WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 15:50:58 +0000

From the Get Go (like 2 or 3 days after 9/11) We were told it would be a long process for our country to adopt a tougher stance on terrorism. If this was an easy job to do, we would have the UN, Germany , and France backing our shit up. but we don't, and sometimes the leader of a country has to make decisions which wont be popular with a large number of the American public. Resolve, Consistency, and Strength will be the best way to clear out the Iraq situation as soon as possible. Taking troops out now or changing our course of action would show Terrorists and insurgents our lack of focus and commitment to the problem... Votes and elections in Iraq wont have a lot of weight yet esp. with all the insurgency in fallujah for example, but Im of the opinion that some election is better than no election, and that if we are over there anyway, instead of rushing us out or making a rash decision, we should stay the course and make sure we do what we said we would set out to do: to help the Iraqi people set up a government that they decide how to run. 1,000 + Americans have died: What do we tell their families: Dont you think they would at least like to feel that these people died for a reason?

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-23 16:21:35 +0000

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of what people are basing their vote on this time around. In 1992 it was the economy, this time around, it should still be the economy, but it's being overshadowed by the Iraq War. Maybe I should have three catagories: [1] This war is not necessary to combat Islamo-Fascism. [2] This war is necessary but the planning and implementation has been a complete mess. [3] This war is necessary, and to quote Rumsfeld, "Freedom is messy". I couldn't disagree with #3 more, however, it's a position that about half of Americans agree with. It's pretty obvious who you'll vote for if you hold #1 or #3 to be true. It's the #2 that are gonna swing this thing. They might choose not to vote (ala Jesse Ventura). Personally, I see a re-election of Bush as an affirmation of his Administration's conduct of the Iraq War. I go back to a business analogy: if I was a CEO I'd be fired for the ineptitude of my subordinates, especially if I wasn't recognizing the ineptitude myself.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-23 17:35:30 +0000

Of course, I could be completely wrong about this re: <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JQNF55E1NDNEICRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6317728">economy or war.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-23 17:37:14 +0000

D'oh! Stupid no edit. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JQNF55E1NDNEICRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6317728">economy or war?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-23 18:10:46 +0000

"Resolve, Consistency, and Strength will be the best way to clear out the Iraq situation as soon as possible. Taking troops out now or changing our course of action would show Terrorists and insurgents our lack of focus and commitment to the problem" Aside from sounding like a slice form a Bush Campaign speech, this is also wrong. The more one appears to be changing things and perhaps being inconsistent, the better it will go. Do we want to consistantly bomb Baghdad with "Shock and Awe" smart bombs? No. Look at the Prison abuse. Do we really want the world to think we are going to "stay the course," raping and unnecesarily tortoring innocent Iraqis? No, we change and re-evaluate. Now personally, I want to vote for someone who is willing to fight a "more sensitive war" because he's less likely to make huge mistakes as he's seen in combat and would surround himself by more people with more ideas. Only bringing this up because rladew did: We wouldn't have had the Iraq problem with another presdident, and we would probably have taken down Al Quiada and Osama, the people responsible for 9/11 who rladew talks about right before Iraq. (the classic Bush spin). For sake of the thread, can we please keep these things seperate?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 18:56:17 +0000

Dawn wrote: [quote:25a8ecdfb1]Only bringing this up because rladew did: We wouldn't have had the Iraq problem with another presdident, and we would probably have taken down Al Quiada and Osama, the people responsible for 9/11 who rladew talks about right before Iraq. (the classic Bush spin). [/quote:25a8ecdfb1] Clinton passed up his big opportunity, even documented by our reliable friends @ CBS: [url] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/22/opinion/main625358.shtml[/url] The excerpt at the bottom I'm referring to: <<<<<<<<On terrorism, he passed on the opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden as he flew from Sudan to Afghanistan. True, that occurred at a time, before the 9/11 attacks, when the enormity of the threat posed by bin Laden was not yet known.>>>>>>>>>>>> Dawn also wrote [quote:25a8ecdfb1]For sake of the thread, can we please keep these things seperate?[/quote:25a8ecdfb1] Id be happy to seperate threads, do you have an alternate suggestion as to how I should've posted my opinion on the Iraq war?

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-23 19:09:59 +0000

I was hoping to discuss what issues are driving the election, and why people are going one way or the other.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 19:45:38 +0000

Seems like Terry is also reflecting this thread in the latest shift of Kerry's campaign: see Wall Street Journal 9/23/2004 front page above the fold: 'Plan of Attack: In a Risky Move, Kerry Shifts Focus to Iraq From the Economy' Another thought on the Iraq war issue: If Kerry was gaining a lot of political ground on his central economy platform, I think it was a big gamble for him to go after Bush on Iraq. Was the economic issue ( which a lot of pundits see as Kerrys strongest point of argument) not strong enough for Kerry to stand on? btw: sorry for the "resolve" part of my earlier post that was definitely parroting republican speak, but as I'm saying above, Dawn and Terry seem also to be parroting the democratic line...

Yes, I do applaud Kerry's recent "get tough" on Iraq criticism. I think this is where Bush is most vulnerable. While I disagree with most of Bush's fiscal policy, I'm of the sentiment that presidents get lucky with the economy, it's either with them or against them. As far as parroting the Democratic line, I'd like to think that Kerry is now starting to catch on to what I've been saying all along. ;) I think by all objective measures, you couldn't have made a worse mess in Iraq then we have now. Both Bush and Kerry stand very close together on what they would do to try and improve the situation in Iraq. Kerry gains ground by pointing out how out of touch with reality Bush and the Administration are with what's going on in Iraq. I'm beginning to think that Bush _couldn't_ have thought that keeping America in a perpetual war would be great for re-election. He has expended all his political capital to get rid of Saddam Hussein. One can't rationally expect a war to go perfectly (OK, except for those civilian planners in the DoD), it was extremely risky for Bush to stake his entire presidency on military action in Iraq. At least, that's what I'm hoping.... Side note: Our soldiers fought, were wounded and killed to depose Saddam Hussein, thereby ending a tyranny. That speaks to their sacrifice. Since we still can't agree on what to say about the 50,000+ that died in Vietnam, I think that's enough for now. Another side note: You can't blame Bush for 9/11 and you can't blame Clinton either. More from the 9/11 Commision Report when I get around to reading it. And another thing: ...crap, to many notes.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-23 20:24:47 +0000

Ah, Clinton never got a memo "Bin Laden to Attack U.S." And if he did, I think he would have read it. As Cheney said himself, "Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden."

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 21:04:26 +0000

you must agree that [quote:0668c1b14e]sensitive war[/quote:0668c1b14e] are two words that contraindicate each other. I appreciate Kerry's sentiment behind this idea, but it was a bad idea to frame it with those specific words, and the republicans ran with it...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-23 21:10:32 +0000

Why must I agree? I believe dropping smart bombs instead of carpet bombing is a more sensitive war. I believe that imprisoning, raping and torturing innocent Iraqis, is a less sensitive war. I will not post the definition of sensitive, but a sensitive war seems like a good idea, since Bush gave lied about going into Iraq in the first place...

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 21:56:09 +0000

I'm completely dumbfounded as to how to respond to this....

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 01:47:38 +0000

Courtesy, please!

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 02:03:05 +0000

It should read "Bush lied about why we're going to war." Not "Bush gave lied." Sorry

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 02:15:47 +0000

with all due respect, I believe sensitivity and war are contraindicated.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 02:45:38 +0000

So should we just drop an Atom bomb and "let God sort 'em out." I don't think you do....

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 02:59:13 +0000

why are you so upset about this Dawn? Do you really think I would advocate senseless murder and destruction of innocent people? Nothing about war is considerate, though. If something escalates to war, wether or not I actually agree with war, I dont believe you can put terms and conditions when something is called war.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 03:06:12 +0000

You two are arguing over semantics. dawnbixtler thinks we can be better prepared to wage a war with less civilian casualities and negative reprecussions on the American image. One might call that sensitive. Dick Cheney would seem to agree with this. rladew is just stating the obvious: War is Hell. From what I can tell, that hits the nail on the head.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 11:17:56 +0000

Speaking of arguing over semantics: This is not even a "WAR." Congress never declared war on Iraq. "Nothing about war is considerate." Then why do we consider how many innocent people will be killed? This is ridiculous!