Re: Gore Bushwhacked!
 

The problem is that Republicans have the image of being war and military friendly, and Democrats have the image of being more domestically focused and dovish. So with support for an invasion fairly high, and in a time of almost over-patriotism (although that is fading), they can't risk being seen as anti-war. So Dems have to seem overly friendly to the idea of war, even if much of their base isn't so keen on the idea. Republicans, on the other hand, have been asking the valid question on this debate because they have the political room to do so.

That is completely false, since those are almost Bush's very own words. Here is a <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/11/181118.shtml">headline</a> from the far-right Newsmax at the 1-year anniversary of the attacks (i.e. not just said in anger immediately afterwards), and here is a Google <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2Bbush+%2Bavenge">search</a> following that up.
The foreign press and foreign public opinion remains in the vast majority against an American bombing/invasion of Iraq. People sympathise with the 9/11 deaths, but they won't accept retaliation against Iraq as a means of avenging that. If anything, public opinion is moving further against an American war in Iraq.
Iraq is a sovereign country; as long as they comply with UN resolutions, there is nothing the US can do, and Bush actually knows that. With Germany about to chair the UN Security Council, Iraq appearing to follow the resolutions, and with Bush having refused to congratulate the German chancellor's re-election victory, thus sending diplomatic sparks flying between Germany and the US (some of Bush's and Ari Fleischer's quotations on that matter during the last week were particularly venomous), this could get interesting. To use your own words, "Bush has made great strides in" being offensive to the country whose support he is pleading for.
It is difficult to accept the truth if it conflicts with your emotional world view. The US support in providing 'weapons of mass destruction' to Iraq in the fight against Iran is well-documented in Congress yearbooks. Those are very thick, hard-bound yearly summaries of speeches/committee meetings held by the US House and the US Senate, I believe they are published by the Library of Congress. I studied them myself as part of my degree; go to your largest local public library, and ask the librarian if they have those. (I am uncertain on what the exact title is, but they definitely exist) Get the 1982/83 volume (it has a green hard cover, I believe they all do), and skim for Iraq. You will find references in meetings where US support with weapons deliveries is outright stated, but specifics regarding the weapons are denied.

In the meantime, please address the issue that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi-Arabian, and were acting out of hatred for US support for the feudal Saudi dictatorship.
The UN can't and von't veto Iraq having nuclear weapons (since they don't have any). The US doesn't have veto rights for anything apart from UN Security council resolutions. The US was frothing back when France started testing nuclear weapons again in the mid-90s, and couldn't do anything about it, either.

Lots of regimes have nuclear weapons, and the US can't do anything about it, either. Get used to it. That's why Iraq isn't being invaded right now - because the world isn't having any of it, and Bush isn't enough of an idiot to try to go ahead and annoy everybody. If Iran suddenly announced they had nuclear weapons tomorrow, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it, either. I am still waiting for Bush to give the go-ahead on Iraq, despite all the sabre-rattling. The reason it hasn't happened is because the UN Security Council won't give a go-ahead, simple as that.

Like it or not, that's the way the real world works.
In that case, the US has a long history of 'maniac status', under both Democrats and Republicans. US experimentation with biological and chemical agents on its own citizens is also well-documented, usually in declassified documents. The post scriptum includes several web references, from both left-wing and right-wing sources.
In politics, are always those who follow their ideals, and attempt to do what they believe is right, and those who attempt to remain in the populist public eye - with the latter usually being in the great majority. Since nationalism and authoritarianism is in vogue in the US right now, populism follows.

X.

PS:
http://www.radix.net/~jcturner/Church-1.html (this is an actual Senate report)
http://www.fox5dc.com/dynamic/images...whitecoat.html
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...84871580&pwb=1
http://www.eaec.org/biologic.htm
http://www.duotone.com/coldwar/biowarfare/
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/200...omo/index.html

Is that really the best you can do?

Sure.

<i>It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.</i>

(There, I've addressed it.)

But OK, let's address it one step further. Let's assume that the US *has* in fact gone into these little countries and royally screwed the pooch. Given chemical and biological weapons to tinpot dictators. Supported terrible regimes and armed them to the teeth. Helped them to set up terrible dictatorship governments that kill, torture, etc.

Would it not then be the US' moral obligation to go in and correct its terrible errors?

Do you realize just how many countries we'd have to do that too? We don't have the best record on the matter.

You have failed to show where those are Bush's words. What you've shown is headline writers putting words in his mouth. Even so, I'm not saying that he never uttered the word "avenge"; it's pretty much a no-brainer with two billowing piles of wreckage behind you and untold thousands of people dead to say "we'll avenge their deaths". I was saying the reason for Bush's stance on Iraq has nothing to do with revenge or "getting them back" for Dad, and you haven't shown at all how that's "completely false".

You're confusing "couldn't" with "wouldn't". We didn't stop France from acquiring WMD because we aren't really that concerned with France using them against us. Iraq is another matter. And if you're using "couldn't" in the sense that it's against UN rules, that's a poor choice of words as well. <B>We will play be the UN's rules only as long as it serves our own interests.</B> Up until now, it has served our interests to follow "international law". If that no longer is the case, we will buck the UN, as we have done in the past.

Ah, the irony. Saying and doing what you believe is right, versus buckling under pressure, even if that pressure is coming from the majority. Tell me why again Bush should listen to the UN?

As others have stated before, this issue could test the very legitimacy of the UN. Now I'm not advocating isolationism or ignoring the impact of our actions on the rest of the world. But people keep talking about this or that UN rule as if that's the final say. I'll say it again, when the UN no longer serves our purposes, we'll act on our own.

We have a sitting president who wants regime change in Iraq. The majority of Americans support military action. That means it's gonna happen; it's as simple as that. If we can convince the world that it's in their interest as well, and get them to support us, great. If not, we'll take care of it ourselves.

Yes, I don't remember the exact title of the Library of Congress compilation volumes that contain Senate transcripts. I've given a reasonably accurate description of what they look like, and what they contain. This is the closest you will get to documentary evidence that the US supplied unspecified types of weapons and financial aid to Iraq in the early 80s. It's been several years since I skimmed those volumes, and since I didn't reference them in dissertations or thesis, I can't provide you with the exact data. It's worrying that a Googled link to some newsbite PR source is considered acceptable, whilst actual Senate transcripts that I cannot provide an ISBN or web link for are thought of as insufficient, or outright ridiculed.
I don't understand why you seem to mock the provided proof; unless you provide better evidence that the US did not supply Iraq with weapons, we can safely assume that your ridicule of jaguar's earlier post has been proven to be untrue.

I re-iterate: Senate hearings transcripts, 1982-1983.
You will note how the warmongering was first in order to bring the terrorists to justice, to catch and try Osama bin Laden. Having failed to deal with Osama, the spin machine started focusing on Iraq, and how Iraq was behind much of the terrorist problem. Having spectacularly failed to prove that, the focus moved to Iraq's WMDs, and how he used them against his own people - which was well-known for much of the late 80s and all of the 90s. As a cause was needed, the PR machine focused on the human plight, and on the possible danger for the US from bioweapons, with the justification being that Saddam won't hesitate to use them, since he's 'a maniac.'

Any basic schooling in PR uncovers the zig-zagging methods the US administration is using, 'releasing' information bit by bit to the media, which is eager to lap up any sensationalist PR piece on how the US is about to be wiped out by Saddam's evil weapons.

In the meantime, the genuine cause for the terrorist attacks in 1993 and 2001 - US support for the Saudi dictatorship - remains untouched, for obvious reasons.

That is why it's relevant to the discussion; snapping up whatever spin piece the administration is allowing the media to overhype on any given week doesn't address the fact that the current focus on Iraq is intended to cover up domestic and foreign-policy shortcomings with the one supposedly certain people-pleaser: winning a war, protecting America from Iraq's certain bioweapon attack, and bringing democracy and freedom to the world.

Here is one piece of information that I haven't told you yet, since you seem to be automatically assuming that I am against war in Iraq: I am fully behind an UN intervention in Iraq, under two conditions:

That UN troops are stationed for several decades there, to protect democracy, personal freedoms, and ensure stability. (akin to Germany, after-WW2)

That all other dictatorships in the region are also removed and replaced by democratically elected regimes; with UN troops stationed in force in all those democracies.

If you remove one tumor, but leave all the others intact, the cancer will spread again. Yes, it's the moral duty of the US and UN to go in, and deal with that evil - since I consider dictatorships and murderous dictators to be evil. But the proposed half-fix is an obvious PR ploy, and will cause more evil than good in the region.
1. The last time the US attempted to remove a foreign regime of a non-microscopic nation on another continent without the consent of the UN, it was severely beaten and had to airlift its troops out in shame (and leave its allies to be tortured and brainwashed). This is not to say that the same would happen if the full force of the US came down on Iraq: Iraq is much weaker now than it was in 1990, and it has no nuclear weapons at all, with very few remaining biochem weapons left. It is merely a response to your "we have bucked the UN before" point: that the US has bucked the UN before doesn't mean that the US has been successful in similar endeavours. Thus, you cannot use that as an argument to back up your point and show that the US will do it successfully again, because it hasn't always been been successful previously. (If y relies on x being true in order for y to be true, and if x isn't always true, you cannot claim that y is always true either. QED.) The same logical fallacy is committed in the statement "We have a sitting president who wants regime change in Iraq. The majority of Americans support military action." That there is a will is undoubtable; that there is a way, however, is not. Simple logical mistake, illustrated here: "We have a sitting president who wants illegal hard drug importing/dealing eliminated. The majority of Americans support eliminating importing/dealing hard drugs. (crack, heroin, etc)." I do not equate remove hard drugs with remove Saddam, it is merely a comparison of fallacious logical conclusion-drawing.

2. Bush will not act without considerable UN support (unless there is some cataclysmic domestic event). I stand by that statement. Your quoted words are mostly posturing and sabre-rattling along the lines of "we will do whatever we want to and nobody can stop us." While the barking is very impressive in its own right, you will have to do some biting to back it up. The very second Bush backs up his claims of wanting to remove Saddam by having US troops occupying Baghdad, I will retract my words. Until that very moment, your claims are merely a paper-tiger argument. It's all nice and good to shout about how you'll kick major ass no matter what the UN says, but you need to get on with it, or find another PR angle to the whole affair.

3. Your posting accurately represents why the US has such a bad image overseas. While you may be sneering at the turtleneck-wearing, goateed, bespectacled, smelly French imbeciles who are mocking the US, the US tunnelvision modus operandi is the main cause behind foreign antagonism. I am not criticising the US for acting in such a manner - wanting "to act in whatever way you consider right, and damn the consequences, if you are strong enough to be able to do so", is probably the only natural reaction. I am merely pointing out what the cause is.

Thus, summing up: We are waiting to see how Bush will defy the UN and remove Saddam Hussein without a UN resolution. At that very moment, I will retract my words; until then, your argument must be considered a threat at best, and a delusion of foreign-policy grandeur at worst - until it is proven correct.

I would like to note that all of my points showing the parallels between the 'maniac' Saddam and domestic US policy went unchallenged. No evidence whatsoever has been provided that the US did not supply with a variety of arms during the 1980s. I am more than happy to acknowledge a fellow debater's point, if it is correct, and I am somewhat saddened that people simply choose to ignore truthful statements so their own arguments don't appear weakened by previous perceived 'losses'. Psychology 101, Debating 101, I'd assume.

X.

Then I guess we better get started... OK, Panama -- check. Phillipines -- check. Argentina -- check. Chile -- check. Haiti -- check. Iraq -- pending...

<i>I re-iterate: Senate hearings transcripts, 1982-1983.</i>

Well, thanks for telling me the color of the fucking book, anyway. But I'll check. One question before I go: was it chemical, biological, or nuclear that we gave Hussein?

<i> You will note how the warmongering was first in order to bring the terrorists to justice, to catch and try Osama bin Laden.</i>

Wow. You just -- well, you take my breath away.

Just so we understand, was 9/11 "warmongering" as well, or was that merely on the order of, say, leafletting for a particular cause?

"We don't want you to help out our countries again, especially if they ASK like they did last time. So we're going to fly your planes into your buildings." "Well we're going to hunt you down and kill you, then!" "What? How fucking provocative!"

<i> Having failed to deal with Osama, the spin machine started focusing on Iraq,</i>

Wait, what would that much-ballyhooed "international community" have wanted to do with Osama, if that operation was such a failure?

Oh, I forgot, they were IN on that one. Good WORK guys!

Oh, but let's be fair; they wanted to get Osama, they MISSED and ACCIDENTALLY liberated a country. What a glorious fuckup! Who's gonna be called out on the carpet for this one! We better cover it up quick by starting another war!

<i>Iraq is intended to cover up domestic and foreign-policy shortcomings with the one supposedly certain people-pleaser: winning a war, protecting America from Iraq's certain bioweapon attack, and bringing democracy and freedom to the world.</i>

Right, even Hitler did that.

Er, well except for that democracy and freedom stuff.

Oh, on that idea of "certain" attack: I don't really favor even a 5% chance of a mushroom cloud over my favorite city.

Meanwhile, Bush first mentioned the idea of regime change during the first presidential debate, and started planning the war at a time when his popularity was about 80%.

In fact, when Bush was more popular, the progressive community was accusing him of pushing for war solely on the basis of his political strength.

And one more:

<i>Your posting accurately represents why the US has such a bad image overseas. While you may be sneering at the turtleneck-wearing, goateed, bespectacled, smelly French imbeciles who are mocking the US, the US tunnelvision modus operandi is the main cause behind foreign antagonism.</i>

Right. The Germans can now safely open their borders without worrying about their discos being bombed any longer. The French can lower their guard against the burning of the soon-to-be-rebuilt Israeli embassy, and can snooze through the threat of plans against the Eiffel Tower. The Dutch no longer have to assassinate politicians who talk about the threats of immigration.

Happy anti-Americanism, happy Octoberfest, and happy trying to rebuild your economies after many years of only having to spend 1% on defense!

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Nowhere did I say that a war against Iraq would be successful. I'm merely stating that if we, as a nation, determine it's in our best interest, and we perceive the threat as real enough, the UN becomes relegated to second fiddle.

Don't think that just because I agree with most of Bush's views, that I'm blind to his political tactics. Although I don't buy the "make war in Iraq to cover up troubles at home" line one bit. But as far as how he's gone about building support -- deny repeatedly that military action is being planned (wink, wink); disseminate rhetoric regarding "regime change" and "Axis of evil"; wait for world to decry U.S. unilateral actions; then capitulate to the world body and call for a U.N. resolution while declaring their impotence if they fail to act.

A quote of your I missed earlier:

Yes, they remain opposed to a unilateral American attack. I was referring to military action against Iraq if backed by the U.N.

Sorry you feel entitled to some attaboy's.. UT doesn't have any gold-star smileys, so how about just some regular smileys? Here ya go: :) :D :) :D :) :D

But you still haven't really made a point as far as that goes. What sort of weapons were sold to Iraq in the 80's? If I have my history right, it was in our interest at the time to help Iraq fight the Soviet Union at the time, what with the cold war and all. So we sold some rockets and whatnot to them, maybe even some biological weapons.

That was 20 years ago; the world was a very different place back then (God that makes me feel old). But for us slow folks, please state how any of that has any relevance to whether we should attack Iraq today. No, the U.S. isn't squeaky-clean. What's your point?

Before anything else UT the yahoo story quotes rumsfeld saying that the US sold Hussein chem./bio in 83, try reading. Secondly the Dutch pollie was assassinated by an environmentalist.

I'd deal with the rest but I don't have time this morning.

Tobiasly For crying out loud! Justify an invasion by the use of weapons you gave and authorized their use?! That goes beyond hypocritical.

Well spending 300billion(?) a year sure helped the US, party politics killed the plan to attack Al Queda earlier and a massive military operation has not managed to capture 2 men, but killed a whole lot of others and has done a great job bombing that wedding. Money well spent. Net result? Top Al Queda are still untouchable so bush moves on to a new target.

Oh gee, feel warm and fuzzy now do you? Yea, they went in there with high minded ideas of democracy and liberty first and foremost I’m sure...

You have no concept of international law or politics do you?

See above/ Secondly, why the FUCK would Hussein use WMDs on America of all places? His aspirations are regional for a start. Secondly if he did use them he knows he'd get his ass whipped by the US, Hussein is a survivor, he wants to continue to be so he is not going to go out of his way to justify a war is he. That’s not basic logic now.

Because of the US finds inconvenient to totally ignore international law, the United Nations and the opinion of the international community it gives justification for any other country to do so and undermines if not destroys diplomatic mechanisms designed to avoid war, settles disputes, deal with issues and create forums for international communication. The long term effect of this will be far worse than Hussein having a nuke.

Secondly, no one has explained to me how destabilizing the most volatile region helps the 'war on terror'? It plays right into Al Queda's hands and justifies the hatred of most of the middle east.

Nicaragua, Guatamala, Iran, Colombia, Pakistan, Indonesia -- nada, besides the constant fiscal obligation of Colombia.

<i>He's a maaaniac, maaaaaniaac on the flooor!
And he's dancin' like he never danced before!</i>

I'm not a real librarian, but I play one on the Internet.
 

I'm not allowed to do your research for you, but I'd be pleased to show you where to look. ;)

http://search.loc.gov:8765/query.htm...te+transcripts

<i>Before anything else UT the yahoo story quotes rumsfeld saying that the US sold Hussein chem./bio in 83, try reading.</i>

It bloody well does not.