This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Phillip79
« on: June 18, 2004, 02:40:18 PM »
Just because a country has WMD and is a "rogue state" doesn't mean that they are planning to use them against the U.S. We can't go invading every country that we think has a vial of sirin because it just wouldn't be practical and it would actually put us in more danger. I was saying that the combination of Bush thinking Iraq had WMD and
were planning an iminent terrorist attack against our country would make his justification for war understandable. It is the product of WMD and probability of their use that determines threat.
Ideally, I would like to see us overthrow every dictator who commits mass murder, but I agree that it's not practical for one nation to do that.
The U.S. does have some history of intervening in conflicts where we have no real national security interest at stake, and I think that's a good thing. It's okay for us to prioritize our limited resources, but I don't think we can turn our backs and say, "We don't have any interests there, so we'll just let thousands of people get slaughtered."
I've supported the Iraq war because it's the right move to protect America and her allies, but also because I'm a strong proponent of human rights.
Hussein has murdered thousands of people, and is indirectly responsible for over a million deaths. As far as I'm concerned, his connections to terrorism and WMD's only confirm what I believed long before 9/11: that he needs to be removed from power because he's an enemy of human rights.
« on: June 18, 2004, 01:57:22 PM »
Those Russians never really are on our side.
But why didn't the administration share this information with the world, especially when Russia voiced opposition?
I don't know the answer to that, in this particular case. I do know that the nature of intelligence is such that you cannot always go running to the media everytime you get a credible tip. If there's a risk of exposing the source of the information, then you may have to act on it without discussing it publicly.
Again, I have no idea what the situation was in this case, but I have to think that Bush would have shared the information if he COULD have, given that it would have bolstered the case for war.
Putin is the one who brought this up now, by the way. It's not like Bush is grasping for straws, and now he's quoting Russian intelligence sources as a new justification. I'm not sure what Putin's motivation is for throwing this out now.
Those of you who have said that Russia "duped" Bush are completely ignoring the fact that Russia was genuinely opposed to the Iraqi invasion. They had very real, cynical reasons for propping up Hussein.
« on: June 18, 2004, 01:42:58 PM »
If Bush had credible evidence that Iraq was planning a terrorist attack against the U.S. he would really have no choice but to initiate a preemtive attack. He is charged with securing the country, and in the wake of Sept. 11th he really couldn't take any chances. Especially since George Tenet told him that the case for Sadaam having WMD was a "slam dunk". Put these two together in Bushie's mind, WMD + iminent terrorist attack. He had no choice but to attack.
This is what bothers me about the vicious personal attacks against President Bush, with regard to his motivation for the war.
President Clinton believed that Iraq had WMD's, and he supported a congressional resolution in the 1990's, stating that "regime change" in Iraq was American foreign policy.
Worldwide intelligence sources since the 1990's have pointed to the conclusion that Iraq either had, or was in the process of developing WMD's. France believed that. Germany believed that. Russia believed that. The United States, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, believed that.
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, there was virtually unanimous consensus that Iraq had WMD's, even among nations that opposed the war! So the question we should be asking ourselves is NOT "Why did that cowboy drag us into a holy war?" Or "Why did Bush lie about WMD's so that we can steal Iraqi oil and colonize a Muslim nation?" If you really believe that crap, then I don't know what to tell you. The question that needs to be asked is how could the intelligence community throughout the WHOLE WORLD could be wrong.
I suspect that the intelligence was not wrong, and the answers were looking for are in Syria or Iran.
My question is, why the venom towards President Bush? Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress viewed the same intelligence information that President Bush did, and they came to the same conclusion. They voted overwhelmingly to authorize war in Iraq. Bush reached the only reasonable conclusion possible; the same one reached by the entire world, and I believe, the correct conclusion. Just because some weasels are backpeddling now for political reasons, that doesn't change the facts.
« on: June 18, 2004, 01:24:01 PM »
if russia presented intelligence on iraq, then why were they so adamantly against the war with iraq? and why didn't the white house play on this to get them more involved?
It's appalling, isn't it? In the article, Putin actually says something to the effect that "Despite evidence of Iraq's plans to commit terrorist attacks against the United States, our position on the war has not changed (in other words, they still oppose it)."
The Russians opposed the war in Iraq for a very simple reason: Money. Their government had weapons and oil contracts with Hussein's regime, and they were afraid that toppling him would jeopardize their payday.
Add that to the fact that the Russians don't have a long history of democracy and respect for human rights. They're simply not all that concerned about other nations living under oppression.
« on: June 18, 2004, 01:09:58 PM »
I've heard RR Jr. He is a conservative to me. You call him a liberal. OK we disagree, but I doubt we could agree on definitions of conservative or liberal. If it helps any, I am not a conservate, liberal or even a centrist by anyone's definition.
Are you one of those who think that the governer of California is a liberal even though he is a Republican?
I think you're confusing Ron Reagan Jr. with his brother, Michael, who is an ardent convervative. Ron Jr. is a self-described liberal - it's not my opinion.http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C1009274%2C00.html
Schwarzenegger is definitely liberal on many social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc), but moderate-to-conservative on fiscal policy, not unlike most Republicans who represent traditionally Democratic constituencies. That's not a criticism to say that someone is a liberal or a moderate, it's just an observation.
Especially in states like New York, California, and Massachusetts, "Republican" is not equivalent to "conservative." Of course, it works both ways: Most Democrats in the South tend to be conservative or moderate on social issues.
It's not fruitful to get into defining who is a "real" Republican or a "real" Democrat, because the truth is that anyone could justifiably fit into either party, as long as their ideology falls somewhere in the mainstream political spectrum (i.e. not communism/socialism, nazism, fascism, etc.) There are many liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.
« on: June 18, 2004, 09:45:07 AM »
According to the Geneva Convention a Soldier is to wear a UNIFORM during Conflict. These people don't were UNIFORMS so they are in Violation!
This is what I've been saying all along: The Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists and militias.
I wouldn't say that the Geneva Convention is a "joke," but it was clearly written for a different era. The purpose behind it is to make sure that both sides fight "fair" and uphold certain standards. It was written for an era when all battles were fought between uniformed soldiers representing legitimate governments, then those governments could be held accountable for their actions. That isn't the situation we're faced with today.
« on: June 18, 2004, 09:27:31 AM »
It's not surprising. And did you wonder why there were hours and hours and hours of TV time to cover the ceremonies surrounding Reagan? If a Democratic ex-president had died instead, do you think that it would have been so grand and well covered by the media?
Come on, Jeff. Yes, the media is just salivating over the opportunity to glorify a conservative Republican president. LOL.
Not too many Presidents have died in my lifetime, but I would assume that any President would be given a grand funeral. Public opinion is a different story though - I'm sure that we won't see the same outpouring of grief when Ford or Carter dies, but that has nothing to do with party affiliation. Reagan was one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century - he won 49 states in 1984!
« on: June 18, 2004, 09:22:40 AM »
OH. Now I get it. Now that you remind me, I remember thinking about it. I mentioned to my wife that things must be going badly for Bush if RR Jr. -- a conservative radio dude -- is taking shots at Bush.
Wait a minute, guys. Ron Reagan Jr. is NOT conservative. He's a liberal, and has hated Bush since he was elected.
And needless to say, despite his hatred for Bush, it was completely inappropriate to be taking political shots like that at his FATHER'S FUNERAL! Does this man have any soul?
President Reagan was always a little bit embarrassed of Ron Jr. - I'm glad he didn't see this.
« on: June 09, 2004, 04:30:57 PM »
If we are charging them with any crimes (attacking our citizens, terrorist threats, etc), then they are afforded the rights granted in the constitution by section 2, clause 1:
because they are citizens of foreign states.
Regardless of whether they are foreign, terrorists, etc - we believe in the United States in the right to a trial - regardless of who you are we should give these rights to people. If that is what we believe then why should it matter who/what you are?
We aren't talking about private disputes with citizens of other countries. The federal judiciary doesn't have jurisdiction here. Al Qaeda didn't take us to court, and there's no reason to take them to court.
The Bill of Rights was written to protect OUR people. It isn't a universal protection of the citizens of the world, and certainly not foreign militias attacking our military. Sorry if anyone doesn't like that, but it's true.
I don't care if Al Qaeda suspects are not read a list of Miranda rights when they're captured.
I don't care if they're detained indefinitely.
I don't care if they never get a trial.
I don't care if they don't have access to an attorney.
Foreign terrorists do not have any rights whatsoever under our Constitution, which is as it should be.