2004 Politics Thread: Are you going to VOTE??

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 8/24/2004 10:51:56 AM lmurden wrote:

I can't wait to vote!

• Iraq did not pose an eminent threat to the United States
• Mishandle of the War in Iraq
• Our Civil Liberties are being trammeled on
• I don't won't the Religious Right to run the nation
• Not stopping big corporation from going overseas
• Not working hard enough to help the communities that are suffering from massive job loss
• Lastly, I just don't trust this administration. I don't believe we went to war in Iraq for the reasons the administration has stated----------------

• Iraq did not pose an eminent threat to the United States

How do you know whether Iraq posed an eminent threat? How do you come to this judgement? Saddam kept as guest of the state, Abu Nidal, terrorist behind the Achille Laurel and Mr. Yasin who was behind the first bombing of the World Trade Centerna d Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi who moved there after Afghanistan was attacked. The Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Iraqi forces fired on our aircraft for 10 years, that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. On Dec. 1, 2003, New York Times reported (and the David Kay report had established) that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf.

• Mishandle of the War in Iraq

I think there were several mistakes made in Iraq. However, in all his criticism of Bush’s Iraqi failures, Kerry has never stated what he would do instead. So what would Kerry do with Iraq if elected? He’s not going to pull troops out, but he’s not going to let them do their job either.

• Our Civil Liberties are being trampled on

I hear this statement a lot, but which of your civil liberties has been violated? Tell me one thing you could do, but cannot do now, and that you should be able to do? Please name a specific example.

• I don't won't the Religious Right to run the nation

Well, that’s a just a general philosophy. Those on the right might say that they don’t want the Socialist Left to ruin the nation.

• Not stopping big corporation from going overseas

Corporations have been going overseas for years and years. Lots went over in Clinton's tenure as well. Companies have been doing it for decades. Textiles (clothes) for example. These industries are replaced by higher technology industries.

• Not working hard enough to help the communities that are suffering from massive job loss

I think Bush did a good job is staving off a larger recession, the beginnings of which he inherited. Remember, the stock market peaked 10 months before he took office. Now, job numbers are on the rise, unemployment is down to 5%, and the Dow is over 10,000. The President can only influence the economy to a minor degree.

• Lastly, I just don't trust this administration. I don't believe we went to war in Iraq for the reasons the administration has stated

Bush did have a lot of reasons to invade, but I think, unmentioned, was partially the idea of creating a democracy in Iraq. Better conditions in a Middle Eastern country would quell fundamentalism. However, I don’t trust Kerry either, because he talks out of both sides of his mouth constantly. I have no idea what Kerry’s plan is for America. What will he do?

 

[Icicles]

Charity starts at home. What happens to other countries is none of our business.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/25/2004 10:54:10 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

----------------
On 8/24/2004 10:51:56 • Our Civil Liberties are being trampled on

I hear this statement a lot, but which of your civil liberties has been violated? Tell me one thing you could do, but cannot do now, and that you should be able to do? Please name a specific example.

----------------

We can no longer move freely in this country as we once did. I have to produce my social security card & another form of ID when I renew my license. Well, that sounds easy enough doesn't it? The darn DMV has screwed up my records to indicate that my SS# & my information to the DMV aren't correct. They say I must change my information as either location. What they don't understand is that *both* of them have the correct information. I don't have an option that both are correct.

All this under the name of "homeland security". And, while I understand all of this is supposedly keeping me safe, it's all fluff. They can't keep my *correct* records straight. How can track the terrorists? It's so easy to make a fake license. Kids still have fake I.D.'s and it's no problem getting them.

I do see my liberties compromised. I don't think it makes me any safer. It sickens me that the Statue of Liberty has been closed for so long. Upon it's reopen, one can't go to the top.

Don't get me started about moving freely in our Nation's Capital. Many of the good routes are closed. I innocently went through a barrier (thinking it was just a lane closure). All hell ensued w/ an armed guard. It wasn't clearly marked & I went through the same street the day before.

Yeah, I feel we are living in a police state. A part of me understands why. But, I yearn for my freedom again. Sadly, it may be lost forever.

And, my loss of freedom happened on G.W's watch. I can't help but be bitter.

 

[Maria D]

>>First off you are misrepresenting Eisenhower's quote. He said that Ho Chi Minh would have been elected president because North Vietnam would not have allowed a free election in their half of Vietnam.<<

Huh? Where'd you get that idea? Ho's popularity in *southern* Vietnam is why (U.S. backed) South Vietnam refused to hold elections!

chris-uk, you sound as if you are for anyone *but* Kerry, even if it has to be George Bush. Kerry isn't running on just "4 months of service" -- and by the way, he served longer than that, it was 4 months of *combat*. He has all these other ideas about healthcare, the economy, the environment, education... really nothing much about the awarding of war medals.

The Republican 527s like to focus on this warstuff of 30 years ago because it gets everyone all riled up and divisive -- and it beats trying to promote Bush's failed policies.

Hi Deb! miss you too...

 

[Rank Amateur]

Three purple hearts and no bleeding is character revealing.

That's the reason for the focus.

His voting record (or lack thereof) is also coming into focus. (Not that that's a good thing for the Kerry campaign.) Let's not even bring up campaign promises. Neither side has any meat on those bones to pick at.

 

[Rank Amateur]

----------------
On 8/25/2004 11:52:22 AM Icicles wrote:

Charity starts at home. What happens to other countries is none of our business. ----------------

This surpasses anything AGBF has ever written for "most intellectually vapid statement even written on Pricescope."

 

[Matata]

And your response to Icicles, Rank Amateur, was the most cruel in this thread.

A fact-based rebut, which you are obviously capable of, is a more humane method for open discourse.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/25/2004 5:27:07 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

Three purple hearts and no bleeding is character revealing.

That's the reason for the focus.

His voting record (or lack thereof) is also coming into focus. (Not that that's a good thing for the Kerry campaign.) Let's not even bring up campaign promises. Neither side has any meat on those bones to pick at.----------------

I don't know about going to issue of his character w/ these dopey medals. Too much attention is focused on that - which happened years & years ago. If you want to go back, then focus on GW being a drunk. Tit for tat.

That said, the reason I am most mad at Kerry for is his missing of more than 80% of the meetings that he is on the council for.

The more this thread goes on the more angry I become. Not at any expressions of you guys.....just at our choices put forth each voting period. Lately is seems as though when I go into the voting both, I don't pick the most qualified candidate. I pick the lesser of two evils.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/25/2004 5:43:08 PM Matata wrote:

And your response to Icicles, Rank Amateur, was the most cruel in this thread.

A fact-based rebut, which you are obviously capable of, is a more humane method for open discourse.----------------

I happen to agree with him. We don't live in isolation. We don't live in a vaccum. We live in a Gobal world. What happens elsewhere does effect our every breath. There really is no rebuttal to the "charity at home" comment.

 

[Icicles]

we're all gonna die anyway.. who cares?

 

[Matata]

----------------
On 8/25/2004 5:51:24 PM fire&ice wrote: <hr size="1"
We don't live in isolation. We don't live in a vaccum. We live in a Gobal world. What happens elsewhere does effect our every breath. ----------------

Your reply above is a rebuttal and a kinder one. RA's comment struck a chord with me for some reason....the vapid comment with the smiley used....There's a tendency for some on this board to do hit and run commentary (I've done it myself, I'm ashamed to say and have been a recipient of it) and I believe that comments that appear to be strictly judgmental rather than constructively critical don't contribute to the educative mission of PS be it info about jewelry or the myriad other subjects discussed here.

 

[Icicles]

Matata,

Everybody knows that RA only says things to get a rise out of people, that's why nobody listens to him... at least I don't.

 

[AGBF]

Chris wrote:

"first off you are misrepresenting Eisenhower's quote. He said that Ho Chi Minh would have been elected president because North Vietnam would not have allowed a free election in their half of Vietnam."

Chris,

MariaD already mentioned that you seem confused, but she didn't go into detail. I do not know how old you are (whether you are old enough to have lived through the war against Vietnam) or whether you have studied the Vietnam War in history classes.

Ho Chi Minh had control of the north, as you say. The US *contended* that the southern Vietnamese wanted "democracy" under one of the regimes set up there BY the US. It was similar to a government chosen by the US for Iraq: Chalabi. A government chosen by the US and for US interests and bolstered by American troops since no one had told the Vietnamese that they needed liberation from Ho Chi Minh and they just, somehow, didn't take to the idea of the group chosen by the US!

If President Eisenhower had been discounting the north and saying Ho Chi Minh would have won in the south (as you say he meant to do) he would have been saying the US was a big fat liar since we contended the SOUTH did not want him!!!

Moreover, President Eisnhower spoke of a DEMOCRATIC, FREE election. He said if THAT were held that Ho Chi Minh would be elected President. That means his control of the north was legitimate and that the south, had the US let it alone, would also have chosen him as their legitimate leader.

The Intellectually Vapid AGBF

 

[AGBF]

I love this! From "The New York Times":

August 24, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Rambo Coalition
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.

But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.

One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.

How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.

After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.

As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.

All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.

The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"

Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib.

Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |

 

[AGBF]

I'm on a roll, so here'e another posting. Some of you don't like me to quote from the Times. Here's a little true anecdote to balance the quoted Op-Ed piece.

The first person to warn *me* about the war in Iraq was our plumber in Connecticut. He had been arrested protesting the war in Vietnam (more than once) and was very anti-war and anti-Bush.

He said that one couldn't get an apprenticeship with a union back in the '60s until he had already served in the armed forces because trade unions didn't want to train young men then have them killed in Vietnam. So he joined up. He was a Navy Seal. I asked what he did and he said, "killed people". He went on to say that Iraq was going to be just like Vietnam with Americans killing any Iraqi because they all looked alike...as it had been in Vietnam.

He was more prescient than I. I, at that time, thought that attacking Iraq was crazy (especially since so many people I knew thought we were doing it because the Taliban were from Iraq!!!!). But a part of me still thought that a swift, surgical strike-like Bush, Sr's Gulf War-would be possible. As I said, my plumber was wiser. There was no reason for this war save bravado and it was *NOT* surgical and swift.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Oddly enough, I find more truth in your quoted Op-Ed piece than in your quoted plumber.

Iraq and Vietnam are worlds apart in every aspect. Iraq has been an enormous military success. Of course, the Iraqi's ability for self-governance remains to be seen.

 

[chris-uk04]

AGBF,


Former Enron advisor Paul Krugman said that “After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo.” So what should have Bush done to deal with these “real threats.” Forgive me, but I thought the Taliban were a “real threat.” Were we supposed to attack Finland?


The main problem with all of this stuff is Kerry is crying foul now, but where was he with the “documentary” Fahrenheit 9/11? Did he condemn it or was he first in line to see it? There have been many factual errors in Fahrenheit 9/11 but Kerry and the DNC didn’t call it unfair. Did Paul Krugman write about what a farce it is? With all the press talk of “Republican backed 527 group Swift Boats Veterans…” you never hear “Democrat backed 527 group Moveon.org.” Yes Krugman correctly this would be a ugly election (duh), but don’t tell me that all the “smears” are from Republicans. Let’s face it the Democrats have done their fair share of smearing… if you doubt it, do you think “Bush is like Hitler” is anything other than a smear.

I still would like to hear what Kerry has in store for America. What is HIS plan for Iraq? What’s his economic platform (besides raise taxes)?

 

[Maria D]

>>if you doubt it, do you think “Bush is like Hitler” is anything other than a smear.
The subtle difference is, if this smear had been done "Republican style," they would have said "Bush IS Hitler" and they would have found a bunch of teed off vets from WWII to sign sworn statements.


>>I still would like to hear what Kerry has in store for America. What is HIS plan for Iraq? What’s his economic platform (besides raise taxes)?
I found Kerry's plan on what to do about the mess Bush made in Iraq on Kerry's website in less than two minutes. I've also heard it in his speeches. Even if one doesn't agree with it (or believe he can do it), it's easy to find if you're not a lazy voter. I'm curious if anyone could have guessed what Bush's plan would have been when he ran in 2000. Remember the "no nation building" mantra? It doesn't matter to me what Bush *says* his plan is now because I realize that what he says and what he'll do are two different things.

 

[lmurden]

Hi Chris,

The is no evidence that Saddam was going to attack The United States. Do you really believe that Iraq or any nation can beat the United States if we really wanted to wage war? Please... The United States is the superior military power in the world!

There are terrorist guest of many states all over the world. Don't forget that the Taliban came to The United States and they were our "guest".

Saddam was just talk! As you see he didn't take senior President Bush out.

If we are going after terrorist nations then why not Iran, North Korea, and last but not least Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia our "good friend" secretly funds terrorism! You do know this right?

Unfortunately, there has been to much damage done to Iraq for us to leave. We can not just destroy a nation and then leave, so we must stay and rebuild the nation with the help of an international coalition. We can not successfully do it alone.

The free media is under attack! Radio and television are being censured. Every adult is not interested in looking at "Seventh Heaven" or "Touch by an Angel"! Thank you very much. Let's not forget about road and air traveling. Here in Washington, DC many streets are blocked off and it is causing major traffic problems. Lastly, I don't feel any safer than before 9/11.

Believe me I am NOT a Socialist on the left, but I will not have the Religious Right running my life under any circumstances.

Jobs are in fact on the rise; however, for every job gain we have still not recovered all the jobs that were lose. That is the truth!

Lastly, we have no right going into a foreign country and telling them what kind of government to have. Would you want Saudi Arabia telling us what kind of government we should have? Besides, it is up to the people to demand and making changes for the better in their OWN nation, or do you not believe that the people should have a say in their own nation?

I said before it's not about Kerry it's anybody but Bush!

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 10:00:50 AM lmurden wrote:

Hi Chris,

Do you really believe that Iraq or any nation can beat the United States if we really wanted to wage war? Please... The United States is the superior military power in the world!
....Saddam was just talk! As you see he didn't take senior President Bush out.

If we are going after terrorist nations then why not Iran, North Korea, and last but not least Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia our 'good friend' secretly funds terrorism! You do know this right?

....
The free media is under attack! Radio and television are being censured. ... Let's not forget about road and air traveling. Here in Washington, DC many streets are blocked off and it is causing major traffic problems. Lastly, I don't feel any safer than before 9/11....

Lastly, we have no right going into a foreign country and telling them what kind of government to have....

I said before it's not about Kerry it's anybody but Bush!

----------------

No nation will land troops in California, but what they can do is secretly fund and train terrorists, send the terrorists out to attack the US and then pretend like they have nothing to do with anything. This is called state-sponsored terrorism. It is just as bad as if they did land troops in California. … if not worse, because it’s cowardly.

I wouldn’t be so quick to believe Saddam was all talk. (He doesn’t play for USA basketball) Just because they missed Papa Bush doesn’t mean they weren’t trying, but rather show incompetence (or competence on the part of the secret service… I don’t know the details). So if he is willing you send his secret police to kill an ex-president, don’t you think he’d send some feeble minded jihadi to put a bomb on a train?

We are going after 2 of the 3 other countries. I agree the Saudis have gotten off too lightly.

When has the media been censored? Abu Grahib stores aghast well dispel that myth. I don’t think a blocked off streets during a convention or heavier airport screenings is a violation of my free rights. Tell me that I can’t criticise a government policy and that would be. (But then again tell me I can’t criticise Islam or gay marriage –it’s hate speech---and that would be too)

We aren’t going to decide another country’s government, but if that government threatens the US, we sure do. We provided a little change in government in Germany in 1945 too.


Voting anybody Bush could be dangerous. You could be voting in someone like LBJ – look what he did to the Vietnam conflict in 4 years!

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 10:00:50 AM lmurden wrote:

Besides, it is up to the people to demand and making changes for the better in their OWN nation, or do you not believe that the people should have a say in their own nation?

----------------

Well, they *certainly* had *no* say under Saddam. So, yes, people should have a say in their own nation. Now, they sort-of do.

We can debate this whole Iraq thing till we are all blue in the face. There is many issue involved to debate.

That said, Saddam was a pest. Sure, we are a military might; yet, we were attacked on 9/11. If we could find Al-queda in one neat group, we'd kill them all. BUt, we can't. Say, Saddam did strike the US first. How would we have retaliated? Nuke?

At the end of the day, time will tell. Much of what is being bantered about was said during Germany's reconstruction. And, you should hear the stories about our *own* reconstruction.

When I really think about it, IMHO, the blame lies in our inability to spy correctly. And, the neo-conservatives wanting to push their adgenda of having a democratic middle east country to stablize the region. Will it work? Don't have my crystal ball.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 11:39:35 AM chris-uk04 wrote:

----------------
On 8/26/2004 10:00:50 I don’t think a blocked off streets during a convention or heavier airport screenings is a violation of my free rights. ----------------

No one mentioned Free Rights. Liberties was the talk. And, Mine are definitely compromised. I can no longer freely move in my *own* country. And, I'm not talking about blocking a few streets during a convention - NYC does is *all* the time for their upteen million Parades!

 

[lmurden]

Believe me it's more than a few streets that are blocked! You would not understand unless you lived or worked in DC area.

State-sponsored terrorism is done by many nations not just Iraq!

Democracy in the middle east? Please... And I'm not talking about Isreal.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 12:07:46 PM lmurden wrote:


Democracy in the middle east? Please... And I'm not talking about Isreal.----------------

I'm the eternal optimist. Free will is a basic natural human instinct. And, one that *needs* to be *surpressed* if one is not free. Again, only time will tell. Persia/Afganistan had a relatively free society until all this religious fanactism.

 

[AGBF]

Chris wrote:

"Former Enron advisor Paul Krugman said that “After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo.” So what should have Bush done to deal with these “real threats.” Forgive me, but I thought the Taliban were a “real threat.” Were we supposed to attack Finland?"

I think Finland, like Iraq, would have been the wrong place to strike. They had equal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the US.

I believe the point was that Al Qaeda should have been targeted...even if it took a lot of work to find them. So far bin Laden is at large.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Iraq had been a sworn enemy of the United States. Only the pathetic mis-management of their leaders kept them from being successful at it.

I'd have to look, but I'm guessing Finland does not swear us to be their enemy. Where is Sibelius when you need him!!?!

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
When I really think about it, IMHO, the blame lies in our inability to spy correctly. And, the neo-conservatives wanting to push their adgenda of having a democratic middle east country to stablize the region. Will it work? Don't have my crystal ball.
----------------

I have to agree there. I’m not sure it will work either, but I have a lot less access to information than the President. It would be silly to think that any people wouldn’t embrace freedoms. However, it’s hard to change a culture. People who are used to going to an imam to settle a dispute are going to instantly hire a lawyer. Jeffersonian ideals may be required in a more gradual enlightening. I’m not sure if it’ll ever happen though as Islam has a stranglehold on the lives of its followers.

There is a lot of militancy within Islam and it has nothing to do with the US or Isreal, but with restricting freedom. In Algeria, in the 1990s terrorism was very widespread. Algerians had a good deal of freedom like women wore bikinis on the beach and can vote. However, there was the faction of Muslims who bombed and killed because the countrymen didn’t comply with a Saudi Arabia style of Islam. Women didn’t wear the burhka so buses were blown up. Over 100,000 people were killed.

Don’t forget for a minute that this same faction of Muslims, aren’t salivating at the chance to do the same in America. Internal Algerian terrorism had nothing to with US support of Israel and their “illegal occupation of Palestine” either. It’s the 21st century fascism. It’s not rooted in nationalism, but religious fanaticism.

So what do you do? Well that’s the question for the ages. Appeasement surely isn’t the answer as no amount of appeasement or tolerance will satisfy these people.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 6:25:47 PM Rank Amateur wrote:

Iraq had been a sworn enemy of the United States. Only the pathetic mis-management of their leaders kept them from being successful at it.

Being a "sworn enemy" of the United States is not enough reason to merit invasion. Not enough reason to start a major war where the lives of many good and innocent people are lost. Iraqi civilian casualties are huge. Many good US military personnel have been lost in Iraq. Many Iraqis who hated Hussein have died because we invaded their country and they are suffering under this (ineffective) occupation.

The US SHOULD calculate whether a "sworn enemy" has anything more than a rowboat and a slingshot before starting a huge war.

 

[Rank Amateur]

"Huge" war? Please. 1000 dead in a two year campaign is not a huge war. 1000 dead in a day is a huge war.

I do not espouse the idea that we should sit and wait to be attacked in order to unequivocally verify that the perp had the ability to strike. I guess the slingshot argument works great right up until that point, eh? Worked for Britian quite nicely in the 20s and 30s until...ooops.

How many civillians both in Iraq and abroad would Saddam need to exterminate before we were compelled to act? You would think that the end of the mass political killings in Iraq would appeal to liberals like you. How about Kuwait? Should we have let them be sucked into the Saddam machine? How much more money and chutzpah would he have had if we let him stay in Kuwait? The idea of sending a message to every twit ruler over in that part of the world sure appeals to me as well. And I do think it was worth the cost of the lives lost.

 

[Maria D]

>>1000 dead in a two year campaign is not a huge war. 1000 dead in a day is a huge war. <<

Talk about your Vapid Remarks. How many civilian dead does it take to define a huge war in your book, Rank? Over 10,000 is more than enough for me.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

So when Saddam murders thousands of his own people, it's something to go to war about but when we kill Iraqi civilians, it's not a "huge" war? What is it exactly then, an inconvenience -- a little bitty war? Or do you suppose that just because in this country we don't see the images (except when viewing movies like Fahrenheit 9/11), that Iraqi civilians weren't/aren't getting killed? Vapid & naive!