That is all I am trying to say Moe- you want to criticize Bush on his policies, fine, lets debate about it. I am in your boat on the whole "balanced budget" thing- I think we should be slashing spending across the board as we speak, and avoid a deficit at all costs. But I also think that taxing to make up for a deficit is not the answer, and that politicians by nature will not cut spending until they feel the pinch. Take a look at California right now- we have a huge deficit because they BLEW the surplus of the late 90s on bogus spending initiatives, and instead of cutting back, they honestly want to start taxing parent's everytime their baby takes a crap, for every SUV, and tripling the car tax for the rest. Then there is the soda tax, the proposed gas tax hike, etc etc- But I am getting sidetracked.
My point being that I can respect not agreeing with Bush on the issues, that is fine. But thinking he is a "HORRIBLE" president might be going a little far, at this point. Sure he disagrees with you on major issues, and that is a very legitimate reason to vote him out, but it is still possible to be good at a job by using different methods. There is more than one way to paint a fence, after all, and in the long run, all that matters is the end result.
On this issue with Iraq, it seems to me that people ARE protesting Bush, and not the war, and in doing so are portraying him to be someone as bad as Hitler. Like Bush is worse than Hussein! And instead of being truly "anti-war," based on the evidence at hand, I find more often than not it is a purely political opposition, and every shread of evidence that comes out in support of Bush's plan is dismissed as a lie, or not good enough, or basically worthless.
OK! SO you are against war- what should we do then!
We should give the inspectors more time-
What will this accomplish? It is highly unlikely that they will uncover anything even if they have all the time in the world-
We should give the inspectors more time...
But we have this evidence that Iraq has these weapons-
We should give the inspectors more time.
OK- lets say they FIND something, what then?
We should give the inspectors more time.
Saddaam is refusing to cooperate with the inspectors. He is blocking them and rendering them completely useless- we KNOW he has the weapons, we can show you where he is hiding them- it is time to start talking about the possibility of military-
WE SHOULD GIVE THE INSPECTORS MORE TIME!!!!
Can you see how frustrating this is? The only alternative to attacking given by the anti-war crowd is "give the inspectors more time." No long term plan, no contingencies for when military action would be resorted to, no punishment for Hussein for ignoreing the will of the UN... nothing. SOMETHING has to be done about Iraq... and it is mind-boggling beyond all belief when an honorable president (Hell, I think CLINTON was an honorable president when compared to Hussein, so don't balk) is villified while a guy like Saddaam gets a free pass, simply because of partisan politics is kind of sad. If you want peace- make with the other options on how to handle this, and Define under what conditions war is to be resorted to, and I will have a lot more respect for you...
Leroy, I beg to differ with you-
First off, all evidence shows that had there been a true recount- Bush would have won the popular vote. But that is not the point- we do not elect a president by the popular vote in this country- it is via the Electoral College. Look it up. Bush is a legitimate President who has an extremely high approval rating. I, for one, in foriegn policy issues, would prefer to have a cocky Bush than a wilting Gore- sorry, Gore would have completely fell apart after 9-11. But that is an old argument and really has not bearing on what is going on here.
Ummm- as far as there being no conclusinve evidence that Hussein is developing WOMD.... WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!?!?! His scientists who have fled are admitting it, we have satelight photos and other intelligence to prove it, and the admissions of nations who have supplied him with the materials, as well as the materials that the inspectors have found! Oh yeah, and the fact that he has USED them, but Saddaam is not so bad, so we can ignore that.
That is besides the point anyway. We don't have to prove he has them. He was ordered to cease the development of WOMD, and to destroy all that he had. He now has to prove that he has complied. He has refuses to. That seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.
So you say that WE supported him and armed Iraq... and that was a bad thing. SURE! I can't argue with you there. We certainly fucked up.
So in my mind, that means it is our job to clean up our mess.
Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...
Leroy - Clinton was a monster? I don't have a shred of respect for the man, especially since he arranged the sale of rocket technology to the red Chinese, but... a monster? His foreign policy was almost non-existent, but I can't call him a monster for trying to take out Milosevic.
(edited by PalpatineW on 18.2.03 1914) Damn your eyes!
Why is it my job to come up with a more peaceful, or less potentially harmful solution to the Iraq problem? I mean, sure, I pride myself to have an excellent mind, and too many video games have made me think I'm a decent strategist and a good tactician, but is it my job? No. Do I work in the Pentagon? No. Do I hold elective office? No. Am I a registered voter? Yes. So what does that mean? While am I not qualified to come up with US Foreign Policy, I have the (probably misguided) belief that the elected leaders of my country are.
So I say this:
Find a better solution. Find it now. It's your job. Or you don't get my vote.
Of course, Jr. probably won't get my vote anyway, and I'm sure he knows this. So we go to war.
I want to add this as well: Your insistance that nobody protested Clinton's moves in regards to Iraq or any of the rest of his foreign policy is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. I was there. We protested. *sigh* I guess I'll go have to sift through CNN's website again.
(edited by Jaguar on 19.2.03 0138) Year after year, the United States has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use they could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
As I said, that's true enough. But it's when someone goes on the record, so to speak with profanity or adultery or any other moral lapse that seems a bit problematic to me. Take Clinton. He had NO intention of anyone catching him.