"Nucular" Bush-O-Meter: 11 - FINAL

[Adam \'01]

I'm a moderate and have voted for both Dems and Reps before.  I thought it was a good speech and I plan to vote to re-elect Bush to the White House.  I wonder if those of you questioning the war even have relatives or friends in the military?  I do, and they're all very eager to protect our freedom.  We live in a dangerous time and instead of second guessing the motives of our leaders, we should be rallying around the rank and file members of our society who are so willing to sacrifice so much for all of us.
 
As for Bush, sure, he's not a great orator, but who really cares?  As (Democrat) Mario Cuomo once said, "I write a budget sitting on my tush."

[Al DeFlorio]

CowbellGuy wrote:

Actually, he was talking about potential chemical weapons re: Iraq.

"...sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent..."

Are you sure it wasn't the "vegetable" in the new school lunch program?

[CowbellGuy]

I'm not concerned about how he speaks as much as how he thinks (or fails to). And who has said anything anti-war here?

[ugarte]

I don't care to discuss here how I do or don't feel about the war, but you are wrong, Adam, if you think we shouldn't second guess our leaders.  Openly questioning our leaders before any action is taken is not only the rule, rather than the exception, in the United States, but it is the right from which all of the other rights flow.  It becomes more important, not less, when the subject is war.

Take it in stride when people call the President a boob, because that is a great American tradition also.

[Stewart]

Interesting quote from Mario Cuomo...

On a more serious note however, it is vital we question this battle that Bush seems overly eager to bring. To NOT question is un-American.

I'm encouraged that your friends in the military are eager to defend freedom. That is the main goal. But even beyond our short-term fears of our own casualties, our track record for protecting freedom (from future attacks) and saving lives with our military is shaky. Kuwaitis, despite owing their freedom in large part to the USA, don't like us. Afghanistan is still a mess, (where we killed just as many civilians as died in the North Tower) and Osama is believed still at large. "Nation-building" is easy to criticize, but deposing a regime and then telling people who have no love or experience of democracy, "make your government now on your own" doesn't work. See Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Sorry to be so political on our good hockey site, but with everyone dancing around the question, I figured I'd leave a little note. I promise not to respond.

-Stewart :-)

[nyc94]

Yes, we should second guess our leaders but on matters of military intelligence, they know far more than we do.  You might think invading Iraq is a bad idea but I doubt you know more than Bush, the CIA, the Pentagon. . . or the New York Times.

[nyc94]

Not being a history major, can you tell me when we experimented with democarcy in Iran?  I thought we propped up the Shah until the Revolution came.  And interestingly, 20 years later the young people want democracy.  The only thing really stopping it is the religious leaders.  I agree that democracy would be a long time coming in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.  Maybe it will take a generation.

I hardly see what the point is in comparing civilian casualties in Afghanistan to the North Tower of the WTC.  I think Bush may have said this or perhaps Cheney or Rumsfeld: That we measure the success of a mission in destroying the target and minimizing civilian casualties.  They measure success by the number of civilians they kill.  That we only killed a several thousand civilians is quite remarkable.  If we were truly the Great Satan wouldn't we have carpet bombed the whole country and left.  If their brilliant leaders hadn't allied themselves with bin Laden they wouldn't have been in that mess.  They had the chance to turn him over too.  Just like Iraq has had 11 years to disarm.

[Josh '99]

big red apple wrote:

Take it in stride when people call the President a boob, because that is a great American tradition also.

Bill Clinton was a boob.

Oh wait, no, sorry, what I meant to say was, Bill Clinton LIKES boobs.  B-]

[Adam \'01]

Stewart, with all due respect I don't understand how you can call our track record "shaky" when it comes to defending freedom and saving lives.  In fact, as a relative of Holocaust survivers, I'm almost offended by that notion.  See WWII and a little "nation building" something called the Marshall Plan.

And big red apple, "openly questioning our leaders" is not a rule that I know about.  Especially in matters of national intelligence, as Bill points out.  In fact, given our indirect representative system of democracy, the people's true (and most powerful) say comes at the ballot box.  So until more than 50% of registered voters turn out to vote, don't go talking about exercising any rights to speak out against government action.

[jeh25]

Bill R '94 wrote:

hat we measure the success of a mission in destroying the target and minimizing civilian casualties.  They measure success by the number of civilians they kill.  That we only killed a several thousand civilians is quite remarkable.  If we were truly the Great Satan wouldn't we have carpet bombed the whole country and left.

"glass floored self lighting parking lot" was the phrase I was thinking of. But in a more local sense, why do combatants get blamed when enemy combatants hide among non-combatants, resulting in civilian deaths? Shouldn't the blame fall on the people that hide amongst civilians? US military protocol goes so far as to have infantry check their weapons at door of a field hospital to ensure that the hospital maintains its legal status.

With a sister and a brother-in-law on active duty in the Air Force, and a very close Cornell friend stationed in the Saudi desert, I'm absolutely in no hurry to attack Iraq. However, sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the kid gloves, topple a few regimes, and then suck it up and stick around to set up a democracy.

Look at the result of the occupation of both Germany and Japan following WWII as compared to later policies from the postcolonial period through the 90's.  We had a chance to set up a democracy in Afganistan when the Soviets withdrew. But both the US and Britain dropped the ball and walked away for fear of looking like a colonial power. Frankly, in a post cold war climate, I'd rather the US be seen as a colonial hegemon that occupies countries until democracy can take over than continue to instead prop up US friendly dictators like the Shah, Marcos, Noriega, and King Saud.

[Al DeFlorio]

Adam '01 wrote:

And big red apple, "openly questioning our leaders" is not a rule that I know about.  Especially in matters of national intelligence, as Bill points out.  In fact, given our indirect representative system of democracy, the people's true (and most powerful) say comes at the ballot box.  So until more than 50% of registered voters turn out to vote, don't go talking about exercising any rights to speak out against government action.

Speaking of "national intelligence" (quite an issue right about now, I'd say), Brown admissions is running an ad on WQXR radio with the tag line:  "Experience life in the Ivy League."::rolleyes::

[Josh '99]

Adam '01 wrote:

And big red apple, "openly questioning our leaders" is not a rule that I know about.  Especially in matters of national intelligence, as Bill points out.  In fact, given our indirect representative system of democracy, the people's true (and most powerful) say comes at the ballot box.  So until more than 50% of registered voters turn out to vote, don't go talking about exercising any rights to speak out against government action.

I don't know where you came up with that 50% stuff.  *I* voted, so *I* have a right to speak out against government action.  "Openly questioning our leaders" isn't a "rule", it's a right that we have in this country.  That's the kind of thing that if we lose, the terrorists have won.  Not if we stop going to baseball games or stop running up credit card bills, but if we start giving up the rights that we have and others don't.

[jtwcornell91]

Does anyone else find it slightly ironic to invoke democratic elections as a reason not to question this particular president's plans?  ::help::

[Roy82]

Age wrote:

"And who has said anything anti-war here?"

to which I reply:

"War Sucks"

Rallying Roy

[HpyGlmore2-05]

If war sucks, then go back to England with your relatives.  It is because of war that America exists.  Yes, that was a different situation back then, but it all still boils down to believing in our freedoms and rights as humans.

If Saddam has nuclear and chemical weapons, and other "weapons of mass destruction,"  then perhaps by starting a war now, we will be preventing WW III.
my $.02