In this thread, we discuss Political Implications of the Capture of Saddam

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by ktsnake
The UN currently is a failure. It was given every opportunity to stand by its own resolutions. It allowed Iraq to ignore 17 separate resolutions with little more than a slap on the wrist.

For the resolution, the failiure is not only the UNs, but also the members of UN. In order for a resolution to be enforced, it need the country of the world. There are various resolutions that have not been enforced. Look at the West Sahara resolution that have not been enforced because nobody cared.

Originally posted by Sistermadly
Hopefully people will remember those young men and women who gave their lives in what's shaping up to be the Viet Nam of the 21st century.

Nope.

Not really.

Not in the same ballpark, not even the same damn sport.

Vietnam started as advisors and escalated into a full-blown guerilla conflict.

Iraq is currently a nation-building mission. Major conflict is over. Guerrilla hit and run tactics are ocurring, but with NOWHERE near the loss of life in Vietnam.

It will take a while to build the nation that is Iraq, Bush wants to turn the government over to the Iraqis next summer, but we will still have troops there. BUT, i highly doubt that 5 years from now we will have 1/100th of the troop presence that we did 5 years into the Vietnam conflict.

Kitso
KS 361 throwaway comments like this we can expect from the Dems

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by DeltAlum


A lot of folks, unfortunately, vote one way or the other because of some word that they may or may not understand -- like Republican or Democrat -- no matter who the candidate is.

This is true. The worst thing we can do to ourselves and the future of this nation is to stick to party lines just because we like to put ourselves in tiny little boxes with great big labels. When someone doesn't agree with what we're saying, they often brand them as the opposite (see above post for prime example).

Depending on the issue, I have voted and will continue to vote regardless of the little letter in parentheses next to the candidate's name. After all, isn't that what politically savvy people do, anyway?

[The1calledTKE]

I don't know why the Republicans think we should worship Bush for this. Of course republicans worship him and want him four more years but you wanted that before Saddam was captured anyways. I mean no matter what reason Bush invaded Iraq, wmd's, terrorism,ect.... at the very least catching him should be expected and not a nice suprize or bonus like everyone is acting.

Or maybe we are supposed worship him because he flew to Iraq joined the 4th infrantry and grabed a hand gun hoped in the spider hole and pulled Saddam out of it himself.

I am happy Saddam is captures but I don't feel the need to kiss Bush's butt for something that was expected of him anyways. Just like we expect him or the next president to capture Osama.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
I don't know why the Republicans think we should worship Bush for this. Of course republicans worship him and want him four more years but you wanted that before Saddam was captured anyways. I mean no matter what reason Bush invaded Iraq, wmd's, terrorism,ect.... at the very least catching him should be expected and not a nice suprize or bonus like everyone is acting.

Or maybe we are supposed worship him because he flew to Iraq joined the 4th infrantry and grabed a hand gun hoped in the spider hole and pulled Saddam out of it himself.

I am happy Saddam is captures but I don't feel the need to kiss Bush's butt for something that was expected of him anyways. Just like we expect him or the next president to capture Osama.

No one said anyone should worship him. However, admitting he's doing a decent job would be a start

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by ktsnake
No one said anyone should worship him. However, admitting he's doing a decent job would be a start

But for a lot of us, he's NOT doing a decent job. And there are a lot of Republicans out there who seem to want to throw him a parade every time he does something that he should have been doing in the first place.

Okay, so we caught Saddam. (Okay, in actuality WE didn't catch Saddam. But he's in our custody, which is the important part.) Yay! Now wait: shouldn't this have been a given? To me, catching Saddam is not a "reward," it's a necessity that should have been accomplished a while ago. Not to mention that bin Laden is still missing, the WMDs (our entire justification for going to war!) are still missing, and even if Bush fixes those two, it doesn't excuse the fact that it's now clear that he blatantly lied to the American people to justify this war.

Okay, so the economy is improving. But wait -- weren't Republicans the same ones that were just telling us that the crappy economy wasn't Bush's fault? That the economy was Clinton's fault? But now the fact that the economy is improving IS because of Bush? Talk about having our cake and eating it . . . Let's just pretend this one isn't even an issue.

Okay, so Bush managed to pull the country together after 9/11. Even I will give him that. But did anyone read the reports that said that the White House received warnings in August 2001 that the attacks on the WTC might happen in September, and that they were ignored? Possibly because Bush was on vacation for the vast majority of August? Now granted this is probably a nonissue. Chances are that even if Bush was semi-competent and not the laziest president we've ever had, the attacks still would have happened. But the fact of the matter is that if Bush hadn't spent all of August on vacation, there wouldn't even be the possibility of suggesting a link between the two.

Not to mention that even if 9/11 and the war on Iraq had never happened and the economy was still in great shape with unemployment levels hovering around 4 percent -- that is, even if Bush was doing an unarguably decent job at being president -- he has passed a number of laws that I don't in any way agree with that would make it tough for me to subjectively call him a "good president."

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by ktsnake
No one said anyone should worship him. However, admitting he's doing a decent job would be a start

When he starts doing one I will admit it.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
the WMDs (our entire justification for going to war!) are still missing

Please re-read the transcripts of the presidential addresses leading up to this war. WMDs were not the entire justification for going to war.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by enlightenment06
huh? How did Howard Dean get involved?

In the original post docetboy talked about Howard Dean's platform being dealt a blow. Well, there's other candidates besides Dean.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by russellwarshay
Please re-read the transcripts of the presidential addresses leading up to this war. WMDs were not the entire justification for going to war.

I don't generally look for the truth in presidential transcripts. There were multiple ways Bush tried to gain support for the war. Overblowing the threat of Iraq's WMDs was the only really successful one (others, such as Saddam being a tyrant, were only mentioned as justification to make us sound noble and less self-involved) that drew people to the cause. Most Americans really did not care that Saddam was killing and torturing Iraqis, evidenced by the fact that most of us knew that this was going on for years and never attempted to do anything about it. Bush preyed on the fear and paranoia that was rampant in this country after 9/11 by pushing the threat of WMDs. He took advantage of the fact that people trusted him to take care of us! If anything had actually been found I would not be nearly so upset over this, but the fact that Bush lied to us and took advantage of people's post-9/11 fears for something that was ultimately of little to no gain to the American people -- that scares me, and it worries me that more people are not upset about it.

[PhiPsiRuss]

One can only make the case that Bush lied about WMDs if the President knew that there were no WMDs. Considering that every intelligence agency in the world, with which the US has an intelligence sharing arrangement, believed that Iraq did in fact possess WMDs, it is not only plausable, but probable that President Bush (and his advisors, and his counterparts in other nations) honestly believed that Iraq possessed WMDs.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by russellwarshay
One can only make the case that Bush lied about WMDs if the President knew that there were no WMDs. Considering that every intelligence agency in the world, with which the US has an intelligence sharing arrangement, believed that Iraq did in fact possess WMDs, it is not only plausable, but probable that President Bush (and his advisors, and his counterparts in other nations) honestly believed that Iraq possessed WMDs.

One of the things Bush said either right before or right after he declared war (I think it was before but don't quote me on that) was along the lines of, "We know he has WMDs, we know where they are, and if we go to war we will be able to confiscate them." I'll go look for the exact quote in a bit . . . but under any circumstances he was clearly lying about knowing where the weapons were since they didn't turn up then or any time after.

There is no excuse for that. It would be one thing if he had said "We have reasonable evidence that points us towards XYZ as a place where the weapons may be hidden," but to the best of my recollection that was not the way it was put, and he was clearly overstating his case for war by pretending they had a much stronger lead than they did.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
One of the things Bush said either right before or right after he declared war (I think it was before but don't quote me on that) was along the lines of, "We know he has WMDs, we know where they are, and if we go to war we will be able to confiscate them." I'll go look for the exact quote in a bit . . . but under any circumstances he was clearly lying about knowing where the weapons were since they didn't turn up then or any time after.

There is no excuse for that. It would be one thing if he had said "We have reasonable evidence that points us towards XYZ as a place where the weapons may be hidden," but to the best of my recollection that was not the way it was put, and he was clearly overstating his case for war by pretending they had a much stronger lead than they did.

"It's not lying if you believe it."
- George Costanza

[enlightenment06]

I love me some sugar and spice

thanks for making my greekchat experience more enjoyable!

[enlightenment06]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
In the original post docetboy talked about Howard Dean's platform being dealt a blow. Well, there's other candidates besides Dean.

Thanks for clearing that up!