What Is The International DNF Members Opinion On Bush/Iraq?

[yahoohaha]

you mean hard cock?

 

[Gomains]

yahoohaha... could you go slime up your own threads? Thanks.

 

[ilikebeer]

Living in Canada makes the whole issue very interesting ...

We get American networks (cnn, nbc, etc) that, overall, seem to support the idea of going to war with Iraq. While the Canadian stations (CBC, Global, CTV) seem to cover both sides of the issue.

Personally, I think something has to be done and a series of quick, strategic strikes would be in order - a drawn out campaign could endanger the innocent.

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by Gomains

From what I've read, most of the rest of the world thinks George Bush is a war lunatic.

I agree 100%.

As far as oil goes :

THAT'S the main interest Bush has, don't forget a major portion of his election campaign was financed through US oil lobby.

As far as nuclear weapons etc goes :

If you don't think that every weapon Bush accuses Iraq to have or build the US already have themselves, dream on.

What a joke to accuse other countries of having bio/nuke weapons while being able to provide the exact same backline.

 

[TurNIC.com]

Here is the idea inside the Bushwhacked:

In order an average Joe could pump gas in his SUV with a price of 1/4 of gas price in Europe, unstable Iraq should be converted to an US puppet. PERIOD.

To destroy Al Queda in Iraq: Total bullshit. There is no Al Queda in Irag. The number one supporter for Al Queda is Saudi Arabia,

For Destructing nuclear power: There is no ready-to-go nuke weapons in Iraq, if that was the reason Bush should go to war with north korea first!

To save Iraqi people: total bullshit, he does not care about them.

 

[beatz]

Amen.

 

[think]

I went on a small church crusade for 3 days when I was very into being Born Again. During that 3 day crusade I prayed that I could understand the Lithuanian War better. As soon as I prayed this I saw www.AntiWar.com in my mind. I went there and have been going there for 3 years for better incite to war, politics,and global issues.

With General Electric and Westinghouse both large military contractors, owning NBC and CBS respectively I tend to try and balance my perspective and also try to see the US as the world sees us. What I see saddens me.Yet I beleive things can change and I hope and pray that people will do their best to try and really understand what is going on.

I can't imagine what would ever happen if we waged peace as hard as we wage war but I can only believe it would be spectacular.

Wishing all a warm and happy Christmas,

Think

 

[INFORG]

While I am generally libertarian in my politics, I disagree with most here and the libertarian party on the issue of war with Iraq. I think a logical case can be made for military action. (although I must admit my disappointment in the administration's justifications to date)

Point 1: It's not all about oil. To take such a simplistic view of things is naive and shows no imagination whatsoever. To think that any policy could be so one-dimensional is to disregard reason altogether. Does oil vis a vis energy needs of the US and other western nations come into the discussion? Certainly, but we should also think about the direct oil interest in Iraq of 2 nations that have been anti-war to this point - Russia and France.

Point 2: Weapons of mass destruction(WMD). Yes, the US has them - always has always will. The question is really about intent. Iraq has shown a willingness to use WMD and a desire to expand upon the territory it currently possesses through use of those weapons. A comparison to North Korea is simply not possible. North Korea has had WMD for quite some time and their intent is clear - WMD as a bargaining chip for discussion and aid. One can be reasoned with the other cannot.

Point 3: Ties to terrorism. I find this one of the US' weakest arguements, but it does have some merit. Certainly an Alqueda tie-in is absurd, but Iraq has supported other terrorists like Hamas and other militant groups in the middle east. To think that there is no way for support being given to one terrorist leading to support of other terrorists is not a logical arguement by the left. It certainly does increase the chance of Iraqi support being defacto provided to Alqueda.

Point 4: The people of Iraq. Where are all you leftists who cried for the US to get involved in Africa, or central america, or Bosnia when human rights were being violated? I find it hypocritical now that human rights aren't one of your factors in any justification of war. I personally find the "innocent civilian" rhetoric to be lame - I don't believe in the concept of an "innocent civilian" in a declared war. In the end, you are responsible for the actions of your government. Stand with them, oppose them, or get the hell out of the way.

Point 5: Iraq is a beaten foe. In my opinion, this is the only justification necessary for war. As part of the bargain for sparing Baghdad and Hussein in the Gulf War, they were forced into signing agreements relative to their surrender. They have clearly not lived up to their end of the bargain. As far as I am concerned, we may at our discretion take whatever action we deem fit as part of our "victor" status to enforce what was already fought for. Here is an analogy: You try to beat me with a club, I smack you and pin you to the ground, you agree that if I let you up that you will never hold a club again. I see you holding a club, I can assume the deal is off and kick your ass.

Conclusion: Simplistic conspiracy theories, anti-american sentiment(translated=jealousy), and "I'm in the Green Party so I have to disagree" explanations do not hold water. While I agree that use of force is never a favorite option, it is sometimes the only option. Most casual observers who hold the anti-war stance do so because of a difference in political idealogy, but not because of a greater moral stand.

People of other nations should be thankful that the US has provided relative peace for them all at the expense of the benevolent American taxpayers. I say that if we cannot convince them that we are acting in their best interest, that we move toward a more isolationist approach to foreign policy and let the dictators do what they will with the do-gooders who cry foul about Iraq. Recall all our American servicemen and let the rest of the world pay for the cost of their own freedom or lose it.

How can they judge our actions and intent when they have delegated their defense to the US taxpayer in favor of shorter work weeks, and socialist programs for them?


PS I didn't vote for Bush
:laugh:

 

[Shiftlock]

Originally posted by 2gajgops
I personally find the "innocent civilian" rhetoric to be lame - I don't believe in the concept of an "innocent civilian" in a declared war. In the end, you are responsible for the actions of your government. Stand with them, oppose them, or get the hell out of the way.

I'm sure the friends and families of the 9/11 disaster would disagree with you. So we've declared a "war on terrorism" (which is absurd in itself). If I walk into a building and a terrorist blows me up with a bomb, then I deserved that? Or is it just that there are no innocent civilians in the country that the U.S. is attacking? Or maybe you just don't care because these people are half a world away from you, and speak a different language?

 

[Anthony Ng]

>2gajgops: I didn't realize DNForum was a leftists media outlet?

Like the real world we're all in, there are leftists, rightists, and racists among us here, whether you like it or not.

 

[INFORG]

Shiftlock:
Perhaps you missed the part that said "declared war". That means an actual conflict declared between 2 states.

I do agree that the "War On Terrorism" is a pretty lame idea. Why would we need a "war" to retaliate for terrorist behavior? One of my biggest disappointments with the administration has been these type of "feel good" announcements to make people feel safer regardless of how silly the actual policy may be. See also: terrorist alert warnings/colors, small pox vaccinations, etc. They are going too far to try and make people feel like they are doing something - including the move away from civil rights protections. I am more concerned with that than I am with whether or not we invade Iraq.

Nameslave:
I realize there are all different types represented here - my subject was to make the point that the majority of the rhetoric was from the leftist viewpoint prior to my post. I actually enjoy reading differing viewpoints.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by TheTron
I'll post back on topic, I'm an American as well and like Gomains am aginst the war. The only reason for the war is OIL.

Bottom line. Saddam DOES have biological weapons which could easily fall in the wrong hands. Sen. Daschle (D-SD) only four years ago on the senate floor said "somthing" had to be done. What's different today? My feeling is we can't afford to "wait" until a rogue nation gets nuclear capable. I do happen to agree with you that this is also about oil. Unfortunately it directly effects our economy in a very direct way. Until we can find an equitable power source we need to protect this valuable asset. Economic stability is still a national security issue BTW...It's why the 9-11 hijackers took out the World Trade Center.

Most people are misinterpreting what Bush is doing as acts of agression. Instead of letting Saddam continually violate UN sanctions, making the UN as a whole appear "pointless", he has actually put the fire where it belongs. Interestingly enough, hasn't the UN appeared to have some "back bone" lately. Like it actually has a mandate.

On the issue of North Korea, obviously we are dealing with them. Not everything is done out in the open. Contrary to belief the Korean war has never ended. As a US soldier who has served over in Korea, what happens over there doesn't always make the papers over here. Trust me. We are "containing" the situation.
When I say "we" I mean, "China and the US".

This shouldn't be a "republican" or "democrat" issue when it comes to the security of the United States. It should be an american one. However of course you do have the right to voice your opinion as to how we go about that. Right now 65% percent of US citizens think Bush is on track. I am one of them.


izopod

 

[Anthony Ng]

No sweat, 2gajgops. I must admit that I see things from a left-of-center perspective too. Very often, I would label myself as a liberal (with the small letter "L").

__________________
Posting in a personal capacity wearing the peace-loving, liberal hat AGAIN

 

[think]

Since anything that is antiwar including the costs associated with it is considered liberal then I guess I am liberal.

In the 1980's during the peak of the Contra war against Nicaragua over 30,000 Americans including myslef went to Nicaragua to witness first hand what was going on. Nicaragua had been controlled for over 50 years by one famliy before the Sandinistas( a communist government) took over.

Eventually the Sandinistas lost in the presidential elections and the whole conflict ended without a large war involving US troops.
My point being and I realize that Saddam is not the same as the Sandinistas that there are alturnatives to war which ultimately brings death in any situation and ALL DIPLOMATIC efforts should be exhausted before relying on force.

It would help also if the pentagon and politicians were telling the truth rather than fabricating some stories and feeding them to the press to regurgitate. Iraqi soldiers never threw babies from Kuwaiti incubators like a young lady tearfully testified before congress in the first Gulf War.

Some of the biggest "Hawks" are like ex-Secretary of Defense Casper Weinburger are major stock holders in companies like Beltec, a military construction company who will make millions off the building of new military facilities.

This does not even begin to contemplate of the depraivery of the oil interests that are involved. Both George W. Bush and George Hebert Walker Bush have involvement with oil companies including Zapata oil which was a CIA front when George Sr. was director of the CIA

It is also interesting that 2 individuals indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal are working for Bush. Elliot Abrams is some kind of affairs officer with middle east dealings and Jon Poindexter is a head of a $200 million plus budgeted new agency funded by the defense department to over see information gathering domestically (very scary in itself).

Yes Saddam is a problem but so are many other leaders in other nations like Momar Khudafy in Libia etc. And while we get ready to wage war against him the world is watching and many are finding us to be the threat not the solution.

Sorry to bug everyone,
Think

 

[Anthony Ng]

It's really nice to hear from someone who's actually been there, I mean Nicaragua. That is an excellent example of how bad politicians in Washington could be: by supporting a dictator (Somoza) who killed and tortured even armless intellectuals and women and children rather than accepting Sandinista which later proved to be democratic enough to concede to 2 consecutive lost elections without starting a coup.

 

[INFORG]

Originally posted by think
Since anything that is antiwar including the costs associated with it is considered liberal then I guess I am liberal.

Anti-war doesn't have to mean liberal; however, if you are going to spew the lefts conspiracy theories as your own, then you are branding yourself as one.Not that that is a bad thing necessarily, but you will have to forever forego the use of logic to receive your official membership packet.

It would help also if the pentagon and politicians were telling the truth rather than fabricating some stories and feeding them to the press to regurgitate. Iraqi soldiers never threw babies from Kuwaiti incubators like a young lady tearfully testified before congress in the first Gulf War.

Yes, the government should have known better than to believe what the liberal human rights organization told them was happening. You definitely need to verify stuff from leftist sources.

Some of the biggest "Hawks" are like ex-Secretary of Defense Casper Weinburger are major stock holders in companies like Beltec, a military construction company who will make millions off the building of new military facilities.

And I am sure that if Iraq's main export was chocolate, that you would find some Nestle's stock in the portfolios of people in Washington and claim it was "all about CANDY". Fact is these guys are already rich and own stock in vast portfolios that are probably just offensive to you because they are wealthy to begin with.

This does not even begin to contemplate of the depraivery of the oil interests that are involved. Both George W. Bush and George Hebert Walker Bush have involvement with oil companies including Zapata oil which was a CIA front when George Sr. was director of the CIA

They are oil men from Texas - do you expect that they aren't going to have "ties" to every oil company on earth? More conspiracy theory - zero evidence. What about anti war France and Russia's "oil ties". Those aren't legitimate? Because they share your view?

It is also interesting that 2 individuals indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal are working for Bush. Elliot Abrams is some kind of affairs officer with middle east dealings and Jon Poindexter is a head of a $200 million plus budgeted new agency funded by the defense department to over see information gathering domestically (very scary in itself).

As much as you may dislike it, history has shown these Iran-Contra guys to be patriots. I may not agree, you may not agree, but Ollie North is an american hero in the eyes of many. As are his cohorts. I agree that some of the intelligence stuff is getting scary.

Yes Saddam is a problem but so are many other leaders in other nations like Momar Khudafy in Libia etc. And while we get ready to wage war against him the world is watching and many are finding us to be the threat not the solution.

Khadafi has gone to great lengths to "clean up" his act. He was very supportive after 9/11 and is generally not considered a threat anymore. As far as the US being considered a threat - maybe that is a good thing when you consider the type of nations that need to feel threatened.

What you and many other fail to put forth is a logic based explanation on how a war or the threat of war cannot possibly be the best option. 12 years of game playing with Iraq is enough. I sincerely hope Iraq decides to comply completely with their obligations, but there is zero chance of that without a firm "or else" stance.

 

[izopod]

Originally posted by think
. And while we get ready to wage war against him the world is watching and many are finding us to be the threat not the solution.

On the contrary. At the the world summit a few months ago it seemed as if world leaders were clammering to get a photo op with the president.

The world is waking up to the fact we don't live in a bubble anymore. Bali is the latest example. The recent attack in Yemen involving a French ship. A missle fired at a israeli civilian airline.

I will agree a lot world leaders probably don't like GW's style, but they didn't like Clinton either. Clinton was always late to every official function and sometimes (on purpose) had world leaders wait on him. GW is a president who takes his role seriously. I don't think he wakes up everyday wondering how he can do his part to make oil companies richer. At some point liberals are going to have to decide whether logic will play into their arguments or not.

Btw: There is nothing wrong being a liberal. Just don't let it "define" your beliefs. I personally hate to "label" myself or put my viewpoints in some sacrosanct box. In fact as a person who votes Republican I don't mind speaking out for pro-active environmental policies, or animal rights.

 

[Shiftlock]

Originally posted by izopod
GW is a president who takes his role seriously.

He's literally on vacation almost half the time. Between his Texas ranch, Camp David, and the family retreat in Kennebunkport, he takes an incredible amount of time off. Most people would be fired if they spent that much time away from work. I'm sure there has never been a U.S. President who has spent more time on vacation. That doesn't sound like someone who takes his role seriously to me.

Edit: As of late last year, the Washington Post calculated that Bush had spent 42 percent of his presidency at vacation spots or en route.

 

[Anthony Ng]

>izopod: There is nothing wrong being a liberal. Just don't let it "define" your beliefs.

You would find that there is actually a coherent set of beliefs in every philosopher. When you care enough for our environment and treat other species decently, you probably won't vote for the Republicans. Similarly, you would very likely also respect women's right (abortion included) and never hate Asians or Muslims by their cultures and/or religion.

 

[INFORG]

Originally posted by Shiftlock


He's literally on vacation almost half the time. Between his Texas ranch, Camp David, and the family retreat in Kennebunkport, he takes an incredible amount of time off. Most people would be fired if they spent that much time away from work. I'm sure there has never been a U.S. President who has spent more time on vacation. That doesn't sound like someone who takes his role seriously to me.

Yeah, Clinton spent much more time in the Whitehouse. Of course he had to be there in order to be blown by Monica, collect illegal campaign contributions, and other wise dole out political favors. Bush doesn't have that kind of baggage to keep in in the Whitehouse.

Come on, let's face it this is the information age. Are you trying to suggest that a person can't be president from anywhere he wants? Sounds like another whine from the left without merit. From all reports, Bush is early to bed, early to rise and has a work ethic that is unquestionable. This is not a "kingdom", he doesn't have to sit on a throne somewhere to exercise his office.

I have heard these criticisms before - usually from people who want to institute some shortened work week, mandatory monthlong vacations, etc. for the masses. The "we should all get so much time off" sentiment is lame. I feel vacation is something you earn through career progression. He deserves more vacation than you or I or the average Joe. He's technically always "on the clock".