 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
che: Recissions are difficult to push through outside the normal budgetary process and would require an affirmative vote against military action.
There's a lot of daylight between congressional approval of the action and congressional disapproval of the action. |
Very true, and the odds of Congress voting against military action are probably close to zero. However, the next fiscal year is coming up, which means budgets have to be approved, which means Congress can put the kabash on any invasion of Iraq unless Bush attacks in the next month or so. All it takes is a rider saying, no funds shall be used to attack Iraq without explicit Congressional approval.
Again, chances of this happening, I think, are very slim, especially before an election. No one wants to be seen as hampering a popular President, even if he is out of touch with reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You know, Chris, it's sad people actually use such dumb canards as this in an argument. |
Nothing worse then the use of Buzz words, like "Canard" for example.
quote:
Disagreeing with Bush's tactics in dealing with Saddam is not the same thing as supporting or "allying" with Saddam. I've expressed nothing but contempt for Saddam, but that doesn't mean I will support abject stupidity for dealing with him. |
And what is your contemptious, totally enligthened and non-stupid way of dealing with him?
Oh, and why have you launched no threads commenting on this "contempt" you so willfully show him? 
Could it be that anti-Bush threads are far more to your liking?
quote:
I know in the conservative world things are always black-and-white, but let's be more realistic... |
Not being a conservative, I wouldn't know.
Like so many nubes, you never really read what I say, you just make assumptions.
I have as little use for conservatives and Right wing hard-liners as I do for soft Left wing anti-Bush whiners.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
i'm pretty much tired of this. bush wants to attack iraq. most americans--and most of the rest of the world-- would not mind seeing saddam out.
HOWEVER.
bush has failed to make a convincing case for himself, or rather, a convincing enough case to persuade a) close foreign allies, b) close domestic allies, c) the general public, and d) neutral parties.
the bush camp has it wrong. i don't think the american public is against an invasion of iraq so much as wondering why. why now? why spend money on a two-bit dictator? why spill american blood in a foreign land we already "vanquished"?
the american people--and the people from the rest of the world don't want to attack iraq because of some strong reasons: a) israel-palestine. b) domestic squabbles and issues. c) the unfavorable response from the arab world. d) lack of any hard, solid, irrefutable evidence of terrorist wrongdoing by saddam.
if bush wants to attack iraq without coming off as a total arse, he really needs to build a solid, convincing argument, that answers the case for why we should do it now, why it's more important than israel-palestine, why it's critically important for the rest of the world, while simultaneously alleviating the fears of the arab world, which doesn't want sunni and kurdish states, and domestic fears, which doesn't want to end up in an extremely bloody situation with no end in sight.
bush, so far, has failed miserably at doing that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
What a wonderfull diatribe. Written with real gusto. Heres a small piece of advice, keep your bad interpretations of my comments to yourself. You dont know me. You dont know anything about me except that I quoted the cost of Desert Storm and I dont agree that every action in the world should be by consensus. |
Well, I seem to have hit a raw nerve! And yes, it was a wonderful diatribe! I am proud of it. And yes, this is another hate Bush thread. There are not enough. This admin is a disaster that keeps getting worst. As for Haiti: whens the last time any of you heard the god news about Haiti? Years, right? We stopped a singluar disater in 94 (of course, not the biggest one, the Genocide in central Africe) and helped put in power a less corrupt regime. The question is how long will this last, and also, at what expense? Haiti and Panama were easy and cheap cause they are close to the US and the US has lots of dierct and indirect infleunce. Thats not true for Iraq, never will.
To repeat: Bush and company have not made the case to invade Iraq. I loved to see Lawrence Eagleburger in one of the Sunday shows two sundays ago. They had him with Bill Kristol. At the end of the show, Ealeburger stated that his biggest problem with this admin and Iraq is that they are making all these comments when they are not ready whatsoever and have no clear plan. In short, they are being very sloppy. Why the hell does the admin daily say that we need to go to war when they can't until early next year at the earliest? All they have done is build singular wolrd opposition to their actions, to the degree that now they have to state that they are ready to do it alone. They dug themselves into a war hole, and they can't get out 'cuase folk like chris62 wont let them not go to war.
After what Cheney said on Sunday, not attacking isn't an option. Bush has talked himself into [b[having[/b] to invade. not to invade, to allow Saddam to stay, even with invasive weapons inspectors (something Cheney said was not important) would mean a defeat for Bush- I mean, how can an evil man like Saddam be allowed to saty, even without WMD? Isn't he the second coming of Hitler? We will invade Iraq next year, the only question is what will come of it.
Which brings up the central political issue of the Middle East: legitimacy. The one question that haunts every (inluding Israel) Middle Eastern state is the question whether its governemnt , and sometimes even its borders, are a legitimate expresion of the national sovereignty of the people. We can go down the line, state by state:
Iran: The Shah's regime was brought to power by a coup and the west. It fell. The Revolutionaries claimed to bring both democracy and Islamic values. They only brought one, which is why the state faces internal opposition.
Egypt: the Khedive's regime was set up by the west. Nasser brought about a revolution, but his sucessors have not delivered, which is why Egypt was the home of the Islamist movement.
Jordan: artificial state given to the Hashemites by Britain. After the creation of Israel and the movement in of many Palestinians, what right do the Hashemites to rule?
Iraq: The Hashemite king overtrhown, since he was installed by Britain. All the rulers after have failed. The very borders of the state are questionable: it was cobled together from three distinct provinces of the Ottoman empire: for a while turkey claimed the North, Mosul province (where the kurds are).
Saudi Arabia: The house of Saud unified the country in early 20's, after uniting tribes and quicking out Hashemites. Sought to create legitimacy by allying with Wahabbis and becoming the defenders of faith and Mecca. Their livestyles and connections to the west make them illigitimate to many conservatives and liberals.
Israel: What should the borders of the Jewish state be? And what of the Arab whgo lived in Palestine. The question have yet to be answered.
Lebanon: How much should all the groups share power, should the Maronite community have extra say? What of Syrian influence.
Syria: the most legitimate of all, but still a autocratic regime that has failed to get Golan back.
A US invasion of Iraq and the instalation of a new regime, if done haphazrdly and incompletely will only raise more legitmacy questions and cripple the new Iraqi gov. from the start. The BUsshies have failed utterly to come up with aplan to make the new state legitimate.. They speak of democracy, but why should a democratic Iraq be pro-US, not anti-Israel, and give up WMD when its neighbors have them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
GePap
why reduce the effectiveness of intelligent comment with |
Becuase my hatred of the Bush admin is bottomless. If it were not for the Buchanan presdency, I would already nominate this admin. for post of worst ever.
I personally am not opposed in principle to an invasion of Iraq. But again, Bush has failed utterly to make his case.
The democracy argument doesn't fly- neo-conservatives could give a rats-ass about democracy. How can you praise the Saudis and talk about the need for Arab democracy? Besides, real democracy does not mean 0 WMD (first state to build nukes was a democracy, India and Israel both democracies, makers of WMD). State make WMD based on thier threat assestment. If I were Iraq leader, I would push for WMD. They live in a nasty neighborhood, we don't.
The terrorism one doesn't either: Bush has been unable to come up with convincing ties between Iraq an Al-Qaeda. The notion that a man as paranoid as Sadam would give up control of his greatest assets(WMD) to men who envision a world without him (remember that Osama got pissed at the Saudis cause they would not back his Holy Warrior scheme to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and liberate the area) boggles my mind. He would have 0 to gain from a WMD terrosirt attack vs the US. Even if the attack kills 1 million americans and does 1 trillion in damage, we still have 283 million americans and 9 trillion a year left. Plenty to destroy Saddam in revenge.
Bush has put forward no plan for Iraqs future, has not dealt with the legitimacy issue. And of course, what of all other Arab regimes. How long can we sit in bed with Arab autocracts if we demand democracy from Iraqis and Palestinians? This admin demands democracy for our enemies, says nothing about democracy for our friends. How does that sell American style democracy to the Arab world?
This admin has done a haphazard job in Afghanistan (OPsama and Mullah Omar are free. The Taliban and Al-qaeda are out, but centra government dos not extend outside Kabul, the president needs american bodyguards cause he doesn't trust fellow Afgahns, no reconstruction ahs begun, and the Iranians are the state that promised the most money, Iran! and not us. At best a half-won affair) and Iraq is a much more centrally located and important place. Our margin for error in Iraq is much smaller.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Nothing worse then the use of Buzz words, like "Canard" for example. |
Translation: "I don't know what 'canard' means, so I'll try to mock his use of it"
quote:
And what is your contemptious, totally enligthened and non-stupid way of dealing with him? |
Considering we're dealing with the botched job of his daddy anyway, it's tough. But I agree with Albright that the continued use of diplomatic, political and military isolation is the best formula.
quote:
Oh, and why have you launched no threads commenting on this "contempt" you so willfully show him?
Could it be that anti-Bush threads are far more to your liking? |
Um, er...  could it be that Saddam hasn't DONE anything lately? Which is exactly the point as why Bush's actions are reckless and unwarranted?
quote:
Not being a conservative, I wouldn't know.
Like so many nubes, you never really read what I say, you just make assumptions.
I have as little use for conservatives and Right wing hard-liners as I do for soft Left wing anti-Bush whiners. |
Oh please. Your claims of being moderate sound like MrFun's. Nobody buys it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Translation: "I don't know what 'canard' means, so I'll try to mock his use of it" |
Wrong again, but at least your consistant Boris.
Why not quit while your behind?
It means an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.
quote:
Considering we're dealing with the botched job of his daddy anyway, it's tough. But I agree with Albright that the continued use of diplomatic, political and military isolation is the best formula. |
So you think that international agreements are "botched jobs of his daddy".
How simplistic.
quote:
Um, er... could it be that Saddam hasn't DONE anything lately? Which is exactly the point as why Bush's actions are reckless and unwarranted? |
Yes, ever since Bush turned the heat up on him, he seemed to quiet down, what a coincedence. 
quote:
Oh please. Your claims of being moderate sound like MrFun's. Nobody buys it. |
Try actually reading what I say instead of what you THINK I'm saying.
(man, your killing me with all these rolleye quotes).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-08-2002 22:06
I wish I were stoned.
but I think it is a grey area. While congress does have power to declare war and to appropriate funds, the decision to use, and how to use, the armed forces is an extention of foreign policy- an executive power.
|