Presidential Debate

[Den]

Now, I did not watch all of the debate, I was becoming angry with the candidates mud-slinging. But here are a few things I noticed:

1) Bush not standing up strait

2) Both candidates showing far too much emotion

3) Mud-slinging...ugh

4) Too much focus on others faults, and not enough on their plans to better the situation
Opinions?
[right][snapback]56788[/snapback][/right]

Sorry for not reading the entire thread. I just wanted to stop by and see who else was totally uninspired by the debates. Yes, I did think Kerry was trying really hard to not look like a Zombie. Yes, I totally agree with #3 and #4, which is why I could only stomach about 30 mins of it. I'm still un-decided, but I'm leaning toward writing in Nader.

[Jester]

Sure it's possible. It's also possible that the islamo-fascists will decide they have it wrong and quit all this crap leading to a thousand years of peace. If we are going to talk about things that are so remotely possible as to be ubsurd lets be more positive. :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]56872[/snapback][/right]

Okay, well, leaving aside the notion that getting more troops is either physically impossible or incredibly unlikely, which I can't say I really see to be the case, I have to then wonder about a nation of 250 million people, nearly half of whom support the war in Iraq or are "enthusiastic" about Bush's plans there, who can't manage to recruit two measly divisions to serve there.

Why is that, exactly?

Jester

[kandrathe]

That's not what any of us have been saying.  Certainly not me.  The fact is, the US can hurt you in other ways... ever heard of the softwood lumber dispute?  The US is free to break NAFTA or the WTO/GATT any time they like and has demonstrated the will to do so.  Other countries aren't so lucky.
[right][snapback]57149[/snapback][/right]

That is what I'm hearing, but maybe not from you. I don't think the US is the only country to ever break or bend NAFTA or WTO/GAT agreements (see here).

I think those economic and trade problems exist in spite of other geopolitical upheavals like our disagreement about whether Saddam should have remained in power in Iraq, or whether the US should backslide again on international terrorism. Perhaps we should have followed the ineffective policies from the 90's and lobbed a few cruise missiles at random targets and just carried on as if 9/11 never happened.

Canada accounts for 20% of US international trade, Mexico 12%, and Japan 8% and China 9%. All four maintain large trade surpluses with the US, which makes your currency more valuable. Of the four, China is the biggest problem in that they do not allow their exchange rate to fluxuate with the market. They keep their goods artificially cheap to foreign markets, which is a factor in driving up the US trade decifit. I think there are a few upsides for being partners and allies of the US, so quit kicking us.

We understand about green house gases, and we are making changes to clean up automobilie exhaust and smoke stacks. We understand about free trade and subsidies, but we also have alot of internal pressure to save farming and save steel workers jobs. But, we are also a colossus that can at times appear to unthinkingly squash our smaller friends, and doubly so when our national interest is at stake.

If you understand what drives this juggernaut, then you would see that much of what the US does (as any nation would) is really to protect and perpetuate itself. My opinion is that the people of the US should do more to conserve and recycle, and that would reduce some of the international pressure on places that supply key strategic minerals. Not that those places would be any better to live in, only that the US wouldn't be as likely to need to get involved. If Iraq or Afghanistan were merely deserts, we wouldn't need to get involved. We might have been content to endlessly scold them as some of the other security council members.

{ I watched this guy on CSPAN today so I've got Iraq on my mind}

Some people think we are driven by greed, and perhaps some US corporations or politicians are that morally bankrupt. But, my sincere opinion is that since Iraq had the means and the will to divert their wealth into weapons to destroy us, then we had to get involved to prevent that. It appears now that we were early in needing to preempt that perceived threat, but we tilted at that windmill anyway. We broke it, and now we are stuck rebuilding it.

[Taem]

Some people think we are driven by greed, and perhaps some US corporations or politicians are that morally bankrupt.  But, my sincere opinion is that since Iraq had the means and the will to divert their wealth into weapons to destroy us, then we had to get involved to prevent that.  It appears now that we were early in needing to preempt that perceived threat, but we tilted at that windmill anyway.  We broke it, and now we are stuck rebuilding it.
[right][snapback]57229[/snapback][/right]

EDIT - I realized after posting this that it’s quite a bit off-topic, and that Kandrathe definitely didn't mean what I quoted in the context I put it in and I apologize for that. I fact, I think he was saying the same thing I am more or less, that America was a little quick to rush into the war, however he feels compelled to believe the war was neccessary to remove Sadam, whereas I disagree wholeheartedly.

I'm sorry? Excuse me but maybe I'm missing something along the lines of they had no weapons of mass destruction. Just because a country has a "means" to an end is no reason to invade them. If that were the case then other countries would be invading the USA all the time. Not to mention, IF that were the case as justification to why we invaded Iraq, then why haven't we invaded other countries with even more means, such as Korea or Pakistan? Give me a break! I respect you kandrathe, but that logic just makes me sick!

You should read current events:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

Here’s my two favorite parts:

WASHINGTON - Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 U.S. lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he had found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability weakened, not grew, during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, said Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Bush made the case
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech Aug. 26, 2002, 6½ months before the invasion. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

The president made similar charges, laying out what he described as Iraq’s threat in a speech on Oct. 7, 2002:

• 
  <>
  
• “It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
  
  <>
  
• “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
  
  <>
  
• “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. “
  
  <>
  [st]
  
  Instead, U.S. inspectors found only limited signs of the banned weapons after the active fighting ended. Among the findings:
  
  • 
    <>
    
  • A single artillery shell from Saddam’s pre-1991 stockpile was filled with two chemicals that, when mixed while the shell was in flight, would have created sarin. U.S. forces learned of it only when insurgents, apparently believing it was filled with conventional explosives, tried to detonate it as a roadside bomb in May in Baghdad. Two U.S. soldiers suffered from symptoms of low-level exposure to the nerve agent.
    
    <>
    
  • Another old artillery shell, also rigged as a bomb and found in May, showed signs that it once contained mustard agent.
    
    <>
    
  • Two small rocket warheads, turned over to Polish troops by an informer, showed signs that they once were filled with sarin.
    
    <>
    
  • Centrifuge parts were found buried in a former nuclear scientist’s garden in Baghdad. These were part of Saddam’s pre-1991 nuclear program, which was dismantled after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The scientist also had centrifuge design documents.
    
    <>
    
  • A vial of live botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, was found in another scientist’s refrigerator. The scientist said it had been there since 1993.
    
    <>
    
  • Evidence emerged of advanced design work on a liquid-propellant missile with ranges of up to 620 miles. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had been prohibited from having missiles with ranges longer than 93 miles.
    
    <>
    [st]

[eppie]

Doc,

Your analysis may be fair enough.&nbsp; I, like Nico, have no idea.&nbsp; However, that being said, I can't see him being any dirtier than Captain Haliburton over on the other side...
[right][snapback]57055[/snapback][/right]

True thing, I think nobody is.....

[eppie]

I'm looking forward to the next debate. And I sure hope Kerry will not be too sweet with Bush.

In recent days we saw Tony Blair say that Iraq did not have WMDs. Donald Rumsfeld say that there was no evidence whatsoever of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam (he later took this back via a written statement....please make up your mind). And last, the head of the CIA weapons inspections in Iraq, say that there were no WMDs in Iraq. But (and this is funny) if Saddam would get th chance he would have like to start up his weapons programm again, and might threaten the US.

(Kandrathe you for sure have some link which says I took things out of context :D
(friendly joke))

So let's make things clear now. Democrats and republicans alike as well as europeans are happy that Saddam is gone, no doubt about that. So is it likely that Bush starts using that argument in the next debate?? And will he finally apologize, for all the lies. I mean this is Watergate to the power 10.

[kandrathe]

...And will he finally apologize, for all the lies. I mean this is Watergate to the power 10.
[right][snapback]57235[/snapback][/right]

In my best Inigo Montoya accent, "I don't think that word means what you think it does." :) Watergate involved the criminal breaking and entering of a psychologists office by the Presidents men at his direction to plant illegal wiretapping equipment so that he could dig up dirt on his political opponents. This is no Watergate, and this war is no Vietnam. If I tell you I believe something to be true, and then later find out I was wrong, was I lying to you?

I think there was a political expediency in presenting the worst possible case againt Saddam, to try to form the broadest possible support for an action that was distasteful, yet neccesary. Unfortunately, the repercussions are that now people, such as yourself, can refer back to errors in that "case" against Saddam and recriminate the speakers. Some of that is justified. WMD as a case for Iraq is analogous as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was to Vietnam. In retrospect, the fervor for a resolution to the situation was already there. But, there lacked a clear reason to commit to the endeavor.

I think if this war was linked to fighting the global war on terrorism, then that linkage needed to be made clearer. What is hard to do is to imagine what the world would be facing now if Saddam had not been ousted. UN Sanctions, corrupted, failed and lifted, a possible nest for Zarqawi's group in league with Iraqi Intelligence, and the renewal of WMD research and development.

We all know that this toilet needed cleaning, but nobody wanted to get dirty. Unfortunately, there are other cesspools waiting for our attention. Hopefully, if we show some resolve in cleaning up this one, some of the others might get the hint and clean up their own messes.

I found this book interesting.

Amazon.com
From its opening-line salvo—"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world"—Of Paradise and Power announces a new phase in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Robert Kagan begins this illuminating essay by laying out the general differences as he sees them: the U.S. is quicker to use military force, less patient with diplomacy, and more willing to coerce (or bribe) other nations in order to get a desired result. Europe, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on diplomacy, takes a much longer view of history and problem solving, and has greater faith in international law and cooperation. Kagan does not view these differences as the result of innate national character, but as a time-honored historical reality--the U.S. is merely behaving like the powerful nation it is, just as the great European nations once did when they ruled the world. Now, Europe must act multilaterally because it has no choice. The "UN Security Council is a substitute for the power they lack," he writes.

Kagan also emphasizes the inherent ironies present in the relationship. European nations have enjoyed an "American security guarantee" for nearly 60 years, allowing them to cut back on defense spending while criticizing the U.S. for not doing the same. Yet Europe relies upon the U.S. for protection. This has led America and Europe to view the same threats much differently, as evidenced by the split over how to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Kagan points out that some European leaders are more afraid of how the U.S. will wield its power in the Middle East than they are of the thought of Hussein or other "rogue state" leaders acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Kagan’s brevity is as impressive as it is appreciated; most writers would have required thrice as many pages to get to their point. At any length, the book is nothing short of brilliant. This is essential reading for those seeking to understand the post-Cold War world. --Shawn Carkonen

Similiarly, I've stated this in the Lounge before that in hindsight perhaps Vietnam as a proxy war was the venting of pressure that was needed to defuse the real war between the US and the Soviets. In the end, both sides can claim a pyrrhic victory. The Soviets invested heavily to get their puppet regime in place in Vietnam, and within a decade the US saw the end of the Soviet Union. Only the respective sides soldiers and the people of proxy nation end up with the suffering.

[kandrathe]

In my opinion, trashing any nation is idiotic. People have opinions, and some of them matter more than others. Sometimes they reflect your beliefs, but mostly they don't. You and I have very little in common with the millionaire "... sissy pants nancy boys" who run things in DC. I would suspect that it is the same for most people in the world.

[kandrathe]

EDIT - I realized after posting this that it’s quite a bit off-topic, and that Kandrathe definitely didn't mean what I quoted in the context I put it in and I apologize for that.&nbsp; I fact, I think he was saying the same thing I am more or less, that America was a little quick to rush into the war, however he feels compelled to believe the war was neccessary to remove Sadam, whereas I disagree wholeheartedly.

I'm sorry?&nbsp; Excuse me but maybe I'm missing something along the lines of they had no weapons of mass destruction.&nbsp; Just because a country has a "means" to an end is no reason to invade them.&nbsp; If that were the case then other countries would be invading the USA all the time.&nbsp; Not to mention, IF that were the case as justification to why we invaded Iraq, then why haven't we invaded other countries with even more means, such as Korea or Pakistan?&nbsp; Give me a break!&nbsp; I respect you kandrathe, but that logic just makes me sick!
[right][snapback]57230[/snapback][/right]

Set the wayback machine to 1998, Mr. Peabody. Read this. Now consider what Al Queda was able to do the the US without state sponsorship. Iraq and 9/11 were not linked, and even if you believe that Iraq and Al Queda were not linked, the prospect of a State sponsoring a global jihadist organization was chilling. But, a WMD capable State sponsorship of a global jihadist organization was unthinkable. North Korea sells weapons to anyone with cash, and that is a problem. They are not at war with the US, and if anything are petrified now that their bigger brother USSR is not around anymore to intervene. Pakistan has problems with India, mostly over Cashmere, and not us. No, you need to look at who is threatening us. Which nations?

Then consider what Bush said last night in Pennsylvania;

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger: the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder.&nbsp; We had to take a hard look at everyplace where terrorists might get those weapons and one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.&nbsp; We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America. He was listed by Republican and Democrat administrations as a state sponsor of terrorists. There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks.&nbsp; In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.&nbsp; After 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions, we gave him a final chance to come clean and listen to the demands of the free world.

You should read current events:&nbsp; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

You should read the source, not what NBC wants you to hear. {BTW -- I watched it on CSPAN didn't feel I needed the MSNBC abbreviated version}

What makes me sick is how those nations and individuals who eroded the sanctions on Iraq are not held to account for bringing about this chain of events. How can we have any faith in the UN if their only "tool" can be so easily corrupted and bribed. I would have been with everyone else who wanted to stick with sanctions, if they had any teeth. But, after 1998, they were only a paper tiger.

[NuurAbSaal]

The sad thing is, people in good ol' Europe aren't a lot different from the "ignorant masses" in America. Super-arrogant as it may sound, a hefty percentage of any population are just, well, "uneducated" (used to avoid the word dumb). Sounds really arrogant, but take a look around your country. Ignorance reigns supreme, apparantly it really is bliss to some :( . This is not meant as a self-glorifiying "I so smart" comment. I assume that we, who post on an internet forum of considerable standards, more or less were all treated to some kind of higher education and live in circumstances that don't inhibit our ability to "learn". We are lucky.

Now, the fact that not everybody has an IQ of 170, knows the history of all countries of the world or speaks fifteen languages wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for politicians of all colors (read: from left to right) exploiting that fact and feeding a large amount of bull**** to the people. I expect this to be much the same in any country and in most forms of government. I do in fact believe that xenophobia or nationalist chauvinism, two things I deeply despise (as will all of you fellow lurkers), could be nigh eradicated from the face of the earth if enough people had the will and, more importantly, the opportunity to educate themselves. This raises of course the question about the availability and integrity of qualified teachers. The answer to this problem: education!. Meh, going in circles...


If the educational system in the United States is really as bad as you say (I heard some pretty scary stories about it, a multiple choice history test which asked about the century WWII took place in, iirc for students aged 15 or 16, hard to believe this could be true) it's really sad that we here in Europe, with our supposedly superior educational system still have such a large amount of ignorance and stupidity.


Sorry, I am in a dark mood today.

Nuur

[kandrathe]

...
If the educational system in the United States is really as bad as you say (I heard some pretty scary stories about it, a multiple choice history test which asked about the century WWII took place in, iirc for students aged 15 or 16, hard to believe this could be true) it's really sad that we here in Europe, with our supposedly superior educational system still have such a large amount of ignorance and stupidity.
Sorry, I am in a dark mood today.

Nuur
[right][snapback]57240[/snapback][/right]

You tend to only hear about the outrageous stuff. After the Kennedy "We will go to the moon", hype and cold war competitiveness waned, there was a period where the answer to educational equality was a lowest common denominator. If too many people were failing a subject, the answer was to make the tests easier. I think that malaise was undone about a decade ago, and now our grade schoolers bring home at least an hours worth of homework each evening. But, not everywhere.

[Armin]

Watergate involved the criminal breaking and entering of a psychologists office by the Presidents men at his direction to plant illegal wiretapping equipment so that he could dig up dirt on his political opponents. This is no Watergate

Too true. No one was hurt and certainly nobody killed in hotel Watergate...

More than 1000 US and coalition soldiers and in excess of 37000 Iraqi people (many, if not most, of them civilians) were killed since the invasion began. Watergate was NOTHING compared to THIS crime.

If I tell you I believe something to be true, and then later find out I was wrong, was I lying to you?

Absolutely, especially if, only a few months before, you had miracuously known the exact OPPOSITE to be true:

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. [source: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm]"

It's not exactly coming from some leftist acivist, right? The bloody secretary of state KNEW - half a year before 9/11 - that Iraq had NO WMD and posed no military threat to it's neighbors - let alone the US.

Also:

The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

Just FYI: David Kay is neither French, nor German or from some other cowardly "old Europe" nation :P

And that it was the Bush admin that demanded links between Iraq and Al Quaeda and evidence about WMDs produced from it's CIA advisors, not vice versa, the poor ignorant government believing what they were told. Just one of many articles: http://antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=1839
There are dozens of statements out by former CIA analysts and associated experts about the huge amount of pressure they were under. Pressure to come up with something in the first place. Who believed what and why?

Come on, this is so BLATANTLY obvious...

I think if this war was linked to fighting the global war on terrorism, then that linkage needed to be made clearer

Uh-huh...
Like, for instance, making clear that Saddam's Baath party was a secular militarily oriented regime (once actually a socialist party) that SUPPRESSED religious fundamentalists in Iraq everywhere? That actually KILLED islamistic avtivists in Iraq by the hundreds? That was hated and despised by the Shiite clergy in Iran and the Shiite population in Iraq? That had NO common ground whatsoever with Al Quaeda and other islamistic terror organisations but a common hatred of America and the West?

And, also rarely mentioned, the fact that Saddam was mainly mad at his former ally, the US, for first diplomatically greenlighting his Kuwait adventure and then, at the demand of their more important Saudi allies, turning coat and starting the first Gulf war...
Should that be made clearer?

We all know that this toilet needed cleaning, but nobody wanted to get dirty

And, conveniently, ignore the fact that it was the US and it's allies that, once again, had created the toilet in the first place. That Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had funded Saddam's war against Iran while Iran was still the great devil, that American military advisors had supported Iraqi troops, that the US even provided help in acquiring weapons and military intelligence (even satellite imagery) to aid Saddam's war effort. And that the technology for Saddams WMD he actually - back then in the 1980's - used against Iranian troops (and later the Kurd minority in his own country) had been developed with American aid.
But the audience in the US gasped in shock when Oprah showed the picture of a certain Mr. Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein... come on, this has been common knowledge.

Unfortunately, there are other cesspools waiting for our attention.

And that's what the world is afraid of...

Well, at least *I* can breathe in relief. Concindentially, the second largest untapped reserve of crude oil in the world is under Iraq, not under the Black Forest where I live ;)

[kandrathe]

Absolutely, especially if, only a few months before, you had miracuously known the exact OPPOSITE to be true:

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. [source: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm]"

It's not exactly coming from some leftist acivist, right? The bloody secretary of state KNEW - half a year before 9/11 - that Iraq had NO WMD and posed no military threat to it's neighbors - let alone the US.

My opinion has not changed on that either. It was the weakest evidence and reason to attack Saddam. The best and clearest reason was his failure to abide the armistice he signed in 1991.

Also:The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

Just FYI: David Kay is neither French, nor German or from some other cowardly "old Europe" nation&nbsp; :P

Ah, media spin. From the Scotsmen: David Kay: Blair and Bush 'Should Have Realised Pre-War Truth on Wmd' Again, I wasn't sure based on what Iraq was not doing, but I didn't think their WMD capabilities were a threat if they stayed in Iraq.

Come on, this is so BLATANTLY obvious...
Uh-huh...
Like, for instance, making clear that Saddam's Baath party was a secular militarily oriented regime (once actually a socialist party) that SUPPRESSED religious fundamentalists in Iraq everywhere? That actually KILLED islamistic avtivists in Iraq by the hundreds? That was hated and despised by the Shiite clergy in Iran and the Shiite population in Iraq? That had NO common ground whatsoever with Al Quaeda and other islamistic terror organisations but a common hatred of America and the West?

Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton blasted the mainstream press yesterday for distorting the Commission's findings on links between Iraq and al Qaida before the Sept. 11 attacks, saying those findings actually support Bush administration contentions.&nbsp; "The sharp differences that the press has drawn [between the White House and the Commission] are not that apparent to me," Hamilton told the Associated Press, a day after insisting that his probe uncovered "all kinds" of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq.

And, also rarely mentioned, the fact that Saddam was mainly mad at his former ally, the US, for first diplomatically greenlighting his Kuwait adventure and then, at the demand of their more important Saudi allies, turning coat and starting the first Gulf war...
Should that be made clearer?
And, conveniently, ignore the fact that it was the US and it's allies that, once again, had created the toilet in the first place. That Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had funded Saddam's war against Iran while Iran was still the great devil, that American military advisors had supported Iraqi troops, that the US even provided help in acquiring weapons and military intelligence (even satellite imagery) to aid Saddam's war effort. And that the technology for Saddams WMD he actually - back then in the 1980's - used against Iranian troops (and later the Kurd minority in his own country) had been developed with American aid.
But the audience in the US gasped in shock when Oprah showed the picture of a certain Mr. Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein... come on, this has been common knowledge.
And that's what the world is afraid of...

Well, at least *I* can breathe in relief. Concindentially, the second largest untapped reserve of crude oil in the world is under Iraq, not under the Black Forest where I live&nbsp; ;)

Well, if we are all coming clean then... Who sold Iraq the chemicals and supplied him with much of his nuclear and missile capabilities? There is enough mud for all of us.

[Armin]

Well, if we are all coming clean then...&nbsp; Who sold Iraq the chemicals and supplied him with much of his nuclear and missile capabilities?&nbsp; There is enough mud for all of us.
[right][snapback]57243[/snapback][/right]

Oh, certainly. I wouldn't dream of claiming that German corporate greed, unscrupulous behaviour, or downright criminal intent is any less severe than American... or French, or British or ANY for that matter B)

And I won't claim that In Germany the large corporations have gained that much less influence in politics lately. or that German politicians have become less corrupt and powerless or less corporate-controlled puppets than elsewhere (though Captain Haliburton still tops THAT department I guess ;) ). Actually, I'm active against these developments here, and there'll be a new party founded in November to fight it... ;)

It's true, there's really very little moral high ground to claim. The only small sheet of paper we could probably step on remains the fact, that WE did not invade a foreign country (at least lately :P ) to find WMDs that we sold them in the first place...

But the fact that other governments are almost as bad, corrupt, criminal or lying should not be the reason to let Bush and his puppeteers in office <_<

[kandrathe]

...though Captain Haliburton still tops THAT department I guess ...[right][snapback]57246[/snapback][/right]

You make these quips as if I'm supposed to understand them. Maybe you hang out with the anti-US and anti-Bush crowd, but I'm guessing you are taking a jab at our Vice President, Dick Cheney. You know until recent changes requiring executives to validate corporate SEC filings, CEO was pretty much a ceremonial position reserved for politicos and as a reward for cronies.

Sure there is some controversy. Haliburton and KBR both seem to be run pretty poorly and dance on the edge of lawlessness. I'm not sure why Cheney would taint himself by trying to run that bunch of cowboys.

[Armin]

While posting links try this one:

http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

I'm not really into conspiracy theories myself (personally, I think that almost ALL governments worldwide are WAY too bloody stupid to pull off a good conspiracy :P ), but there's a few folks who believe that this article contains the true motivation behind the Invasion... :ph34r:

[Chaerophon]

From the concluding remarks:

we are the only large industry which has not been politically influential.

:blink: :rolleyes:

[kandrathe]

While posting links try this one:

http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

I'm not really into conspiracy theories myself (personally, I think that almost ALL governments worldwide are WAY too bloody stupid to pull off a good conspiracy&nbsp; :P ), but there's a few folks who believe that this article contains the true motivation behind the Invasion...&nbsp; :ph34r:
[right][snapback]57254[/snapback][/right]

Well, I agree in a backward way. I think the US would accept Iraq as an oil producing nation if they diverted that wealth solely toward things that improved the lives of Iraqi's or maintained the stability of the middle east. But, Saddam grew beyond the upstart Tikriti thug we and others propped up as a bulwark against evil Iran. He started to have delusions to extend his empire, to become another Nasser. Once we lost control of our Frankenstein, we had no choice but to destroy it. It would compound the earlier evil to leave him to his wiles, to threaten his neighbors, to become a threat by delivery of WMD via Al Samoud 2 to the region. Oil gave Saddam the wealth to pursue this goal, and so yes, oil is partly what this war is about. And, I will accept that there may be greedy Exxon executives that are deviously conspiring on how they can get their hands into that pie. I just don't think that complicity would involve enough elected officials to covertly compromise the US Executive and Legislative branches of government without a leak. You are right in that there is too much in-fighting and incompetence to keep it a secret.

[Medicine Man]

I think if this war was linked to fighting the global war on terrorism, then that linkage needed to be made clearer.&nbsp; What is hard to do is to imagine what the world would be facing now if Saddam had not been ousted.&nbsp; UN Sanctions, corrupted, failed and lifted, a possible nest for Zarqawi's group in league with Iraqi Intelligence, and the renewal of WMD research and development.
[right][snapback]57236[/snapback][/right]

Emphasis is mine.

I have to dispute just one thing in this statement. Any idea that there was going to be cooperation between Zarqawi, Bin Laden or any other fundamentalist movement and Saddam Hussein is complete fantasy. The alleged links between the two have been discredited many times in print and recently have been refuted in the media as well -- by some of the people who pushed the whole theory in the first place, no less. Additionly, a Saddam-Al Qaida partnership was wildly implausible to begin with. Saddam, monster that he was, was nevertheless an obstacle to the express goals of Al-Qaida -- the foremost of which is the overthrow of secular governments in the Middle East. The Butcher of Bagdad was unlikely to provide advanced killing tools to his enemies.

My opinion: Removing Saddam was one of the undisputedly good things that has come from this invasion. The other is the removal of international sanctions on Iraq. Unfortunately, both of these benefits will be a cold comfort to the US if the country ends up paying the price for the Administration's sloppy execution of the post-war occupation.

[Minionman]

Okay, well, leaving aside the notion that getting more troops is either physically impossible or incredibly unlikely, which I can't say I really see to be the case, I have to then wonder about a nation of 250 million people, nearly half of whom support the war in Iraq or are "enthusiastic" about Bush's plans there, who can't manage to recruit two measly divisions to serve there.

Why is that, exactly?

Jester
[right][snapback]57225[/snapback][/right]

Now it's more like 300 million. I guess this is an example of people talking stronger opinions than they act on, which they do for a lot of issues.