Presidency 101 – Global Test
[Via eclecticism, Atrios]…
The “Global Test”
Via eclecticism, Atrios.
The Global Test
The Global Test (via Photomatt)…
Chet you should try to watch something else than fox news. Or maybe give proof of what you call ‘many ties to terrorism’? This does not mean anything, you are just talking like Bush, without any proof of what you are saying.
It’s naive to think the US (well, actually that president you have) went to Irak for freedom and democracy. You can’t implement democracy by making war. Just as stupid as making love to be a virgin.
Bon courage !!
What proof does one need for Saddam’s many ties to terrorism? I put together one set of links between Osama and Saddam last year. Perhaps you are unaware of his Annual Terrorist Conferences. That doesn’t even address things like his publicly-avowed support of Hamas bombers.
And as to your point, “You can’t implement democracy by making war.” Barring WWII, would Germany, Italy and Japan be democracies today? Would John Kerry’s adopted homeland of France have thrown off the yoke of Nazi oppression? Were Washington, Jefferson and the others wrong to take up arms against their rightful monarchial rulers?
Perhaps you should try reading a book sometime, or at least tune in to the History Channel.
Oh yes, it was because Saddam had many ties to terrorism. Bush is even in a war against terrorism! And who did he choose to ally himself with to fight this war?
The answer: none other than Pakistan, the country which sponsors 90% of the terrorism in Kashmir.
Somehow Links between Saddam’s Iraq and terrorism didn’t come out as I intended.
I’d recommend following foreign relations articles in addition to the History channel–the North Korean situation was stable, Bush said, hell no we’re going to rid them of all their nuke ability, did nothing when NK started it up (because he didn’t want the Clinton-era agreements, which had kept the NK threat low), and now NK is an active threat.
What a stubborn amateur.
North Korea was stable? I guess that depends on what your definition of stable is. The Clinton Administration was forced into an agreement by their answer to Neville Chamberlain, Jimmy Carter. North Korea didn’t have nuclear weapons in 1994, but it gave them the opportunity to develop them (and please don’t tell they began seeking them only after Bush took office). But why bring up North Korea, anyway? John Kerry thinks the whole situation is hypothetical.
Michael pate, remember Lafayette and please stop arguing about ww2. Remember 1789? Come on, your arguing about History is ridiculous. I don’t know who should watch History channel first )
I am not arguing ww2; I was providing the kind of concrete real-world examples that were being ask for above. I have noticed that trend of late on several blogs. If a conservative fails to cite examples, they are attacked for not doing so. If one does, the examples are attacked as irrelevent. You guys flip-flop almost as much as your candidate. Which leads me to this great quote I found in a book today about his favorite foreign leader, Charles De Gaulle. Dean Rusk, who was Secretary of State under JFK, once wrote, “Talking with De Gaulle was like crawling up a mountainside on your knees, opening a little portal at the top, and waiting for the oracle to speak.” Please keep that Kerry emphasized during the first debate one of his foreign policy goals was to return US-French Foreign Relations back to the 1960s state.
Micheael, re: NK–huh? So did you want a 1994 war on North Korea? My initial response was to ‘chet’ who said that a war in NK would have lead to far more deaths than the one in Iraq.
Surely you agree that NK is now closer to being a nuclear power than it was when Bush took power? All their fuel rods were removed from being under international inspection.
What’s different between the option Bush is pursuing now and the 1994 agreement, except for the type of fuel NK will be given in return for stopping the development of its nuclear program? Sure, the promise is that this time they’ll really stop, but the Bush administration hasn’t been too good with predicting anything. His whole policy approach was “as long as it’s not Clinton, it must be better”. Now he finally gets the big deal about diplomacy, after a term of spectacular screw-ups.
The man is a dilettante. He failed as a businessman, he survived Texas politics because of his network, and now the global political stage is too much for him. Actually, it’s not, because he doesn’t even see reality.
I was unfair to the Clinton Administration over the Chamberlain reference. The truth was they had nothing to do with Carter’s trip and his promises. Their only mistake was to allow him to bully them into it. The quote below came from this page about the North Korea situation.
The Clinton administration yesterday disowned statements by Jimmy Carter in North Korea, saying the former president evidently had misstated U.S. policy despite earlier consultations between Carter and officials in Washington. In an embarrassing split, administration officials said they could not explain why Carter said in North Korea the United States had dropped its recent proposal for sanctions against the country, a day after President Clinton had said the diplomatic drive for sanctions would continue. “We have no way of knowing why he thought what he thought, or why he said what he said,” a senior official said Senior U.S. officials also said Carter apparently had misled the North Koreans by telling them Clinton had already agreed to hold new high-level diplomatic talks over the isolated country’s nuclear program.
I am not saying I wanted a war with North Korea. But by obtaining an agreement with North Korea where the US representative “misled the North Koreans” and the North Koreans later admitted violating, Carter has created a situation where two nuclear powers are squaring off (which would not have been the case in 1994).
I was one of those who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 because I wanted a President who would devote more attention to domestic issues. I can admit I was wrong. John Kerry is absolutely the worst candidate I could possibly imagine. And his version of a correct worldview we simply can not afford.
Funny little post and picture over at Eclecticism. Check it out.
Another reference for Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda:
Hey Sow – A Quick Response To Your First Comment to Chet
You said: Chet you should try to watch something else than fox news. Or maybe give proof of what you call ‘many ties to terrorism’? This does not mean anything, you are just talking like Bush, without any proof of what you are saying.
My reply: Funny how the hijackers on 9/11 had used Kuwaiti identification in the past. What really makes it funny were that the ID’s were taken from Kuwaiti’s who were beat, terrorized and finally murdered by Iraqi intelligence agents in 1991. Also funny how the 9/11 Commission (bi-partisan) admits that Saddam and al Qaeda had connections. Maybe not in regards to 9/11, but they were doing business together. Or did Saddam the dictator not know about the terrorist training camp 20 miles outside of Baghdad — I think not.
You said: It’s naive to think the US (well, actually that president you have) went to Irak for freedom and democracy. You can’t implement democracy by making war. Just as stupid as making love to be a virgin.
My reply: Sure you can. France and the United States after their respective revolutionary wars as one example. Cromwell’s revolt in Britain. Japan, Italy and West Germany after WWII.
In response to Firas:
You said: North Korean situation was stable.
My reply: I guess the thousands of U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea (and Japan/Okinawa as reinforcements) to aide the South Koreans in keeping the North Koreans on their side of the 38th parallel every winter because they are starving due to their dictatorship’s efforts to extort more money, food and fuels from the West. yeah I call that really stable.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2013 eclecticism
Powered by WordPress and Origin