Shame On You Mister Bush!

[Ben E Lou]

I'm talking about the first Bush, not this one. Throw a "Shame on you, Mr. Clinton" in there as well.

[rant]The more I read about the complete brutality and inhumanity of Saddam and his regime, the more disgusted and ashamed I am that we didn't remove this man from power when we had the chance. It appears that we have sat back and watched inthappen while we issued economic sanctions, because Bush and Clinton were too concerned about saving their own political asses. They HAD to know what was going on. These people needed to be set free a LONG time ago, and it appears that our government knew it and hasn't had the guts to do anything about it until now. This man (and his henchmen) is a brutal, ruthless, animalistic murderer. Whatever happened to doing what is RIGHT, consequences be DAMNED??!!!

SHAME ON YOU, MISTER BUSH!
SHAME ON YOU, MISTER CLINTON![/rant]

[HornedFrog Purple]

[reality] "Right" only means something when you remain consistant and don't go to bed with others doing the same exact thing to suit your needs at the time. [/reality]

[dacman]

In this era, postmodern thinking is morally relativistic, so the real question is what happened to RIGHT?

[NevStar]

What gives US the right to decide what's right and what's wrong?

And why do we have to be the world's policemen anyway?

[mrskippy]

Bumper sticker of the week:

"We gave peace a chance."

[cthomer5000]

I think Bush must have been tied up with funding Bin Laden, so he was ignoring Saddam.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/052201.htm

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by NevStar
And why do we have to be the world's policemen anyway?

Because no one else will. I feel that since we are the worlds most powerful nation, we should intervene and help the people of oppressed nations. Now that isn't possible because too many people are against it so we have to pick and choose and that pisses the people off who say we are only pick and choosing. I don't know about you, but i am lost.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by NevStar
What gives US the right to decide what's right and what's wrong?

And why do we have to be the world's policemen anyway?

1. There are some grey areas, but we're talking just the standards of plain common human decency tell us that Saddam is WAY wrong and his people need to be protected from him.

2. If not us, then who? We don't need to meddle in everyone's affairs by any means, but as the only remaining Global Superpower, I do think we have some responsibility in an extreme case like this.

Again, there are definitely some grey areas, but this guy is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY over the line, and apparently has been for a long time.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NevStar
What gives US the right to decide what's right and what's wrong?

We do. Just like every country decides what is right and wrong.

Originally posted by NevStar

And why do we have to be the world's policemen anyway?

Because it serves our national interest.

If you hold the belt you have to step up to the challenge.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Fritz
We do. Just like every country decides what is right and wrong.



Because it serves our national interest.

If you hold the belt you have to step up to the challenge.

But isn't that why every great empire has fallen? They've tried to spread themselves to too many places, and ended up spreading themselves far too thin. For once, how about we just have an empire stay to themselves, lets see how they would do.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
But isn't that why every great empire has fallen? They've tried to spread themselves to too many places, and ended up spreading themselves far too thin. For once, how about we just have an empire stay to themselves, lets see how they would do.

Make no mistake. For the most part, I lean wayyy more towards the isolationism end of the continuum. However, if I'm a 6'6", 300-pound NFL defensive lineman, and I'm sitting on my front porch, and see a normal-sized grown man beating up a kid in the front yard across the street, I believe I am morally responsible for doing something about it, especially if the cops (the UN in this case) have proven themselves to be unresponsive. If I don't help the kid, who will? Should I just sit there smoking a cigar and saying, "Hey. That ain't happening on MY side of the street." ???

[Easy Mac]

Depends on the cigar

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
But isn't that why every great empire has fallen? They've tried to spread themselves to too many places, and ended up spreading themselves far too thin.

No

Mac, check out this book

Rise and Fall of Great Powers, 1500 - 2000 by Paul Kennedy

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Make no mistake. For the most part, I lean wayyy more towards the isolationism end of the continuum. However, if I'm a 6'6", 300-pound NFL defensive lineman, and I'm sitting on my front porch, and see a normal-sized grown man beating up a kid in the front yard across the street, I believe I am morally responsible for doing something about it, especially if the cops (the UN in this case) have proven themselves to be unresponsive. If I don't help the kid, who will? Should I just sit there smoking a cigar and saying, "Hey. That ain't happening on MY side of the street." ???

Maybe we should wonder why we bought that guy brass knuckles in the first place?

[KWhit]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I'm talking about the first Bush, not this one. Throw a "Shame on you, Mr. Clinton" in there as well.

[rant]The more I read about the complete brutality and inhumanity of Saddam and his regime, the more disgusted and ashamed I am that we didn't remove this man from power when we had the chance. It appears that we have sat back and watched inthappen while we issued economic sanctions, because Bush and Clinton were too concerned about saving their own political asses. They HAD to know what was going on. These people needed to be set free a LONG time ago, and it appears that our government knew it and hasn't had the guts to do anything about it until now. This man (and his henchmen) is a brutal, ruthless, animalistic murderer. Whatever happened to doing what is RIGHT, consequences be DAMNED??!!!

SHAME ON YOU, MISTER BUSH!
SHAME ON YOU, MISTER CLINTON![/rant]

You don't really think that the reason we are at war is to liberate the Iraqi people do you? It's a good sound-byte and it helps justify our actions to the rest of the world, but if the Bush administration didn't think Saddam was a threat to our national security there's no way the war would be happening.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Maybe we should wonder why we bought that guy brass knuckles in the first place?

I hear ya. But that ain't the point. Right here, right now, the guy must be stopped. We can have a discussion later on about how we can avoid getting there again in the future.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by KWhit
You don't really think that the reason we are at war is to liberate the Iraqi people do you? It's a good sound-byte and it helps justify our actions to the rest of the world, but if the Bush administration didn't think Saddam was a threat to our national security there's no way the war would be happening.

Actually, from what I know of Dubya, I think that is EXACTLY why we are at war. I'm not saying he's that much less politically-motivated than his daddy. I think that Dubya, like the two guys before him, knew that something must be done about this guy. The threat of terrorism has given him a decent excuse. If you think about it, we didn't heard anything about "liberating Iraq" until VERY recently. It was always "national security" and "Axis of Evil." "Liberating the people" makes sense politically to say right now, because Dubya KNOWS that Americans (and the world) will be outraged when all the stories begin to emerge of what Saddam was REALLY like.

[Bee]

If we're the policeman of the world, I suspect we're a dirty cop on the take.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I hear ya. But that ain't the point. Right here, right now, the guy must be stopped. We can have a discussion later on about how we can avoid getting there again in the future.

Me thinks you need a chat with Pops again.

[Easy Mac]

We could start by not helping people overthrow regimes, isn't that how we always get in trouble, regardless of which party is in power.

I agree, we need to protect the civilians over there, but we have to do it for more than 1-2 years as we normally do, then forgetting all about them.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Bee
If we're the policeman of the world, I suspect we're a dirty cop on the take.

ROFL

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Me thinks you need a chat with Pops again.

Ummm....I must confess that I don't get it. Help me out?

[scooper]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
But isn't that why every great empire has fallen? They've tried to spread themselves to too many places, and ended up spreading themselves far too thin. For once, how about we just have an empire stay to themselves, lets see how they would do.

We're no empire. I'm paraphrasing, but it's as Powell said, many Americans have fought for the good of people all over the world and the only land we've asked for is enough to bury those that didn't make it home.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ummm....I must confess that I don't get it. Help me out?

obviously you are either Kid or Play

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ummm....I must confess that I don't get it. Help me out?

Oh heh it was a vague crosspost reference when you asked if we had the same dad. Crook reference.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Oh heh it was a vague crosspost reference when you asked if we had the same dad. Crook reference.

I figured that was the case, I just can't remember the context in which I said that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by KWhit
It's a good sound-byte and it helps justify our actions to the rest of the world, but if the Bush administration didn't think Saddam was a threat to our national security there's no way the war would be happening.

I know there's a good chance that this will just come as a shocker to you but ... we're in complete agreement on the above quote.

{And if I didn't agree with the latter part of it, there's a good chance that I'd be opposed to the war or at least very very lukewarm about it}

[panerd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Make no mistake. For the most part, I lean wayyy more towards the isolationism end of the continuum. However, if I'm a 6'6", 300-pound NFL defensive lineman, and I'm sitting on my front porch, and see a normal-sized grown man beating up a kid in the front yard across the street, I believe I am morally responsible for doing something about it, especially if the cops (the UN in this case) have proven themselves to be unresponsive. If I don't help the kid, who will? Should I just sit there smoking a cigar and saying, "Hey. That ain't happening on MY side of the street." ???

I like this analogy a lot, but lets take it a step farthur. What if you see 10 different men beating up 10 different kids. A few of the kids are really getting the crap beat out of them. Do you save the African kid, the Korean kid, the South American kid, or the kid whose father owns a gas station?

[Vegas Vic]

Here's some interesting information from Judicial Watch on George H. Bush's involvement with the Carlyle Group:

CARLYLE GROUP CONTROVERSY

For those of you who are naive enough to think that this war in Iraq has anything to do with humanitarian relief, take a good hard look at the diagram at the bottom of this link. Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and Bush have important interests alright, but humanitarian relief ranks about 147th on the list.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE "O" WORD

[henry296]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Maybe we should wonder why we bought that guy brass knuckles in the first place?

To simplify matters: At that point in time it served our national interests support him in the war against Iran.

Times change. I bet everyone has had someone who was a good friend, that they now can't stand because they changed or you didn't know their true colors. Same here.

Todd

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by panerd
I like this analogy a lot, but lets take it a step farthur. What if you see 10 different men beating up 10 different kids. A few of the kids are really getting the crap beat out of them. Do you save the African kid, the Korean kid, the South American kid, or the kid whose father owns a gas station?

Deal with the one who is inflicting the most damage first. The others may get the message and stop. If they don't, then they have to receive the same medicine.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by SkyDog
However, if I'm a 6'6", 300-pound NFL defensive lineman, and I'm sitting on my front porch, and see a normal-sized grown man beating up a kid in the front yard across the street, I believe I am morally responsible for doing something about it, especially if the cops (the UN in this case) have proven themselves to be unresponsive. If I don't help the kid, who will? Should I just sit there smoking a cigar and saying, "Hey. That ain't happening on MY side of the street." ???

Okay, that sounds pretty compelling to me, I agree. From this scenario, you - the biggest guy on the block, ought to go take care of the problem. As you say, it's the right thing to do.

What if there are three or four other bad guys on the street, each beating up their kids as well. And as you look on down the block, each of these guys gets incrementally bigger and bigger, tougher and tougher. You could pretty easily whip the ass of the first guy (as you suggest), but the third guy might give you a black eye in the process, and the last guy might pulla knife on you and really hurt you as you tried to "liberate" his kid.

Isn't it still right to go down the street, one by one, kicking the asses of these various dirtbags who are abusing their kids? Or does being right only aply when you also have the requisite might? Or should we, the biggest guys on the block, only act on certain things that are right, and skip others that might be more difficult for one reason or another?

[Fritz]

If we add 5 or 6 more guys to Quik's scenario we would have Diggstown.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by QuikSand Or should we, the biggest guys on the block, only act on certain things that are right, and skip others that might be more difficult for one reason or another?

Or, while we're at it, let's try this one:

You're still the biggest guy on the block.

Four guys not quite your size but still bigger than average are all beating their kids with baseball bats in their yards, as are a couple of scrawny guys in the neighborhood.

Two of the larger guys also happen to have guns on their hip & have been known to take shots at people in the area.

You are not bulletproof.

Do you avoid full-blown confrontation with the two armed men and just tackle the little guys alone? Or, since you can't save all the kids, do you just save none of them.

[scooper]

And what if the guy down the street lets his dog crap in your yard? For clarification, this guy is about 5-11 170 lbs.

This has nothing to do with Iraq but I hate stepping in the crap and there seem to be a lot of experts on neighborhood politics in this forum.

[robbgmaier]

And what if the guy down the street lets his dog crap in your yard? For clarification, this guy is about 5-11 170 lbs.

This has nothing to do with Iraq but I hate stepping in the crap and there seem to be a lot of experts on neighborhood politics in this forum.

um...scooper....with a name like that I wouldn't think you'd have problem with the crap, heh

[Bee]

Can we move to a safer neighborhood?

[User #2735]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Or, while we're at it, let's try this one:

You're still the biggest guy on the block.

Four guys not quite your size but still bigger than average are all beating their kids with baseball bats in their yards, as are a couple of scrawny guys in the neighborhood.

Two of the larger guys also happen to have guns on their hip & have been known to take shots at people in the area.

You are not bulletproof.

Do you avoid full-blown confrontation with the two armed men and just tackle the little guys alone? Or, since you can't save all the kids, do you just save none of them.

Spot on.

[dread]

Basically we have failed to bring Bin laden to justice so we are using Saddam as a stand in. It remains unclear how we can use allies such as Saudi Arabia which is just as repressive regime to its people as Iraq without being hypocrites. In fact the vast majority of Hijackers were Saudi Arabian, not one Iraqi.

[QuikSand]

It's fine with me if someone (Jon?) wants to argue, by analogy or otherwise, that the US has a limited responsibility to act as world policeman, unless doing so is too hard or costly for us. (That's how I read your extended analogy)

I just think one needs to be upfront about saying that's what one believes. I find it hollow to single out one case (Iraq) and point to its injustices and horrors (both true) and suggest that these alone necessitate intervention actions there.

I'm not an isolationist, but I do support logical consistency. If you want to assert "brutality necessitates intervention" then the logical conclusion is that "all brutality necessitates our intervetion," which is a tougher statement to support in any practical way.

[tucker342]

Originally posted by NevStar
What gives US the right to decide what's right and what's wrong?

And why do we have to be the world's policemen anyway?

I have the exact same feelings about it

[Fritz]

Much better to argue that humanitarianism is a byproduct of foreign policy, and not the core of our policy.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
Much better to argue that humanitarianism is a byproduct of foreign policy, and not the core of our policy.

mmmm donut.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Fritz
Much better to argue that humanitarianism is a byproduct of foreign policy, and not the core of our policy.

That would at least be honesty. We may be doing the "right" thing here (in Iraq), but it's totally incedental.

[Ben E Lou]

Quik:

You have a good point. I still feel that we must do as much as we can.

There was a young man walking down a deserted beach just before dawn. In the distance he saw a frail old man. As he approached the old man, he saw him picking up stranded starfish and throwing them back into the sea. The young man gazed in wonder as the old man again and again threw the small starfish from the sand to the water. He asked, “Old man, why do you spend so much energy doing what seems to be a waste of time.” The old man explained that the stranded starfish would die if left in the morning sun. “But there must be thousands of beaches and millions of starfish!” exclaimed the young man. “How can you make a difference?” The old man looked at the small starfish in his hand and as he threw it to the safety of the sea, he said, “It makes a difference to this one!”

It makes a difference to this one:

[KWhit]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I know there's a good chance that this will just come as a shocker to you but ... we're in complete agreement on the above quote.

{And if I didn't agree with the latter part of it, there's a good chance that I'd be opposed to the war or at least very very lukewarm about it}

There's a first time for everything, I guess.



I am (very relunctantly) in favor of the war. The reason for this reluctance is that I fear going to war and winning may be worse for our national security than if we did nothing and left Saddam in power. I think both choices are bad for our safety.

[kcchief19]

Talk about analogies gone awry. I'm not sure if I'm the 6-6 linemen or if I'm the hermaphroditic midget being molested by Hussein.

Once again, QS has hit upon one of my moral problems with this situation:

I'm not an isolationist, but I do support logical consistency. If you want to assert "brutality necessitates intervention" then the logical conclusion is that "all brutality necessitates our intervetion," which is a tougher statement to support in any practical way.

Our administration has several different reasons for invading Iraq which change depending on which way the wind is blowing : (1) violations of UN resolutions: (2) disarming Hussein; (3) terrorist safe haven; (4) humanitarian crisis; etc. etc.

I don't buy the brutality of the Iraq regime as our REASON for invading Iraq; it's one of our JUSTIFICATIONS. By this analogy, we wanted to beat up the mean kid because we are afraid one day he's going to try to sucker punch us when we're not expecting it, so let's knock him around before he gets the chance. We'll just tell the neighborhood we're doing to protect them, not ourselves.

However, as QS noted, if we assert that "brutality necessitates invervention" in the case of Iraq, then don't we have the moral obligation to do the same elsewhere? The humanitarian crisis in Iraq pales to what is happening in parts of Africa, where people are starving and warlords massacre people without a second. Even South and Central America have their fair share of problems. And let's not forget the occassional European dictator that goes off the deep end.

If our ultimate objective in Iraq is humanitarian, then I believe we have the moral obligation to go all the way. It's time to send troops and money into Angola, Somalia and other places around the globe where evil lurks. It's logically consistent.

That being said, I don't think America has the stomach to do it. I'm not sure I do. But if you want to talk about the doctrine of pre-emption, take a look at Africa. The CIA estimates on what will happen on that continent in the next 10-20 years are horrifying.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by QuikSand
If you want to assert "brutality necessitates intervention" then the logical conclusion is that "all brutality necessitates our intervetion," which is a tougher statement to support in any practical way.

I believe in this. In all places of brutality where we can do something that improves the situation we should do it. This is why I am in favor of the war in Iraq. I'm not sure if this war will improve our security that much, especially if we stop at Iraq, but I don't care about the justification of the war. If it provides the results I desire (the freeing and improving of the lives of the Iraqi people) that is all the justification I need. I fully support going into dozens of countries and liberating them. Anti-War protestors can go and talk about how much they care about each individual human life while the United States Army actually does something about it (along w/ the UK, Australia, Poland and others who are courageous enough to stand for the right thing). I know some of you think this is condescending and arrogant, but the United States is the best country in the world, any exporting of "American values" like Freedom and Democracy is a good thing and if you believe otherwise you need to go out and learn more.

Originally posted by Skydog
These people needed to be set free a LONG time ago, and it appears that our government knew it and hasn't had the guts to do anything about it until now. This man (and his henchmen) is a brutal, ruthless, animalistic murderer.

If reading about how long it took us over there sickens you, try reading about some other countries where many of the same things are happening. This site ( http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qnd...?target=pothot ) has lots of good info, but it is really only about wars, not tyrannical repression.

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Maybe we should wonder why we bought that guy brass knuckles in the first place?

Uh, no. At least certainly not to the extent that many people claim. "when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000." (from http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qnd...get=topten.htm ) I think I have seen this same breakdown in a UN report from like 1991. France and Germany both had multiple billions of dollars and the UK was at $500,000.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Uh, no. At least certainly not to the extent that many people claim. "when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000." (from http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qnd...get=topten.htm ) I think I have seen this same breakdown in a UN report from like 1991. France and Germany both had multiple billions of dollars and the UK was at $500,000.

Absolutely untrue. We bent over backwards to help them during the Iran-Iraq war, and there is mountains of policy to show it.

Reagan helped pass measures that allowed tons of direct military "advisement" as well as the export of chemical, biological weapons, etc. The numbers I had seen were in the billions.

[BishopMVP]

When Iraq began losing we provided them with satellite photos of Iranian positions. I certainly don't condone that. They requested anthrax from certain laboratories and we gave them some thinking it was for scientific use. As for giving them chemical or other biological weapons, nyet. And as for the "billions" you have seen, check your figures and sources.