Pro-War Anti-Bush
 

Alright, I am with GA on the fact that the term pro-war brings some less than pleasant images to mind, however for the sake of this post I'm going to use it.

How many of you are pro-war but anti-Bush and why?

I think it would be interesting to see some of the responses from this group. Those on the middle ground are rarely heard from. You will always see the extremes simply because they are extreme.

War is good but Bush isn't doing it for the reasons he should be. He's just avenging his daddy and not to drop the UN sanctions and put Saddam to end for his tyranny.

Bush is making war undefensible 8)

i think we need a new law that folks running for president should have zero reports of awol, zero dui's, and an IQ over 70 ..yah ya, i know some object to IQ.. i'm stooping pretty low there.. :/
open debates would be sufficient.

I think a lot of the world might be at least war ammenable if they weren't so adamantly anti Bush.

Look at the coalition his father assembled. Do Bush supporters just think the whole world has gotten more disagreeable since then?

doesnt that seem a bit petty to you?

I'm definitely anti-Bush. He's an idiot.

I was very much anti-war, pro-inspection until the war started. I support the cause of removing Saddam. I never liked him. I'm actually quite on the fence now that the war has started. It's just hard to swallow the hypocrisy. The US supports equally horrible dictators who are friendly to US interests and support capitalism. The US topples democratic governments with socialist or communist leanings. It's an incredibly shitty thing. If I thought the purpose of this action was to remove a cruel dictator and bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, I'd support it wholeheartedly. It's just hard to believe given history. I'm sure we'll just install another pro-US puppet government and let US corporations come in and plunder the wealth of the nation. I can't condone that.

I think it's more like war is a car, and Bush is the guy driving it. A lot of people feel like he's swerving across the road and bending the laws of traffic a bit too much, so they don't want to get in the car with him.

but what if he is driving in accordance with american laws, but everybody else is foreign so they dont even know which side of the road they are supposed to be on? and what if he is swerving to hit a dog that is trying to kill a small child?

What if the dog was filled with oil?

Why do we keep coming back to the dog metaphors?
________
Vaporizer Wiki

When we proposing we go to war, I was against it. But now that we are actually in Iraq, it is far too late to turn back and try diplomacy now. I think we should have exhausted all other options before even considering attacking, but now that Bush has eagerly thrown us into the situation, we have no choice but to finish.

I suppose that could be considered being "pro-war".

because the dog is appropriate.

it doesnt matter if the dog is full of oil or not, the kid is the number one priority.

besides, saddam isnt full of oil

I think everyone is well aware of my stance on Bush, I've compared him unfavourably with Grant, Taft and Clinton who are each shining examples of what not to be when you grow up. But considering my idea of a President is embodied in men like Washington, Madison, Jackson and Truman. . .My views are by no means popular.

In regards to Iraq. The United Nations was founded on the ideal that war was an out-dated method of statesmanship. According to our Western culture, diplomatic means must be exhausted before war should ever be considered. After all, war is a grave and far reaching horror, and we would live in dark times indeed when it becomes the first of all possible solutions proposed. Yet diplomacy is the reasonable solution to reasonable problems. When the problem is unreasonable, unreasonable solutions are required and that translates into war.

War, once embraced, should never be judged against its possible benefits. The Federalist Papers described the only types of war which should be fought as just wars. Wars which must be waged in order to ultimately save lives, liberate others from tyranny, to enforce treatise brokered by the United States and broken by another.

Do Iraqi's live under tyranny? Unquestionably. Is it the United State's responsibility to liberate them? No. We have not been asked to do so by the citizens of the Iraqi Republic, who have the sole power of dethrowning the sovereign power emplaced. Furthermore, the Iraqi's government has not broken any treatise with the US. The post war accord was signed with the UN, and unless we have chosen to replace the will of the UN with our own, it is not for us to enforce it through use of arms.

So why do I support the war? Because ultimately it will save lives. It will save the lives of countless Kurds who would otherwise be forced to struggle for mere existance - And if anyone doubts this, take a look at the language used when chastising Turkey for their threat of invasion, and you'll see we were willing to lose a valuable ally to protect what amounts to a miniscule minority. It will save the lives of Iraqi citizens wracked with oppression and starvation because Hussein cared more for building his own power base than he did for meeting the needs of his people. This, I believe, is the ultimate rationale for a just war. I only wish the man who was leading us into it was just himself.

So, let me get this straight. If an oil-filled dog bites a kid, we should run it over with a car? Or do we light the dog on fire? This new approach to foreign policy is strange to me. :(
________
College hottie does a mean strip dance

we should indeed run it over with a car, a car of AMERICAN JUSTICE driven by none other than SUPER BUSH.

if we set the dog on fire we are no better than...the dog i guess.

The Kurds were actually doing quite well before this war started. They were (and hopefully still are) protected by American and British flyovers, their economy was going pretty well (even with some disposable income), and they had a semi-autonomous democratic providence. I hope to God that this war doesn't change that.

I read a good editorial a while ago (from the New York Times, I believe) about how Bush and Blair should switch roles. Blair should be the "talk to the world guy" and Bush should be the "occassionally opens his mouth guy."

Why? Because Blair is much smarter than Bush, and actually sounds visionary, whereas Bush stutters and avoids questions repeats the same thing over and over in several different ways. There would probably be much more support for the war in Iraq if it appeared as if it were a British-led initiative with the U.S. just acting as a hired goon rather than the current situation, which is the reverse.

nobody would buy into it chimp, at this point the US would never play second fiddle to the UK.

You ignorant little shit. You want to go head to head with me? Lets see what's happened since the Genocide of '88 and how well off those people are today.

October 22, 1988 - Genocidal war waged upon Kurds by Iraq. Estimates of the total number of persons killed vary between 50,000 and 100,000,2 but may be as high as 182,000.

-figures per The Safe Haven in Northern Iraq, Helena Cook, 1995, p.112

March 21, 1995 - Nerve Agent used by Iraq against Kurdish population

March 18, 2003 - Tens of thousands fled towns and urban centers throughout northern Iraq fearing that Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons in a war that seemed inevitable.

. . .

Yeah they were doing real fucking well. Why don't you check out the headlines for the past few years here:

http://www.intellnet.org/news/?type=...ry&value=Kurds

They have been living in fear of an invasion from either the Turks of the Iraqi's since before Bush took office.

.02 cents
 

I disagre that every option short of war was not exercised. I believe it was. I believe diplomacy ran it's course.

HOWEVER, I will readily agree that the methods used towards that end were flawed and ineffective. I would not consider myself pro-Bush. I believe however that anyone who thinks this is "Bush's War" quite frankly has ignored history. War in Iraq as far as I am concerned has been a foregone conclusion for quite some time (i.e. years). If not this administration, some subsequent administration.

I will readily accept fair criticisms of Bush's diplomatic efforts. I think such criticisms are easily justifiable. I believe this administration did a piss poor job of explaing why this war was necessary, and have lost much public support as a result. I honestly believe that Americans wanted this war, if it could clearly be justified. This is not an unwarranted attack on an innocent nation. This is one that, had things been presented perhaps with a bit more tact and civility, wouldn't have been so hard to justify. I think this same process under a different leader with a less abrassive approach may have yeilded different results.

Achimp, I think you're absolutely right. I think Blair has a certain style and charisma that people are willing to follow, even if they don't agree 100% with his position. Bush, on the other hand, is the guy you can't help but not like.

Look you dumb fuck, do really think I didnt know about the campaigns against the Kurds? I know a FUCK of a lot more about the gassings than you probably do. The latest headline was right before the war began. Of fucking course they would flee!

Need I point out to you that the one before they fled the oncoming war was SEVEN YEARS AGO?

Asshole. I never fucking claimed Kurdistan was a paradise. I just said it wasn't as bad off you made it sound. ("struggle for mere existance")

And if you think that the Kurds have any reason to trust us, think again, asshole.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...0124_reza.html

Quote:

Well, [the Kurds] want to get out of Saddam's hands for sure. But they have not forgotten the U.S. betrayal of their fate in 1990 during the Gulf War. U.S. officials encouraged the Kurds to rebel and get rid of Saddam. They gave guaranties to the Kurds. When the Kurds started a rebellion, the U.S. had done another deal… The Kurds were left alone, and the Iraqi army attacked and crushed them. There was a massive and tragic exodus to the north involving hundreds of thousands of Kurds during a cold winter. Thousands of children and elderly people died on the road. That still is in their mind. The Iraqi army also massacred and arrested people—180,000 males between 15 and 60 simply disappeared… All these stories are alive in the mind of the people.

Here is what Kurdistan was like as of 2002:
http://www.krg.org/docs/articles/pop...ake-saddam.asp

Wow, you are a silly piece of shit. I cited three for a reeson. The one from eighty eight is probably the most well known (althouth Iraqi violence against the Kurds actually began prior to 1970), and one from now because its up-ta-date, and, since there is a gap of fifteen years I chose a year mid way (1995 is just about the middle) to illustrate that the problem was ongoing. It wasn't a lack of information, it was a lack of interest.

You want a fucking year by year blow of whats been going on? Well, maybe Howard Cosell might've obliged you by writing one, but I certainly won't. Click the link you stupid bitch. There is one right there

Well, there's no way that they could switch roles now, but it should have been that way from the beginning.

As GA pointed out, Blair has a style and charisma that people like and respect, despite not necessarily agreeing with him. He also appeals everyone because he talks about "making the world a better place" for everyone, not just "making sure Americans everywhere are safe."

Really, that's probably the biggest problem that the vast majority of the countries around the world are having with the U.S.'s war right now. Sure, Bush has said "it'll be good for all of us afterwards," but it seems like his speechwriters tapped him on the shoulder and reminded him to say that as an afterthought, whereas Blair has been preaching it from the beginning.

I mean, here in Canada, everyone is thinking, "Great. The U.S. will be protected, but our army sucks, so what about us?" I'm sure the sentiments are the exact same in Europe and elsewhere.

Shooting your mouth off at the UN and basically saying that you don't need anyone's permission to fight someone doesn't earn you points either. The U.S. turned down Canada's proposed compromise deal without a single glance, whereas the British actually supported it.

Blair is a much better statesman. He knows how to get allies on his side and addresses their concerns rather than brushing them aside. Bush just thinks everyone will follow because of how often he's told them that he's right.

The earliest one on there is from 2000. I don't see anything earlier.

Like I said, it was far from perfect in Kurdistan before the war, but it wasn't as bad as you apparently want it to sound. Now that this war is going on, all the progress the Kurds made is probably going to be undermined.

Did you even fucking bother to look at the links I posted?

"doesnt that seem a bit petty to you?"
-Eye Tie

Not in the least. There are arguable reasosn for this War. They are given lip service by Bush, but the perception (and I think it's correct) is that his reasons are more a part of a strategy and worlkd view thats tarted prior to 9/11 that points to Bush thinking he is the leader of the world and not just America.

He appears more intent on proving his right to invade another country based upon percieved future threats, and that's something other leaders (even many of our allies) see as dangerous. They see Bush as a man who wants to establish American Hegemony on a global scale and who sees everyone on earth as with us (and subservient) or against us.

Ask yourself why if everything Bush is saying really equals 'proof' of his case, W's father was able to asemble a coalition with full UN backing and W can't.

A lot of World leaders and their citizens see W's policy goals as in tghe long term more dangerous than one nasty little dictator of an impoverished country.