Enough of George W's War

Are you referring to Able Danger?

 

My whole purpose is not to disclose their countries. It is for you to do some homework. For starters, you are more than welcome to check out http://hrw.org
See, you are just proving the point that there is room to explore things instead of jumping to conclusions.

But Musharraf is a self proclaimed dictator, not democratically elected. Simply because things are improving doesn’t mean that the country is democratic. If he would step down and allow free and open national elections, certainly the whole world would welcome it.

 

We could have said the same about Saddam Hussein or Iran's Ayotolla. Neither of them treats their citizens better than the other. The only difference about Saudi Arabia is they cooperate with us when it suits their intrests. That doesn't make them any better.

Pakistan may be a more tolerant nation than others, but THEY ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. Perez Musharaff is a military dictator, not democratically elected. As dictators go, seems nicer than most... but so did Napoleon, and he was far from a saint.

The spread of democracy is great, but we're not God and have no right to impose our will upon the world. Just because we're the richest and most powerful, doesn't mean we have insight the rest of the world doesn't. Remember the great empires of history... Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Ottoman, Spain, France, England.... what do they all have in common?

Democracy worked in the US, India, & Europe because the citizens of that country decided it for themselves, it wasn't imposed on them by an outside power. To say the negatives of the short term (say to support corrupt or dictatorial regimes) is okay because we have someone's long term best interests at heart is arrogant and false. The only interests our foreign policy cares about is USA's.

dbermanmd-We can't take credit for India. They threw off British rule (by themselves, mostly!), started their democracy and allied with the RUSSIANS during the Cold War. Only recently are relations getting better - where is the stroke of genius there?

 

Yes.

 

dbermanmd,

maggie is correct in saying the US is supporting the regimes of dictators around the globe. We have in the past (it's timely to remember the Shah of Iran), do now and likely will continue to do so in the future.

Is it right to recognize (set up embassies in their countries and allow them to send embassadors to the US) the governments of tyrants and to trade with (arms along with other goods) and support them (military training, monetary aid, propaganda)?

Yes and no.

Individuals have consciences. Even large bodies, like courts and corporations, are sometimes expected to have them too. But a nation often acts in its "own best interests" and is often forced to adopt policies that are, at best, sketchy.

Take the current question of Hamas. Should the US government "deal" with an admitted terrorist organization that is now the democratically elected governing body of Palestine or not?
On the one hand, they were chosen by the people and they are in power. If we want to talk to the representatives of the Palestinians, then we must do so via Hamas.
On the other hand, Hamas has yet to renounce terrorism and declare a will to recognize Israel's, our ally, right to exist.

Oh my.

I would have a problem with that and so would you. That's why diplomats and foreign affairs specialists receive special training in dealing with creeps and murderers in suits (or homemade sweaters or military uniforms or robes), all while maintaining a proper smile for the cameras, shaking their hands and eating their food.

And that's why we need to elect pragmatic, "flip-floppy", negociation savvy leaders. 'Cause they must know how to dance with the Devil.

 

look at this poor guy, he went into mental overload as this is all he could come up with... :huh:

 

Ahh the next President should be a used car salesman!!!


blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

 

Should have stayed with my Lexus I hope people who judge people by their cars they drive don't group me with the assumed "people types" here

Hamas winning the election was the best possible outcome for Israel. Yes is was a democratic process through which they were elected, and I think that is great. It is the palestinian people voting for war and terror over peace; especially after Israel gave back Gaza without strings. It makes the next attack from palestinian territories an act of war instead of a terror attack - since it will be government sanctioned. That will allow Israel to legally defend itself by declaring war and addressing the problem once and for all. Should the US recognize Hamas - NO. Anyone that does is stating the obvious until Hamas totally renounces its charter. Finally, there will be no false window dressings housing hate and terror as was Fatah.

By Carter throwing the Shah of Iran under the bus, and the french housing and supporting Khomeni - and the combing of the two has led us to where we are today. Sometimes stability is best - even if it is less than ideal. Why dont you poll the Iranians which they preferred?

 

Until we are ready to become an Isolationism society where we cut off the whole world and just protect our own all of these posts are just jibberish. I wonder how many of the poster's here are veterans who still cry when they hear the Star Spangled Banner and Taps. We as America have had more than a few chances to change things, "Vote Independant", but no, what would your friends think if they found out you didn't vote Dem or Republican. Until you are ready to sacrifice and make the change, quite crying... And as for you veterans who do not support the President, we have a word for that, TREASON...

 

But nations don't give a poop about whether or not the citizens of a foreign country have the government they prefer. All nations want is what will serve whatever is in their "best interest".

If it was decided that it's in the best interest of the US for Israel to cease to exist, we would be working towards that. If it's in the best interest of the US for Kurdish Iraq's crude to continue flowing into the world's market, that's what we'll pursue. And if it's best for the US to have Musharraf keep Pakistan under his thumb, then we'll support him.

All the current high-minded talk about spreading democracy because it's "the right thing to do" is window dressing. As long as forcing democracy down peoples' throats appears to protect our interests, we'll send troops and observers and spend money to do so.

As far was the US is concerned, as a nation, the Iranian people can go screw themselves. So could the Shah and whomever became an ex-part of overall American plans.

 

I could not disagree with you more. Yes we will protect our interests because we are a decent country who cares about common people and does our best to protect the rights and freedoms we enjoy and believe others should too. Without the US of A this world would be a very dark place. Yes I do believe we are a beacon of light, of what is good in governance, of what is right for all people. No we are not perfect, but show me an example of better. I would serve in an instant as my father did, as my children would to defend this land. My family came here only because if they stayed in europe they would have been thrown in an oven - yes I Love this country and feel thankful for being for being born here. I am sorry you do not have that same love for this country as I do.

 

Oh please.

Two words to argue against isolationism: global economy.

The President may be the soldiers' boss but the President and all elected officials are ultimately accountable to the electorate. That includes vets.

The President is my elected head of state, not my husband.
I don't owe the President any "loyalty" and neither do our Vets. I owe the Constitution close scrutiny of the doings of my elected officials, and to holler, loudly, if I think any are doing a lousy job.

 

Since when does trying to make the country that you live in better mean that you don't have love for the country?

Yes. I don't think Spunky does have the same love for the country you do. It seems like your type of love is "the US can do no wrong, and I will support it 100% no matter what comes." I can't speak for Spunky, but for myself, I think the US is the best place to live on Earth; but I think there are many improvements to make, and I think that the current administration does not have the best interests of our nation at heart.

If I think that the current administration is moving our country down a dark, dangerous path, then I'm going to speak up. Not because I don't love our country, but because I do.

Just because someone doesn't have your type of love for the US doesn't mean they don't love the country. While I may believe that your type of love is a naive, immature love, I certainly won't deny that you love this country.

 

That's funny!

But when we purchase cars, it's US dancing with devilish used car salesmen!

 

You will find the overwhelming majority of veterans remain loyal to the President (CIC) and the constitution until they stop breathing. Those are the Americans that were willing to sacrifice all for what America stands for.

And you do owe your loyalty to the Constitution - to the laws of the land including those laws which the President follows and in so doing so acts in the best interests of this country to protect and defend it. That is his call, it is our responsibility to support the troops and the mission - it is ok to question - but it is important to do so that at the same time we do NOT endanger our fellow citizens who serve to defend us.

And I agree with you in that the global economy will force changes towards free markets and democracy for all.

 

As individual citizens, we can care a lot about how US policies affect the peoples of other countries but I wouldn't want our diplomats and foreign service officials to lose sight of their jobs. They are to keep the best interests of the US ALWAYS at the fore.

The Constitution can stand as the "beacon of light" you talk about. It would be wonderful if the US were the perfect example of a Republic but we're not and can't be. Yes, we're the best nation to live in by many measures and a democracy is the way to go but don't confuse the current government with the one outlined in, and pursued by, the Constitution.

The US is a continuing work in progress. I love my country but I recognize it as imperfect and as needing the input of all citizens to keep her worthy of any affection.

I wouldn't want my nephew or other members of my family who are in the armed services to die to protect my right to eat at McDonald's. But they have more than proven their willingness to fight to protect my rights as listed within the Constitution.

 

Agree - a work in process with the best foundation created yet in the governance of mankind. Input is important - voting a must. We must also support our president in times of war and our troops and do as little as possible to increase the potential of harm being done to them.

And i do think our government represents our founding fathers wishes except for the size of the federal government and some of its current national policies.

 

dbermanmd,
There is wisdom in this statement, but you overlook a universal truth that makes your idealistic plea for support a losing proposition.

As I keep saying (in idfferent ways and on different threads), in a democracy, a "successful" war must have strong public support. Lack of support, as you point out, endangers our fellow citizens who serve to protect us. But support will ONLY be achieved when the wars purpose and mission are crystal clear, well defined, and totally justified. If we start a war on less than that premise, it is doomed to a lack of support. This is the lesson of Vietnam and the lesson of Iraq.

Support, like respect, is not achieved by demanding it. It is only achieved through strong justification. But the Iraq war was not justified in the beginning, and it cannot be justified now. The war supporters who demand support of the troops and the mission must learn this. The support was lost before the first shot was fired, becasue the need and justification we not strong enough to warrant full support.

Lack of support now is the direct result of lack of justification in the beginning. It is George Bush who started a war with insufficient cause and supoort, and any lack of support for that war now lies squarely in his lap.

 

It is not I who is missing the point I am affraid. Individual citizens rarely are armed with all the information the President has to make such critical decisions.

We will agree to disagree. Again my hope is that you support our troops in harms way and do nothing to increase the dangers they face. Unfortunately, it is too late to agree or disagree with the reasons behind starting this conflict. We are now obligated (my opinion) to support our forces. If the next president wants to withdraw our forces, then so be it - until them I stand solidly behind our men and women in uniform and will do nothing to increase the possibilities of harm coming their way.

 

Yes it is you who is missing the point. I understand that you support the troops no matter what, and that is admirable of you. But the point is this:

The troops and the mission will not be (broadly) supported if the purpose and need for a war are insuffciently justified at the outset. In such circumstances, there will be a demonstrable lack of support with its attendant risks for the troops, and the attendant discord at home. You can bank can it. Guaranteed, everytime.

If you want suppoort for the troops, then do everything in your power to prevent us from going to war without suffcient justification. And if a war is started without that justification, then expect a lack of support.

As for the Preident knowing more than the people about why we went to war....
in certain cases, there might be something to that rationale. But Bush changed the reason we went to war to suit the circumstances. First it was WMD, then it was to spread democracy. This is a guaranteed recipe for failure. There can be no uncertainty about something as profound as war. There can be no waivering, no doubt. Bush's lack of a clear and unwaivering purpose for the war guaranteed a lack of support. You can thank him for that.