SOCIAL: Bush and the conservative movement.

Originally posted by jdster
I am truly flabbergasted! How is the war in Iraq a just war in defense of this
nation? As I lifelong resident of the US, I can say that I never felt any imminent threat from Iraq.

First, very easy, every credible intelligence agency in the world reported that Iraq had WMD. The Russian president said that he among others warned Bush that Iraq was planning terrorist activity against the US.....faced with that information, Kerry, most democrats, most republicans and the president considered it a �just� action, all post vote political pandering aside. Now that the intelligence has proved to be wrong, is it all the fault of Bush? Second, how do you know that he wasn�t referring to Afghanistan? I know, I know you never felt an imminent threat from them either. As to not feeling a threat, you should thank proximity/location and the next member of the armed services you see.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by jdster
I am truly flabbergasted! How is the war in Iraq a just war in defense of this
nation? As I lifelong resident of the US, I can say that I never felt any imminent threat from Iraq.

First, very easy, every credible intelligence agency in the world reported that Iraq had WMD. The Russian president said that he among others warned Bush that Iraq was planning terrorist activity against the US.....faced with that information, Kerry, most democrats, most republicans and the president considered it a �just� action, all post vote political pandering aside. Now that the intelligence has proved to be wrong, is it all the fault of Bush? Second, how do you know that he wasn�t referring to Afghanistan? I know, I know you never felt an imminent threat from them either. As to not feeling a threat, you should thank proximity/location and the next member of the armed services you see.

If I remember correctly the news reports prior to the US invasion of Iraq, There was
some dispute between the US and UN weapons inspectors. There was still doubt.
I guess we can no longer consider any intelligence agency to be credible.
I don't know if it was actually the fault of Bush, but he has at least displayed a lack of sound judgment and leadership skills in his handling of this entire debacle.
(For comparison, what if JFK had handled the Cuban Missile crisis in a similar
aggressive manner?) If he WAS referring to Afghanistan, why did the US invade Iraq? What was our hurry? If any military action ought to have had a focus, it should have been (and still should be) capturing Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. We've created more problems for ourselves and for others than we have solved and we now have earned the contempt of some of our former allies. For what?

Also, have you ever wondered why Saddam Hussein was allowed to rule Iraq after Desert Storm? I find that fact most curious. That was a prime opportunity to be rid of a source of instability in the Middle East. We all knew well by then that Hussein was a loose cannon, to say the least. Why let him continue to wreak havoc and
(as you say) plan terrorism against the US for twelve more years?

While I certainly respect the US armed forces (my brother served twenty years) I don't think that the US invasion of Iraq was in any way brought about to protect the freedom
of me nor any other American. If I am wrong, please show me the exact threat that Iraq posed to us here in the US prior to the invasion by linking me to the sources of credible intelligence which suggest the imminent threat of terrorism against the US
by Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, the US has about as much business in the Middle East as a
snowman has in hell. I think that if it were not for greed and for a strong pro-Israel
lobby in the US, we would have nothing to fear.


[edit on 9/1/2004 by jdster]

[edit on 9/1/2004 by jdster]

Originally posted by jdster
If I remember correctly the news reports prior to the US invasion of Iraq, There was
some dispute between the US and UN weapons inspectors. There was still doubt.

First, I didn�t say anything about the bumbling weapons inspectors�.who by the way�.if I remember correctly did not find the nuclear weapons program that Saddam did have (check your news again) prior to the first gulf war�.so am I to guess we can not any longer consider weapons inspectors credible?

Originally posted by jdster
(For comparison, what if JFK had handled the Cuban Missile crisis in a similar
aggressive manner?)

Were you trying to select the worst comparison for your point or did you just get lucky? It is well documented that the Cuban missile crisis was a direct result of JFK�s lack of handling the Berlin encounter with the Russians. He was perceived as a weakling lacking resolve and they decided to test him. So what do you call stating the intention of boarding another countries ships on the hi seas. Sounds pretty much like the definition of piracy, you call that non-aggressive? Show me the basis in our/international law for boarding another nation�s ships by force. Additionally, it�s not like he had a handful of UN sanctions, including those authorizing force.

Originally posted by jdster
If he WAS referring to Afghanistan, why did the US invade Iraq?

Go back and read the quote a little more carefully I was referring to your assumption.
TC might have been referring to Afghanistan was my point�..and we did go into Afghanistan didn�t we?

One of the few purposes that the federal government was created for and should be for is to protect the US from outside predators�.there are more than 100 organizations with the murder of US citizens as a stated goal. Should we ignore the rest to concentrate on one guy.

Originally posted by jdster
Why let him continue to wreak havoc and (as you say) plan terrorism against the US for twelve more years?

If you don�t believe that they planned terrorism check it out yourself, search salman pak�as for loose cannons do you think that Iran is secured? It has been stated US policy to try to maintain Iraq as a counter balance to Iran. The senate vote supporting the first Gulf war was 52-48 largely along party lines and there was no public or bipartisan support for the removal of Saddam.

Originally posted by jdster
If I am wrong, please show me the exact threat that Iraq posed to us here in the US prior to the invasion by linking me to the sources of credible intelligence which suggest the imminent threat of terrorism against the US by Iraq.

would you like me to read it to you as well? Try searching for the statement made by the Russian president that he had given President Bush the heads up that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks in the US�.if that isn�t a threat against the US, I wonder what you would consider a threat? ��.Oh, ok here is the link to the news report of the Russian intelligence agencies warning the president of the imminent threat www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by jdster
As far as I am concerned, the US has about as much business in the Middle East as a
snowman has in hell.

If it were not for the state sponsors of terrorism that exist in the Middle East then I would agree.

Originally posted by keholmes



First, I didn�t say anything about the bumbling weapons inspectors�.who by the way�.if I remember correctly did not find the nuclear weapons program that Saddam did have (check your news again) prior to the first gulf war�.so am I to guess we can not any longer consider weapons inspectors credible?

The weapons inpectors seem to have been no more bumbling than our intelligence agancies which have STILL failed to find any WMD or even any solid evidence of any. If there WERE any of these things, I'm certain that we would be hearing about them daily and this would be a just war.

Originally posted by jdster
(For comparison, what if JFK had handled the Cuban Missile crisis in a similar
aggressive manner?)

Originally posted by keholmesWere you trying to select the worst comparison for your point or did you just get lucky? It is well documented that the Cuban missile crisis was a direct result of JFK�s lack of handling the Berlin encounter with the Russians. He was perceived as a weakling lacking resolve and they decided to test him. So what do you call stating the intention of boarding another countries ships on the hi seas. Sounds pretty much like the definition of piracy, you call that non-aggressive? Show me the basis in our/international law for boarding another nation�s ships by force. Additionally, it�s not like he had a handful of UN sanctions, including those authorizing force.

Actually, I think I've chosen a damned good comparison. Although JFK certainly dropped the ball in Berlin, he seems to have learned quickly and responded in an appropriate manner with the Cuban Missile Crisis. He passed the test. Since Cuba is only ninety miles from the US mainland, I think that the fact that our number one enemy at the time was building a missile base that I would consider to be an imminent threat. Although I cannot quote any specific national or international law in regards to the boarding of another nation's ships, I believe that it is not all that different in principle from the Coast Guard boarding a ship suspected of carrying contraband. Probable Cause? Whatever the case, it's a far cry from bombing and invading a country based on (at best) shaky intelligence. If JFK acted in a similar manner to Bush, we might never have been able to discuss this situation. As for piracy, don't you think there's a vast difference between stopping the proliferation of nuclear missiles in Cuba and gaining control of one of the Middle East's largest oil fields? I think that the latter is much more like piracy.

Originally posted by jdster
If he WAS referring to Afghanistan, why did the US invade Iraq?

Originally posted by keholmesGo back and read the quote a little more carefully I was referring to your assumption.
TC might have been referring to Afghanistan was my point�..and we did go into Afghanistan didn�t we?

One of the few purposes that the federal government was created for and should be for is to protect the US from outside predators�.there are more than 100 organizations with the murder of US citizens as a stated goal. Should we ignore the rest to concentrate on one guy.

Yes, that's true.
Unfortunately, it seems that 9�11 was allowed to happen.
No, we should not ignore the rest. However, I think that our priority should have been (and should be) capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden.

Do you ever wonder how we have managed to make so many enemies?

Originally posted by jdster
Why let him continue to wreak havoc and (as you say) plan terrorism against the US for twelve more years?

Originally posted by keholmesIf you don�t believe that they planned terrorism check it out yourself, search salman pak�as for loose cannons do you think that Iran is secured? It has been stated US policy to try to maintain Iraq as a counter balance to Iran. The senate vote supporting the first Gulf war was 52-48 largely along party lines and there was no public or bipartisan support for the removal of Saddam.

No, Iran is certainly not secured. Since both countries are our enemies, why have we focused on just one? If it's about a balancing act, then I think it serves as another example of why the US has no business in the Middle East (other than oil and as Israel's
bulldog. perhaps those are the exact problems upon which our leaders ought to focus
thier honest attention)

I still think that the right thing for the US to do would have been to get rid of Saddam back in 1991, particularly if there were a chance for future terrorist acts against the US
by Iraq. Then the link you provided below would never have been.

Originally posted by jdster
If I am wrong, please show me the exact threat that Iraq posed to us here in the US prior to the invasion by linking me to the sources of credible intelligence which suggest the imminent threat of terrorism against the US by Iraq.

Originally posted by keholmeswould you like me to read it to you as well? Try searching for the statement made by the Russian president that he had given President Bush the heads up that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks in the US�.if that isn�t a threat against the US, I wonder what you would consider a threat? ��.Oh, ok here is the link to the news report of the Russian intelligence agencies warning the president of the imminent threat www.cnn.com...

Your score. My reading skills served me well, thank you. (although CNN leaves a lot to be desired, but that's another story)

Originally posted by jdster
As far as I am concerned, the US has about as much business in the Middle East as a
snowman has in hell.

Originally posted by keholmesIf it were not for the state sponsors of terrorism that exist in the Middle East then I would agree.

I think that all goes back to the reasons for our deep involvement in the Middle East:
Oil and Israel.




[edit on 9/3/2004 by jdster]

Originally posted by jdster
He passed the test.

And you would be mistaken, the Russians wanted a missile base there because some of our NATO ally nations had missile bases. Also the Russians wanted to ensure that JFK didn�t decide to put together another bay of pigs. We bargained away missiles in turkey and later ignored the fact that the Russians did not comply with the deal. So at the very best, he stumbled through with a c-. www.ibiblio.org...

Originally posted by jdster
I believe that it is not all that different in principle from the Coast Guard boarding a ship suspected of carrying contraband.

In coastal waters yes, in international waters big difference.

Originally posted by jdster
Whatever the case, it's a far cry from bombing and invading a country based on (at best) shaky intelligence.

And what would you call the bay of pigs? Were-in, we invited and allowed Cubans to initiate an invasion of another nation, armed them, fed them, clothed them, then backed out at the last moment, however didn�t stop them from going. JFK says no it would never happen. And what would you call US involvement in Vietnam; JFK elected US troops 900 Johnson takes over US troops 16300. clear escalation of US involvement www.parascope.com... www.nv.cc.va.us..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.nv.cc.va.us...

Originally posted by jdster
No, we should not ignore the rest. However, I think that our priority should have been (and should be) capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden.

And I think that we are a large enough nation to have more than one priority.

Originally posted by jdster
Do you ever wonder how we have managed to make so many enemies?

You don�t have to wonder, listen to them. Personal freedoms, wealth, religious freedoms, and most important they don�t like us.

Originally posted by jdster
why have we focused on just one?

Because they were planning terrorist action in the US.

Originally posted by jdster
I still think that the right thing for the US to do would have been to get rid of Saddam back in 1991, particularly if there were a chance for future terrorist acts against the US
by Iraq. Then the link you provided below would never have been.

I�m in agreement that seeing what has transpired we should have done that (I thought so then to). But, do you really think that there would have been support for that then, there isn�t any now and the case is much more clear.

Originally posted by jdster
I think that all goes back to the reasons for our deep involvement in the Middle East:
Oil and Israel.

Israel doesn�t need us as history has shown. And as far as our dependence on oil it will not change until alternative energies are derived.

BT, we didn't prosper. Not without cost, anyway, and those chickens came home to roost, not only the attack against what was considered a cowardly, self-indulgent nation, but also the recession that started before Bush and was covered up because of the numbers game. Don't give me an anologies about drunken teens, I grew into my senses a long time ago, and gave up pie in the sky liberal nonsense at that time. I fear you are getting the two pieces of the polaroid confused.

I have a flash/bang for you, BT, what you refer to as the "religious right" was the mainstream until your ilk decided to change the face of the nation roughly 50 years ago. Until then, what you think is a change was the norm. Seriously, feed the liberal garbage version of history after those who remember it are dead - and I plan on being around for a long time!

Pardon, friend, but the stats do, in fact, show Mr. Kerry as being so far left that Ted Kennedy can't even go there. I don't know where you've been, but that is already a given. Feel free to sing the usual democratic song and dance, though. I love a performance.

While I'm educating you, BT, let me explain to you what also should be a given. All true law is morality legislated! I know, that blows you away, doesn't it? Gee, I sometimes wonder what people were doing in school, I really do. You see, law is the flip side of the rights coin. With rights (God given, not given by the government, by the way) comes responsibilities, you see? Man didn't come up with this stuff, neither did he give us our rights, which is a good thing as then man cannot take away our rights with authority, only with power. But the moronic mantra by the liberals that "the government cannot legislate morality!" is plain ignorant. The only other thing man legislates is statutes, and a statute is based upon commercial law, which is separate and has nothing to do with constitutional law, which is based upon natural law, which is God's law.

Skadi, I'm sorry you missed some important details to the words of the Founding Fathers and you do not believe the nation was based upon Judeo-Christian values, but that is what their intnentions were.

Sure, one can say they were not perfect by today's standards, but if one were to look at today's culture with an objective eye, they would realize we are not perfect by their standard. There is a huge difference between recognizing the standard and making the mark. The problem with the liberal movement is they think they can simply erase the mark and things will be ok. Pretend as if there is no value and nobody will notice your intentional shortcomings. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

You are correct, Skadi, that the Bill of Rights did not enumerate all rights that we, the citizen, have, but it is wise to keep in mind that everything desire of the wicked heart is not a right, then or now. What the Bill of Rights did was to lay out the most basic rights, the rights necessary for the citizens of the nation if the nation were to remain free and at some resemblance of internal tranquility. The federal government, as you pointed out, was to have only limited and well defined powers, nothing like what it now has under this martialrule environment the nation has endured since the mid-1800's. That is another discussion, one most people aren't ready for as they are still drinking breast milk when they really should be ready for solids.

While I can certainly understand you admiring the Gipper, I cannot understand the admiration for Bush 41 over 43. I really believe 41 was as detrimental to the nation as Clinton was, for many of the same reasons. This Bush is actually standing up for the nation, striking back against those who want us dead, has cut taxes, and after that, did more for the Democratic party than he has for his conservative base, yet the libs attack him with a hate that is insane and unwarranted, and I really believe it is because they have been whipped into a political frenzy by the Democratic party, which cannot stand being out of control! I really believe (judging by its actions) that the DNC would risk having this nation destroyed if it meant getting the power back. Regardless, while this guy isn't the best, he's shown more guts than his father when it comes to leadership, and is a much better choice than a money grabbing, glory seeking democrat elite like his competitor - not that that is saying much. But as you said, he is no Ronnie.

Just a couple quick points here.

1) Although, yes, judeo-christian ethics established the culture and liniage of law in this country, it was also set up for interpretation. The real shift occured during the Civil War when the Federal Government became the primary legislating and governing force in lieu of the States, which last time I checked, was the purpose of our "United States".

The "conservative" view is not a traditional view, because if that was true, then they would vie for a truely smaller federal government.

Both parties are commited and entrenched in the federal governments control of State legislators through an almost blackmail system when it comes to federal money (Roads, the Department of Education, etc).

The only party to address the real and serious problems in this country lies in the Libertarian goals for domestic progress and change.


2) While Kerry is not the ideal candidate, Bush certainly has shown himself not to be very likeable within the Republican Party. He has grown the Federal Government by a sizable amount, increasing convolution to the already oversized Federal Government.

This is straight from the Republican Oath:

"I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least."

This does not seem to flow with the severe lack of attention to these principles.

3) They both voted for the war in Iraq, they both voted for the Patriot Act, They both support the Federal Reserve, they both support the FCC, and they both can be said to support conscription as well.

"A member of the hawkish Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), he supports escalating the war in Iraq and further enhancing US military presence worldwide. A Kerry administration would therefore be subject to the same imperial logic that guides Bush -- and, on a purely pragmatic level, the former war hero and Vietnam protester would be a far more credible advocate for conscription." (1)

and even from his platform itself John Kerry will "Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal"

This is the future of America. One where only domestic disputes have much difference between the parties in effect (rather than in principle).

The truth is that the Big Two are hampering progress by bogging down and already tenuous situation, internationally and locally.