). Things would be even more lopsided around here these days if the person I considered my own north star of liberalism, Brendan, was still with us.

    When the GOP begins to adapt to changing times and regains both its intellectual grounding and the people to champion those principles, it will be reflected in places like this. As it is, there just isn't a great deal to hang your hat on if you're a conservative. Your principles can be as rock-solid as ever, but the party or wing that you may have been a part of for a long time is not particularly suited for them at the moment.

    To clarify, it's all well and good to have those principles, but they also need to speak to the needs of people today. That's another place where the GOP has run aground. Abstract principles and ideals are great, but they need to meet reality at some point on the train tracks, and generally sooner rather than later.
     
  8. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But what you are describing has always been with us to a degree.

    The 2002-2003 period you mentioned could be summed up as the "Bush is Dumb" years. I remember dozens of my own posts which practically pleaded with people to discuss the actual facts behind a topic. Collectively, I think they came to be known as "Mr44's context obsession." But more often than not, people weren't interested in examining the facts behind something, they just wanted to rant. There were A LOT of terribly illogical and/or anti-intellectual posts during that period as well. In fact, conspiracy-wise, these days are tame compared to the whoppers that were thrown around back then. How many people used to interrupt a decent discussion with a post like "Scalia is a homophobic idiot," or "Bush is dumb" without adding in any additional commentary, free to leave people on both sides of the issue to scratching their heads?

    This forum has never been kind to "ranters," be they conservative minded or liberal minded. Intellectualism, or lack thereof, isn't limited to any particular party, it's just basic human nature that if one happens to agree with the focus of the rant, you're not going to perceive it as such.

    What's so ironic for me is how readily the flip-side applies to what you just posted. The same regulars are now so willing to rationally look at a topic like Gitmo for what is is, instead of basically dismissing it as "OMG! GITMO IS EVV-VALL!!" without really discussing it at all. It's a good thing, but it's also something that we could have had all along.
     
  9. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    The real question Mr44 is whether you can post something without the words "focus" and "perception" appearing anywhere..can you? I challenge you! :p
     
  10. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Nope- it's apparently something that I have to do... I also notice that when I post, I always throw commas everywhere as well.

    At any rate, I certainly can't change now, it wouldn't be the same... [face_worried]
     
  11. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    No it wouldn't. :p

    Don't worry we all have our little eccentricities..for example I have noticed that KK begins approximately 90% of his posts with the word "Except".
     
  12. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Except that's not at all accurate. Of my last 6 posts (not counting this one), I've only started one with the word "except".

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  13. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Gonk that's a shame about the Batman discussion. If it helps I would have backed you up had I been there, as I'm in the crazy minority that still prefers Burton's film to TDK.

    Lol, that's the thing -- I actually prefer TDK. Although I don't dispairage those who like it the other way around.

    It has to do with the whole "did Dent die in TDK" thing. I was just trying to say there's a difference in considering someone dead on film when they drop 20-30 stories plus versus dropping 4-5 stories. Not thatt I'm saying they're not both dead, just that the effect on the audience is different. But apparently they're exactly the same thing. Or something. And to prove it people were posting examples of people surviving skydiving falls, as if that was somehow refuting what I was saying. So screw me and the horse I rode in on.

    Whatever, I'm whining now. Point is for our purposes, a lot of them were either getting downright rude or (perhaps even worse) letting it go without saying at least some small word of caution. And you know, I'd like to think that if you or I or anyone else disagrees with KK or 44 on an issue they've posted and they see 2 or more people already respond, maybe they'll adjust the wording of things in thier own response appropriately.

    Maybe it would be different if these guys were saying things like "liberal-liberal-liberal" or some other trolling technique, but they don't. And they might have a point about the board being more hostile towards them, intentional or not. And I don't think it's an appropriate response to say "well, a few years back the board was hostile to Liberals" or "the real reason you say these things is because conservatism is in the dumps right now". Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But just becuase you got hard done by before doesn't mean it's wise or advisable to get some payback now. And writing things off as sour grapes is taking the easy way out even if it's true (which I have some doubt that it is, although there might be some truth to the notion).

    Maybe if things flip back around too, they'll turn on you and be worse than you ever were and hammer your positions like there's no tomorrow. Maybe your courtesey will never be returned. So what? The point isn't that you don't get anything back, it's that you did the right thing when things were good, even when it was easier not to.


    Also, if the place seems more hostile to conservative viewpoints these days, I'd imagine a good deal of that has to do with the fact that most of the conservative views being expressed are coming from posters like BoC. Such poorly-reasoned diatribes EARN the comtempt they receive. If there were less conservative posts like that, there'd be less bashing of conservative posts.

    Actually BoC is a case in point. I've had several PMs with her -- actually although that's not many it probably adds up to more than I've had with KK -- and she was perfectly nice to me. I wouldn't say I agree with her, and I wouldn't say she doesn't reach for the verbal weaponry here and there when it's not particularly necessary... but then so do many others.

    I know it's not beholden of people to be the first one to take a step back, but I'll bet if she flew off the handle and went after you, if you responded with respect, she'd calm down. I've been around a little while and I've seen truly unreasonable people that yeah, I'd rather not came back. BoC is not one of those people. I wouldn't even say she's the most adversarial conservative poster about even now.
     
  14. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    I would agree with almost all of this, although I have a few responses.

    1) I am not a conservative, even though many people here keep labeling me as such. I am a classical liberal (close, but not quite the same as a libertarian) and a federalist (believing in separation of powers between federal, state, and local governments). My positions share some things in common with conservatives, but it is wrong to label me as a conservative, or claim that I in any way represent conservatism.

    2) I find it funny that some of the same people here who have complained that the way things were 5-6 years ago justifies any form of payback now are the same people who criticize my brother for expressing the same sort of attitude. (For the record, I have criticized him for that attitude, and I reject the idea that payback is justified. If an action is wrong for the other person to do, it's wrong for you, and vice versa.)

    3) I reject the idea that this place was just as bad for liberals 5-6 years ago. Ask KW, Vaderize, or anyone else who was moderating back then, and they will agree that we tried extremely hard to be impartial in how we moderated things. Routinely, I would take action against users from both sides, hand out equal punishment for comparable behavior, and be accused of being biased against both sides at the same time. If anyone thought that I was being biased in my moderating, I actively encouraged them to ask another mod to review it. (I will also point out that my moderating term began with an accusation of bias before I even had the chance to do anything. My first exercise of moderating powers was to lock my own welcome thread in Comms because a certain user (who shall remain nameless to protect OWM) started objecting to the appearance of bias among the moderators. It only went downhill from there.

    In fact, if you look back to the threads back then, you will see a very healthy mix of positions, ranging from liberal to conservative. Look at the discussions on topics ranging from abortion, to Iraq, to affirmative action, to gun control. The discussions were far more balanced than many of them today, because there was a far greater variety of voices in the discussion.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  15. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    [face_laugh] [face_laugh] [face_laugh]
     
  16. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    1) I am not a conservative, even though many people here keep labeling me as such. I am a classical liberal (close, but not quite the same as a libertarian) and a federalist (believing in separation of powers between federal, state, and local governments). My positions share some things in common with conservatives, but it is wrong to label me as a conservative, or claim that I in any way represent conservatism.

    I don't think it's necessarily correct for anyone to be thought of as representing any movement. But out of curiosity, in what ways would you say you differ from Conservatism. Might people get things mixes up with your brother, or would you also not consider him a conservative.

    I guess it's better termed... what do you consider a Conservative?

    (I know at this point this has very little to do with War Crimes of the Bush administration. M'eh.)


    2) I find it funny that some of the same people here who have complained that the way things were 5-6 years ago justifies any form of payback now are the same people who criticize my brother for expressing the same sort of attitude. (For the record, I have criticized him for that attitude, and I reject the idea that payback is justified. If an action is wrong for the other person to do, it's wrong for you, and vice versa.)

    Yes, certainly. And if I haven't said that before this thread, BTW -- well, I guess I'm saying it now.


    3) I reject the idea that this place was just as bad for liberals 5-6 years ago. Ask KW, Vaderize, or anyone else who was moderating back then, and they will agree that we tried extremely hard to be impartial in how we moderated things. Routinely, I would take action against users from both sides, hand out equal punishment for comparable behavior, and be accused of being biased against both sides at the same time. If anyone thought that I was being biased in my moderating, I actively encouraged them to ask another mod to review it. (I will also point out that my moderating term began with an accusation of bias before I even had the chance to do anything. My first exercise of moderating powers was to lock my own welcome thread in Comms because a certain user (who shall remain nameless to protect OWM) started objecting to the appearance of bias among the moderators. It only went downhill from there.

    In fact, if you look back to the threads back then, you will see a very healthy mix of positions, ranging from liberal to conservative. Look at the discussions on topics ranging from abortion, to Iraq, to affirmative action, to gun control. The discussions were far more balanced than many of them today, because there was a far greater variety of voices in the discussion.


    Well, I suppose you could say by having a range of opinions then by definition the environment was harder on Liberals... by being fairer to conservatives, lol.

    I'm in a difficult position to judge the difference though, because I consider myself a 'Liberal', more or less... though I'm not certain what it means at this point. I suppose you'd have to compare the moderating now to the moderating then. Or are you talking about the sort of posting that went on now versus then? I'm not trying to get you to call Lowie or Jabba out, after all.

    I don't remember have ANY problems with the moderation in the Senate then, now or frankly ever... I had a lot more problems with the moderations of the Star Wars films-related boards (and the less said about that OTHER board the better, I suppose -- it's been a far more well-oiled machine here). So if it's a question of the moderating I would just flat out disagree with a person making claims as to biased modding. But, however, I suppose it might have been possible for someone to have felt marginalized among fellow posters, if that's the right word, at the time of the initial start of the Iraq War or so. I say suppose though, because I don't rightly remember how things were. If such a thing existed, it would have to have been within a certain window of time... probably 2002-2003 or around then. I recall, for in
     
  17. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    From the Sydney Morning Herald today: Cheney lashes Obama on security, defends 'torture'

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/cheney-lashes-obama-on-security-defends-torture-20090522-bhe5.html?page=-1

    It's essentially the same argument as that made by JediSmuggler, an argument about "values". I guess before you can even wade into the debate it is necessary to establish whether 'innocent lives' were in fact sacrificed at all in order to safeguard a captured terrorist from 'unpleasantness'.

    Cheney goes on to say:

    Again, I think you have to question whether the detainees are in fact "the worst of the worst terrorists". I tend to feel that many of the detainees are soft targets, many probably completely harmless. I think the 'worst of the worst' have actually been unable to be located. If Bin Laden was detained perhaps I'd agree with Cheney's assessment.


     
  18. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    "Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values, but no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things."

    There's so much wrong with Dick Cheney's head.

    1) Obama isn't stupid. If there's evidence of a high-level terrorist plot, Obama will authorize torture if he thinks it will stop the attack. This is the sort of "tough decision" that George W. Bush likes to talk about all the time when in fact it's nothing new. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter and many other presidents all have bent the rules when they felt an impending crisis was approaching. Cheney just believes that there never should have been rules in the first place.
    2) Cheney's personality alone spawns terrorism. Everybody in the U.S. knows the average Middle Eastern Muslim is not very pro-American, so his strategy is to push them over the edge? How much more warfare happened as a result of the words that came out of his mouth? How much less support did we get from locals while fighting the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies? How many more U.S. servicemen had to die for his arrogance? Obama's doing exactly what needs to be done....if anything, it's Cheney who's sacrificed American lives to feed his own fanatical views.
     
  19. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    I've been meaning to respond to this, but haven't had time until now.

    There are some key points where I have severe disagreements with conservatives. I'll use a list to make it easier to follow:
    • First and foremost, on the matter of taxes conservatives tend to always call for lower taxes, regardless of the circumstances. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly said that I would love for my federal taxes to drop, and my state/local taxes to increase by a corresponding amount. My problem there as a federalist is that I dislike the flow of money from the private citizen, to the federal government, and from there to the sate and local governments. This process undermines the principle of federalism by making state and local governments dependent upon the federal government. Each level of government should be self-financing and independent of the other levels.

    • Conservatives tend to favor government intervention in order to preserve certain values or institutions. I tend to disagree with that. Government should interfere in our lives only as much as is absolutely necessary to protect the basic rights of ourselves and others, and that's it. I am especially opposed to the use of the federal government in this fashion, because we are an extremely diverse society, and imposing internal policies from the "top down" by the federal government undermines that diversity. As with taxes, I advocate as much local control as possible without interference from the federal government.

    • Most of all, I tend to lean more "conservative" on the federal level (arguing for smaller government and lower taxes), but tend to move more "liberal" as you move more local. While I oppose forcing a national health care system, I have no problem with a state or locality choosing to establish such a system, as long as they also choose to fund it themselves. I am opposed to forcing national education policies, or federal funding of education, but I am a strong supporter of public schools and other local education programs. (I don't support the idea of privatizing all schools, for example.)

    One of the reasons that many people tend to label me a "conservative" is that we don't tend to discuss as many state or local issues here. Because of the nature of our community, we focus more on international and federal matters, and on those issues I do lean a bit more to the right. But, for example, in the 11 years that I have been eligible to vote (and I've voted every single of those years in the general elections), I have actually voted for more Democrats than I have Republicans. In 2007, I voted straight-ticket Democrat for our local elections (with the exception of one Republican, but that was because he was unopposed).

    One thing that a lot of people forget around here is that people aren't made for the parties. The parties are made for the people. Party affiliation doesn't define what people believe. People affiliate themselves with a party because it is closest to their beliefs. Just because someone speaks out in defense of Bush doesn't mean that they do so blindly, nor that they agree with everything Bush or the Republicans support. Similarly, a person can speak out in defense of Obama without agreeing with all of his or the Democrats' p
     
  20. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    1) I am not a conservative, even though many people here keep labeling me as such. I am a classical liberal (close, but not quite the same as a libertarian) and a federalist (believing in separation of powers between federal, state, and local governments). My positions share some things in common with conservatives, but it is wrong to label me as a conservative, or claim that I in any way represent conservatism.


    In America, Classical Liberalism = Conservatism. (usually)


    We were founded on principles of Classical Liberalism, so the "conservative" position is to return to or retain those founding principles.



    A conservative in the Soviet Union, around 1988, would mean a hard-line socialist.

    A conservative in the time of the Founding Fathers would mean a monarchist.


    That's when talking about conservative ideology.



    People can also have a conservative disposition, which means to just have a very cautious personality, but you can have a conservative disposition and believe in nearly any political ideology.



    Conservatism in itself is not really an ideology, just a way to preserve an ideology or retain it.

    For example, American conservatives want to preserve the "free market" and the "traditional family," even though these are naturally opposed, belonging to different ideologies. It's not its own ideology. "Conservatives" pick and choose, and do not always agree what should be "conserved."



    We are all far more complex individuals than the labels that people throw at us would suggest.


    I agree.
     
  21. Kimball_Kinnison

    Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 28, 2001
    No, because classical liberalism is far closer to libertarianism than conservatism as practiced in the US.

    There are certain ideas that are shared in common between libertarianism, conservatism and classical liberalism, but that doesn't make your claim of equivalence between them correct. To make such a claim is extremely simplistic at best.

    Kimball Kinnison
     
  22. Sven_Starcrown

    Sven_Starcrown Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Why do ,,mainstream conservatives" hate social liberals than?
     
  23. Darth_Yuthura

    Darth_Yuthura Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Another sensitive topic that I just confront head-on...

    I wouldn't say that one's political views are truly relevant to whether a conservative or a liberalist would make a better president.

    Bush portrayed himself as an average American in many ways, but that is NOT what anyone should want in a president. Their standards must be much higher, as they take on an enormous responsibility as president of the most powerful state in the world.

    So what if one man is against abortion? If that same person would support a war based on false/scarce evidence, then he clearly has a moral ambiguity that outweighs any other potential qualities he may have as a man. He clearly could have determined whether Iraq was capable or wielding WMD... therefore committed treason against the US. If this still can't be explicitly proven, then he should be held accountable for his criminally-negligent actions. If he couldn't perform the job he accepted, then he committed treason against the state.

    This is essentially a self-fulfilling argument that the Bush administration had generated with their actions and cannot be dismissed. They must be held accountable; otherwise it shows that Americans will dismiss the beliefs they proclaim to value when it serves their interests.
     
  24. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    We need a verdict people. I'm shocked to read that people think what Bush did was merely just as bad as Obama failing to show a birth certificate. So I'm going to lay down my accusation:

    1. The G.W.Bush administration knowingly tampered with WMD evidence;
    2. The G.W.Bush administration took the U.N. by the nose;
    3. The G.W.Bush administration started an illegal war.

    Guilty? Not guilty?
     
  25. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    What I'm interested in seeing is the rationale behind why people separate the Iraqi operation from any number of similar military actions of the past 50 years.

    In the 50's, the Suez crisis was undertaken without a declaration of war. In the 60's, the US fought in Vietnam without a declaration of war. In the 80's, the US fought in Grenada without a declaration of war. In the 90's, the US fought in Panama, Somalia, Haiti x2, the Balkans, take your pick.

    (I believe Desert Storm was officially declared, so I didn't include it here, even though that was another battle)

    Welcome to the post-WWII reality that thrust the US onto the world stage as a superpower (and later lone hyper-power) with all of the resulting peacekeeping/nation building exercises that came about.

    I don't think people react as strongly as you might want them to, because the US Congress also passed the authorization for invasion. The UN SC also authorized the use of force. There's nothing singularly illegal here, even if one doesn't agree with the action.

    Beyond that, one man, (Bush) didn't go around controlling all the other political figure's minds. Most were all too willing to go along until it became difficult. Even those who disagreed- like from Gerhard Schroeder at the time- were more of a "wait and see" mindset, and not particularly strong.

    I'm not saying that any of the above automatically either justifies or condemns the use of military force in Iraq, but perhaps it illustrates that it's no different than the general debate on the use of military power as a political tool.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.