Re: A question for Democrats

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:34:09 -0000, Latrodectus <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sep 10, 5:17 pm, Captain America <america.capt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Latrodectus wrote:
On Sep 10, 4:51 pm, Captain America <america.capt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Latrodectus wrote:
On Sep 10, 3:04 pm, Captain America <america.capt...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Latrodectus wrote:
Please keep in mind that I am a Democrat.
If you lived under tyranny, would you want the U.S. to rid you of that
tyranny or not?
Am I living in tyranny in the U.S. or another country?
Nobody aside from Native Americans in the U.S. is living under tyranny
therefore the answer is "another country".
Haha, tell that to the JENA Six or Sami Al-Arian.

But in answer to your question, yes, that would be swesome. Now, based
on my answer, shall we invade and free Zimbabwe, Sudan, and China now?

We don't have the resources to be the world's police force.

Correct, so we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.


Your logic is that we should have focused only on Afghanistan. That
makes sense to a certain extent, but only to the extent that what we
are doing isn't regional. In fact it is regional. Saddam had plenty
of opportunities to comply and he said to hell with that, so he's old
toast now. His own fault. Just ask the UN.

But why was it so important to engage Iraq when we were actively
pursuing terrorists in Afghanistan, a country known historically to
require a lot of military resources to dominate?


Think about this. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism that led to
9/11 attacks. But consider the circumstances. He was not cooperating
with the UN and the U.S. saw an opportunity to try to spread democracy
in what was a relatively powerful state. That is what's happening
now.

But that is not the rationale the Bush administration gave the
American public for going to war in Iraq. Iraq, according to
Bush/Cheney, was actively cooperating with the terrorists that
attacked on 9/11. In addition, the administration had solid evidence
they could not share with the public that Saddam was actively
producing and stockpiling WMDs. Neither of these were true but that
is how they sold the war to us, the citizens of the US. Now, if their
true intent was to spread freedom and democracy and save the Iraqis
from a brutal dictator then they should have presented their plans
accordingly.

If Bush had advocated war based on removing Saddam then he would
probably have a lot more domestic support than he enjoys now.
Instead, he forgot the lessons of Vietnam and instigated a protracted
military engagement by lying to his constituents, and exploiting the
memories of those killed on 9/11 as justification for the invasion.


Again, most Democrats don't see past their own nose and their own
shortsighted want for power. Democrats were elected and then did
exactly nothing to end the war in Iraq, that is the proof of what I
say.

Not hardly. The biggest power grab of the past century has been
Bush/Cheney and their "Unitary Executive" ideal. From signing
statements nullifying legislation to the unique government branch that
is the Vice-Presidency no administration has made more effort to
garner power and undermine the Constitution. The Democrats have not
shown leadership in restraining Bush's ambitions, so the Republicans
have been able to blunt pretty much all of the Democratic initiatives.





However,
we should exert our projection of power in regions that are directly
important to us. As you know, the Middle East is rich in oil and we
have allies in Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan there. That is why
we are involved.
As you know, Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran has made it
clear they do not respect the US, rather their government hates us,
and they have openly threatened Israel several times and have killed
U.S. troops in Lebanon. Their influence is dangerous, and
increasing in the region, yet another reason to be involved and play
offense instead of defense.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
    ... The Iraq Forgery ... American power has been much more ambivalent. ... "America is now the only global superpower, ... Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: 39% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached.
    ... his second term except to defend his flawed policy in Iraq. ... Iraq war being drummed up on lies and fabrications is one impeachable ... One could also point to power over reach, ... as a democracy for the very reason that the FFs, at least some of them, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Democracy and fighting terrorism in Iraq
    ... In my view 'Moe' Bush and 'No Doubt' Cheney's publicly announced phrases ... 'democracy against tyranny' and 'freedom against tyranny' ... political war and that 'democracy' will somehow prevail over the 'evils' ... The Islamic cultural nature of the Middle East, especially in Iraq, will ...
    (soc.politics)
  • Re: Bush has handed Iraq over to civil war and to Islamic radicals
    ... they have started a fledgling democracy. ... >> religion is very helpful as a moral foundation. ... > Iraq can be religious. ... Would you prefer Saddam Hussein back in power? ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Democracy in Iraq, what are the odds?
    ... Democracy is a reaction to improper government. ... desperate to avoid compromising their future power in this situation ... The social pressures in Iraq are of the most extreme type. ...
    (alt.politics)