Posted on 03/06/2003 4:13:55 PM PST by Howlin
In other words, you don't have any evidence that Iraq is behind 9-11. Back when I thought Saddam was at fault, I was gung-ho for war. Now that they haven't shown us any evidence, I've back off, and dont' see any reason to treat him differently than we're treating N Korea. You say we'll "get to N Korea in due time" But Bush disagrees - he says diplomacy and containment will work for N Korea. If so, then I'd like to see them tried with Iraq before we go in and get our people killed and create an imperialistic occupation for years and years.
Can you picture the look on Daschle's face if the President does not inform Congress first? LOL
And that is why he will NEVER EVER EVER be President
Uh...no.
Churchillbuff is making far more sense than the "let me go make some popcorn while we nuke the towelheads" crowd.
I thought lock-step thinking was for democrats?
Now Hart's trying to scare the crap out of everyone with the increased risk of terrorism. ~~ Isn't Hart needed on a boat somewhere?
Bush put the brakes on the war fever just a bit, like tapping the brakes to slow down as you around another curve. I think we can take that at face value. It's not happening tomorrow or even next week. There'll be diplomacy for a little while longer yet. So put your ear plugs in hard, there's going to be a lot more garbage in the air yet to come than we've probably heard up to this point.
Leni
it is pretty cool, isn't it? now that the newser is over, i'll post it again. it's here, and well worth reading. i've liked wheeler's stuff for a long time, and i think he just plain nails it here.
dep
Their actions make a lot of sense. Consider the following . . .
1. Politically, the leaders of these countries have to protect themselves because in a parliamentary system the government could collapse tomorrow. In a system like ours with pre-determined term lengths, leaders can pick and choose when to take certain actions relative to the time that will elapse before the next election (i.e., taking controversial stands two years before the next election gives a U.S. politician some calendar time to re-build his popularity). In the modern world, the phrases "parliamentary government" and "lack of courage" are synonymous for the very reasons I described.
2. These nations also want to provide the outward appearance of opposing the U.S. to keep their relations with Arab nations on good terms.
3. In the event the U.S. is incapable of "doing it right," they will be in a position of "plausible deniability." Recent history shows that the U.S. generally doesn't have a great track record of "doing things right," so they simply want to cover their @sses.
Point #3 is also interesting because it has also been applied in reverse. If you go back to the early 1990s and see how Croatia was able to build the most powerful standing army in Europe despite the fact that the former Yugoslav republics were subject to an arms embargo by NATO nations, you'll notice that in that case Germany was doing things on their own and the U.S. was doing exactly what France and Germany are doing today.
Let's take a walk down memory lane...
Iraq invades Kuwait. The Dems think we should do nothing. The French think we should do nothing (maybe some sanctions). After almost six months of lobbying Bush the First convinces the UN to go after him. The French insist that we not actually go after Saddam, just get him out of Kuwait.
We kick his butt faster than anyone thought possible. Bush, good to his word, does not go for the kill. Saddam, in retreat, sets the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire.
As part of the end of hositilities, Iraq agrees to disarm. The UN sends inspectors in to make sure he does. Saddam jerks the inspectors around until 1998 and then kicks them out. We should have resumed hostilities then, but Clinton was president.
GWB takes office and starts to put the pressure back on Saddam to comply with his ORIGINAL agreement to disarm. Everyone seems to forget that we stopped bombing the crap out of him only because he agreed to disarm.
Since he has still not disarmed, since there is good intelligence tying him to various terrorist groups, since we were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists groups, we feel that NOW is a good time for Saddam to comply with his agreements, or we will resume hostilities.
This is why containment won't work. Containment will not disarm him. He needs to be disarmed because he has already invaded his neighbors and would likely do so again if he thinks no one would stop him.
The PRK is a separate issue, with different dynamics, that will be handled at a different time, in a different way.
By the way, what are your credentials that lead you to be an expert on foreign policy? Mine are a degree in Polical Science, I had Kurt Valdheim as a professor for International Relations, and three years in state politics and two years as an aide to a Congressman who co-chaired the foreign relations committee.
No no no - - I want the Bush doctrine viz North Korea (containment) tried with Iraq. I want a SINGLE STANDARD, not a double standard.
I couldn't get to the mute button fast enough after Hart's first sentence or two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.