Bush to address the nation tonight...

Since I''m all by my self on this forum when it comes to this issue:

I''m a classic liberal hawk. Not a Republican. I didn''t vote for Bush in 2000 and may or may not vote for him in 2004.

So I''m not really defending Bush but what I think is right.

"phragged" wrote:
Phragged, what do you suggest we do?

It seems like we are having this war and the UN be damned. I would like to see us work with the UN and other nations of the world to see this resolved. If the UN decides that action is necassary than so be it, I have no qualms about enforcing a UN move for military action. I would like us to accept what the UN decides instead of saying you''re either with us or against and then letting the cards fall where they may. The Bush administration seems to like to insult and threaten as a means of diplomacy. Abandoning the UN will lead to 1 of 2 things happening. Either it dies, or it will catalyze all the other nations of the world into really working together at which point it would be us against them. I dont believe(and its entirely possible im wrong) that once we tell the UN that we dont need to listen to you guys that we''re the USA, things wont be able to go back to the way they are now(in either global opinion or the UN itself).

In short I would like us to work with the UN completely and totally instead of the half ass way we are doing so now.

The UN is half-assed. I have no repsect for the UN. Lybia is on the Human Rights commision (and they chair it). Syria should not be on the Security council and Fance should not have veto power.

IT''s not the US going it alone. We have 40 nations supporting this action. Even if the UN supports it it won''t change that Americans will be fighting the war.

The Middle East hated us before. I''d hate to break this to you but the rest of the world has always hated us and I really don''t care. There are very few nations out there which I want to be our friend. The majority of the world is bad and we shouldn''t try to make our selves feel better by having nations agree with us. It''s either right or wrong.

Given the overall quality and evident intelligence of your posts, ulairi, I just cannot believe you think- on any level- that International Diplomacy comes down to concepts like ""right"" or ""wrong"".

"Gorey" wrote:
The Middle East hated us before. I''d hate to break this to you but the rest of the world has always hated us and I really don''t care. There are very few nations out there which I want to be our friend. The majority of the world is bad and we shouldn''t try to make our selves feel better by having nations agree with us. It''s either right or wrong.

Given the overall quality and evident intelligence of your posts, ulairi, I just cannot believe you think- on any level- that International Diplomacy comes down to concepts like ""right"" or ""wrong"".

No. I know that. I''m not saying that. But, there is a right and there is a wrong. It''s deeper than that but it''s still there. We are right and the islamo-fascist are wrong. How we go about fixing the problem is open for debate and debate needs to be done. Too bad the Democratic Party is run by big sissies and they wont'' do anything but be against Bush but not against Bush.

I think we've hurt our selves in the long run by support despots because we thought that the despot would stay in our box.

I'm not afraid of believing that there is a right and wrong way to do things.

Here's my problem with Bush: He hasn't asked us to sacrifice.

Bush needs to come out and ask the American people to sacrifice for the war. That means that if you're in the top % of income earners you don't get a tax cut, no prescription drug plan for seniors. The money should be spent on the war. Then, I think we would have a real debate amongst the American people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...

I read articles like this all the time and wonder do we hear (relatively) little about North Korea, when in my mind anyway this country has lots of weapons of mass destruction and a president who''s more than nuts enough to use them. They''ve flown in the face of Anti Proliferation treaties (as has the US) by restarting their nuclear reprocessing plant and we seem to be doing little but appeasing them! At least Saddam looks like he might disarm a little, meanwhile the N.Koreans are effectively doing the opposite.

EDIT: And anyone who doesn''t believe Kim Jong-Il''s not a little crazy should read this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...

"kegboy" wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...

I read articles like this all the time and wonder do we hear (relatively) little about North Korea, when in my mind anyway this country has lots of weapons of mass destruction and a president who''s more than nuts enough to use them. They''ve flown in the face of Anti Proliferation treaties (as has the US) by restarting their nuclear reprocessing plant and we seem to be doing little but appeasing them! At least Saddam looks like he might disarm a little, meanwhile the N.Koreans are effectively doing the opposite.

Here''s the flaw in your argument: The reason we can go to war with Saddam is because he doesn''t have any nuclear weapons. Our options are limited with North Korea because they have nuclear weapons.

But I would like to see us at least dealing with North Korea in some capacity as opposed to whatever we seem to be doing now. You cant compare the two I agree, but we should still be talking to them more than we are now, because that guys is crazy, and that stuff with the planes recently was just well..crazy.

"phragged" wrote:

But I would like to see us at least dealing with North Korea in some capacity as opposed to whatever we seem to be doing now. You cant compare the two I agree, but we should still be talking to them more than we are now, because that guys is crazy, and that stuff with the planes recently was just well..crazy.

Answer this question for me: In 1994 we talked with North Korea. They agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. We agreed to help them with fuel, money, and food. North Korea lied. What should we do? Go and talk to them again? We need to not reward them for breaking their agreements before.

I don''t have an answer to this situation.

The UN is half-assed

I can see why you think this and in some respects I agree with you, but it is the best solution we''ve been able to come up with and even if its half-assed it still half-works.

Neither do I, but I dont think ignoring them is the answer either.

"phragged" wrote:
The UN is half-assed

I can see why you think this and in some respects I agree with you, but it is the best solution we''ve been able to come up with and even if its half-assed it still half-works.

I think the UN isn''t useless, yet. I really want to save the UN and not let it turn into a debate club. It''s only half-assed.

"phragged" wrote:

Neither do I, but I dont think ignoring them is the answer either.

I don''t think we''re ""ignoring"" them. I think that China, Japan, South Korea, and America, all need to law the smack down on North Korea. Everyone needs to say if you do this we will not allow your government to function. If you stop building nuclear weapons, dismantel the ones you already have, and start treating your people better, we can help you.

That''s the only thing I think can work.

Ulairi, it goes without saying that I disagree with a lot of what you said, but to point/counter point again, would basically be rehashing. You make some good points, but I don''t think they''re completely valid. I''d simply rehash my previous points, that we _are_ in a double dip recession, or perhaps a recession followed immediately by a slightly worse recession. If you think the economy is growing, you haven''t paid much attention to the numbers I''ve heard over the last month. That we had a lot more credibility in the middle east, and a lot less anti-americanism when we were an active partner in peace instead of putting our military off their shores. That you should care what other countries perspective is on the US. That we are not overstating the case that American liberties are being compromised. And that the current administration''s policies are precisely hardline, and increasingly out of step with the sentiments of the voters, considering that over 70% of Americans in many recent major polls want the US to have the backing of the UN before military action.

That said, I don''t think either of us is going to change the other''s opinion, and you state your case well.

"Ulairi, it goes without saying that I disagree with a lot of what you said, but to point/counter point again, would basically be rehashing. You make some good points, but I don''t think they''re completely valid. I''d simply rehash my previous points, that we _are_ in a double dip recession, or perhaps a recession followed immediately by a slightly worse recession. If you think the economy is growing, you haven''t paid much attention to the numbers I''ve heard over the last month."

No we aren't. The economy grew about 1.4x% last quarter. A recession is two consecutive quarters with no growth. I'm two semesters away from my economic degree. I know the numbers. Unemployment isn't getting better.

"That we had a lot more credibility in the middle east, and a lot less anti-americanism when we were an active partner in peace instead of putting our military off their shores."

There has been anti-Americanism in the Middle East for decades. As long as we support the only democracy in the region there will be anti-Americanism.

"That you should care what other countries perspective is on the US."

I care what some countries think of us. Western Democracies that do not have under the table weapon and oil deals with Iraq.

"That we are not overstating the case that American liberties are being compromised."

Didn't I agree with you?

"And that the current administration''s policies are precisely hardline, and increasingly out of step with the sentiments of the voters, considering that over 70% of Americans in many recent major polls want the US to have the backing of the UN before military action"

The poll questions are not exactly the best way to judge this. Most Americans don't want us to go it alone, which were not. If we asked "Do you think American and 40 allies go to war to disarm Iraq, is that a good thing?" most would say it is.

Ulairi wrote

Our options are limited with North Korea because they have nuclear weapons

This quote is from the BBC article I linked to.

And for Americans still traumatised by the horror of September 11, he warned that with Pyongyang''s proliferation record, North Korean plutonium could find its way into the hands of terrorists.

So what''s it going to take for someone to do anything about N.Korea A major city going up in a mushroom cloud? Okay that may be a bit over-dramatic but if the US is worried about conventional or biological terrorism from middle eastern and specifically Iraqi sponsored terrorists it should be equally worried (or even more so) about North Korea, after all it''s just as capable of state sponsored terrorism as any middle eastern fundamentalist state.

""So what''s it going to take for someone to do anything about N.Korea A major city going up in a mushroom cloud? Okay that may be a bit over-dramatic but if the US is worried about conventional or biological terrorism from middle eastern and specifically Iraqi sponsored terrorists it should be equally worried (or even more so) about North Korea, after all it''s just as capable of state sponsored terrorism as any middle eastern fundamentalist state.""

I agree. Are you saying we should be going to war with North Korea? How do we stop North Korea?

No. I know that. I''m not saying that. But, there is a right and there is a wrong. It''s deeper than that but it''s still there. We are right and the islamo-fascist are wrong. How we go about fixing the problem is open for debate and debate needs to be done. Too bad the Democratic Party is run by big sissies and they wont'' do anything but be against Bush but not against Bush.

Understood, Ulairi. And I agree with you about the democrats.

I think we've hurt our selves in the long run by support despots because we thought that the despot would stay in our box.

It''s so damnably frustrating that this is exactly how our country gets involved in this crap in the first place. Bah.

For the record, I''d consider myself a liberal hawk as well. I have family in the Middle East right now, fixing jet engines (Air Force). I have no problem whatsoever with military force when it''s warranted. The democratic party, at least in its current incarnation, disgusts me; hence ''liberal'', not ''democrat''.

As far as the question of recession is concerned.. I have absolutely no hard data to back this up (that I can legally provide, anyway) but let me tell you; as the manager for a prominent shopping mall in a very succesfull, ''hip'', urban area... the retail climate is bad. Very bad. Several of my tenants are hanging by the proverbial thread. Granted, this is not a complete indicator of economic recession. I''m no accountant and don''t claim to be in any shape, form, yadda yadda. Just seems to me that denying there are serious issues in the economy right now is...well...hiding your head in the sand.

As far as the question of recession is concerned.. I have absolutely no hard data to back this up (that I can legally provide, anyway) but let me tell you; as the manager for a prominent shopping mall in a very succesfull, ''hip'', urban area... the retail climate is bad. Very bad. Several of my tenants are hanging by the proverbial thread. Granted, this is not a complete indicator of economic recession. I''m no accountant and don''t claim to be in any shape, form, yadda yadda. Just seems to me that denying there are serious issues in the economy right now is...well...hiding your head in the sand.

We''re in a flat growth period. We have to do something soon because each day Bush waits the economy gets worse. This is why I don''t like people calling it a ""rush to war.""

Are you saying we should be going to war with North Korea? How do we stop North Korea?

And therein lies the problem, It''s all very well for us to sit here and debate this problem, but to be honest I have little idea about how to solve it, but I was trying to understand why we are so keen to get rid of Saddam when there are just as many other Despots to remove, and if we start with one where do we draw the line?, ""No you''ve only killed 10,000 of your own citizens we''ll let you off the hook"" I think we all face being labelled as hypocrites if we remove Saddam by force and yet do nothing about N.Korea and other ""Rogue states"". Much as I dislike a lot of Politicians I do sometimes feel sorry for the decisions they have to make on our behalf. ( or in Tony Blairs case because he feels it''s the ""right and moral"" thing to do)

Off to lunch, just wanted to say before I left the desk; this thread is the kind of thing I keep coming back to this board for. Good posts, quality stuff, down to earth people. No flaming.

It''s kinda rare, and I appreciate that it exists here.

Off to lunch, just wanted to say before I left the desk; this thread is the kind of thing I keep coming back to this board for. Good posts, quality stuff, down to earth people. No flaming.

It''s kinda rare, and I appreciate that it exists here

My sentiments exactly Gorey, well said.

I think the notion that we have to treat N. Korea differently because they already have nukes is flawed. The main argument seems to be that MAD applies to the U.S. and N. Korea. The reality is that if N. Korea used a nuke against us we''d pretty much wipe the country off the face of the earth, and they know that. MAD only works when both countries have enough weapons to guarantee the elimination of the other. N. Korea has a handful of nukes at most; we have enough to destroy the whole world. MAD Simply doesn''t apply. A country with a few nukes can''t ""hold us hostage.""

N. Korea has no qualms sharing weapons technology with, well, anybody. If a terrorist group gets their hands on a nuke it''s going to be from NK, not Iraq. And NK (according to the CIA) is working on an ICBM. Iraq can''t even deliver a warhead beyond 100 miles.

So, what it comes down to is this: Who do you think poses a bigger threat to the U.S.? N.Korea or Iraq? A nation with an active nuclear program, a couple of warheads, theatre ballistic missles, working on ICBMs, an enormous convential military, and a bat-sh*t crazy dictator, OR, a country that has had 90-95% of it''s WMD destroyed since 1991 (and the majority of any chem or bio weapons would have degraded by now anyways), once had a nuclear program, 2/3 of it''s conventional forces are now considered obsolete, has a populace and infrastructure which has been ravaged by U.N. sanctions, and is led by an evil dictator.

good post Single Barrel.

So, what it comes down to is this: Who do you think poses a bigger threat to the U.S.? N.Korea or Iraq?

Both? I know it''s kind of a lame ass answer, but I think each pose a unique threat.

In regards to North Korea, where the hell is China and Japan in all of this? My guess is that they would like the USA to resolve this so China doesn''t look like the ""bad guy"", and Japan is afraid of pissing them off (understandably).

What a mess.

It''s a double edged sword.

So do you think then that we have fallen into a kind of hyper-sensitivity where nuclear weapons are concerned Singlebarrel?
I would argue that with a ""bat-sh*t crazy dictator"" around, self preservation and logic go completely out the window, and with dealing with the situation with that in mind would be a good thing instead of relying on past doctorines that worked with the russians because as much as they were commie-pinko bastards they at least loved their children too. And on that note, cue up the band

In Europe and America, there''s a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Krushchev said we will bury you
I don''t subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer''s deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There''s no such thing as a winnable war
It''s a lie that we don''t believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don''t subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is that the Russians love their children too

well i must say i say something absolutely disgusting on the TV news the other day. they interviewed an american who volunteered to be a human shield in iraq. he claimed he was going to be situated near a grain factory that supplies 30% of iraqs grain. he seemed like he had noble goals. noone wants iraqi women and children to suffer.

however, the kicker comes from the fact the iraqi government is paying for the trip and accomodations for several volunteers from many different countries. but wait it gets worse....

they showed a clip of the guy arriving at his average hotel like room. the guy prances into it like hes on some vacation, arms raised in joy. then he heads over to the in room refridgerator, sees its stock full of milk and fresh food and proclaims ""woohoo!"" does this guy think he''s on vacation? does he realize he has a stocked fridge in a country ravaged by sanctions where many do not have much to eat?

how can someone be that clueless? dont gimme that liberal bleeding heart crap. i care about the welfare of others as do many others and were no fools. this guy is a disgrace and more of a symbol of what foreign people despise about americans. i hope they do find hidden weapons where this guy is staying so we can do darwins work.

other than this, there are 3 negatives circumstances that worry me about the coming war. tony blair is reeling in brittain which is too bad since i would think he''d make a pretty good *gasp* american president. the other is north korea becoming more and more defiant. the third is i dont think all the monarchies surrounding iraq in the middle east are too eager to let iraq become the sparkling gem of democracy in the region.

the place we really ought to go and plant stability and democracy for the sake of the people is what could become palestine. im sorry but hamas etal should be rooted out like the taliban. suicide bombing needs to end.

There is a difference between protesting the war at home and going to Iraq. That said, I''m not going to worry about some putz who''s willing to die to support Saddam.

Yeah, I believe that''s called ""Natural Selection.""

tony blair is reeling in britain which is too bad since i would think he''d make a pretty good *gasp* american president

Whilst I admire the fact that he''s willing to commit what is tantamount to political suicide at the moment to do something that he feels to be right, (It''s not very often you see politicians willing to do that!)

But I dislike the way Mr Blair is talking about bringing democratic rule to Iraq when he''s going against the express wishes of (according to latest polls) the majority of his voters, to me that''s not democracy in action even if one does think it''s the right thing to do and also, opens us up (again!) to accusations of hypocrisy.

"kegboy" wrote:
tony blair is reeling in britain which is too bad since i would think he''d make a pretty good *gasp* american president

Whilst I admire the fact that he''s willing to commit what is tantamount to political suicide at the moment to do something that he feels to be right, (It''s not very often you see politicians willing to do that!)

But I dislike the way Mr Blair is talking about bringing democratic rule to Iraq when he''s going against the express wishes of (according to latest polls) the majority of his voters, to me that''s not democracy in action even if one does think it''s the right thing to do and also, opens us up (again!) to accusations of hypocrisy.

The UK (and US) is not a direct democracy. You elect leaders and they lead. If you don''t like them don''t re-elect them.