America's Relationship with the World

[Melody]

I agree with your views on how the Palestinians are treated, Melody. I sure see them as freedom fighters, like the people in Iraq who also want to get rid of the occupying forces by all possible means.

Sorry, I did mean Palestinians. I was watching something today and had Pakistani on the brain <g>.

 

[Melody]

The question is not whether or not the Iraq government was involved in 9/11, the question is did Saddam aid terrorists including members of Al-Qa'eda?

So then you're saying that if Saddam aided Al-Qa'eda terrorists that was enough reason for us to attack Iraq?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can you show me the definitive evidence that shows that Saddam was aiding Al-quaeda and that these actions have a direct forebearance on the attacks on America?

Melody said:

So then you're saying that if Saddam aided Al-Qa'eda terrorists that was enough reason for us to attack Iraq?

Ladies, please pay attention to what I say, and avoid putting words in peoples' mouths.

Melody--No, I am not saying that. To find out what I am saying, simply read my previous posts in this thread.

civilcynic--In order for Bush's statements regarding Al-Qa'eda and Iraq to be valid, it need only be shown that Iraq aided and protected terrorists, including members of Al-Qa'eda. Bush did not say that Iraq's aid specifically helped Al-Qa'eda in attacks on the U.S. (or if he did, please provide new quotes of him saying so).

If the real question is determining what ountries were harboring, aiding and/or abetting terrorists,

But that's not the 'real question' at all. You said that Bush said Saddam was linked to 9/11. I asked you to provide quotes to substantiate this, as I cannot remember Bush saying that. Painted Wolf provided some quotes, but in those quotes all Bush says is that Iraq aided terrorists, including members of Al-Qa'eda.

I am not really trying to defend Bush, I am trying to argue that the use of force on Saddam was justified (for reasons I have stated in previous posts). You, civilcynic, said that one of the reasons the Iraq war was not justified is because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11...but you and I agree that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. I think the Iraq war was justified for other reasons.

If we were going after a country because of their connections with terrorist groups, there are plenty of countries far more involved in terrorism that were direct threats to our country than Saddam was. Why did President Bush always bring up Iraq and the Saddam subject everytime he spoke about the US Terrorist attacks. Why not bring up the Saudi Arabia connections which were more directly linked from the very beginning than Iraq was?

Because we can 'win' the battle with Saudi Arabia without using military force. The Saudi government and others like it, including Pakistan, have started cracking down on terrorism and have made clear their wishes to be allies in the war on terror.

Lastly, speaking of those countries who consort with terrorists, isn't it interesting that we condemn nations who deal with terrorist groups but our own country has on-going governmental communication with Chechen rebels?

I don't see anything wrong with on-going communication with rebels...if by 'communication' you mean 'aid' and 'rebels' you mean 'terrorists' you may have a point.

 

[civilcynic]

Mr. Spinkles,

I do not believe I put words in your mouth re: Bush's statements about Saddam. I agree that you will find no quote Bush that says Saddam planned or contributed to the attack in any way. What I am saying is that immediately after 9/11, Bush began to link or perhaps a better word would be associate Saddam's name and Iraq with terrorism and al-queda. Mr. Bush consisyently brought up Saddam's name or Iraq anytime he talked about teeroriat attacks...He did not mention the terrorist camps in any other nation nor did he repeatedly bring up the Saudi government in relationship to terror.

Why do you think the majority of the American public initially came to believe that Saddam's Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Did they think this up all by themselves or could it be that they came to this conclusion based upon Bush's statements?


Do you define the Chechen individuals who butchered the innocent children in Beslan as rebels or terrorists? Personally, I call any group who slaughters innocent civilians for political purposes as terrorists. Why are we taking the time to communicate (not aid) with terrorists in Russia and yet had no patience with Bush's defined terrorists in Iraq? What kind of message does all our communication with terrorists in Russia do to our stance that countries who associate with terrorists are wrong?

Mr. Spinkles, the majority of people, whether they support the Iraq war or not, are of the opinion that Mr. Bush mislead the nation on the the reasons we went to war with Iraq. Lastly, I will repat again...Bush did not say that Saddam was directly connected with the 9/11 incident but through his statements in which he addressed the 9/11 incident and Saddam in almost the same breath in numerous speeches, guided the public into making those inferences.

 

[Lady Marva]

Because the Europeans were scamming and skimming a lot of money out of Iraq. Because they had lucrative contracts with Saddam. oney, money, money..........Because the Europeans constantly try to tie up the USA, with all those anti-missle, non-proliferation, environment deals. So they tried to play the usual games about American going into Iraq.
Like the Liilputians did to Gulliver.
'Cept this time- there's a new cowboy in town and he's got a horse to ride, and he cain't be hogtied and drug through the mud.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Because the Europeans were scamming and skimming a lot of money out of Iraq. Because they had lucrative contracts with Saddam. oney, money, money..........

Good thing Bush, family and friends don't have lucrative contracts with anyone who might profit from the war...

Oh, wait. :sarcastic

 

[civilcynic]

Good thing Bush, family and friends don't have lucrative contracts with anyone who might profit from the war...

Oh, wait. :sarcastic

Lol! Well said!

This thread has focused a lot on Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq -whether or not he mislead the US into declaring war with Iraq and whether or not that war is justified. The one area, however, that we have not truly touched upon is the effect that the Bush Administrations foreign policies as well as the war with Iraq has had on our relationship with the world.

Consequently my questions are these:
-- Has the foreign policies of the Bush administration over the last 3 1/2 yrs. harmed or helped our relationship with the world?

--In what way have we, as Americans, found these policies to be beneficial or detrimental to us at home?

 

[anders]

I used to have a favourable impression of the US for more than 50 years. I even applied for a job somewhere in the middle of it not many years ago. But now I try to stay clear of the country and its produces as much as possible. My reasons are mainly the unnecessary aggressiveness of its foreign policy, the suppression of science and the way international economy is threatened by the collapsing dollar.

Seeing how China soon will be a leading force in economy as well as in science, I now study Chinese.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

im learning tamil from my mom! yay. im learning a couple of letters per day. its hard, but im up to it. but i can speak it, so its easy to sound the word out and write. ive learned Pa and Da/Ta and Ma and Ra and Lra so far. go me.

-- Has the foreign policies of the Bush administration over the last 3 1/2 yrs. harmed or helped our relationship with the world?

some people view that it harmed it, even though the US did what they did for self defense. no matter how much bush says that we were helping iraq be free of an opressive leader, he has to awknoledge that the middle east, as well as many other countries around the world view the US as the epitome of Western ideas, which they believe are harmful to thier own culture and society. its all fear.

personally, im not completly sure if it was done on the basis of self defense. i will not swallow everything the president feeds. people can manipulate facts to thier own advantage, its extremly hard to get an objective view from articles and news these days. sigh.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr. Spinkles,

I do not believe I put words in your mouth re: Bush's statements about Saddam. I agree that you will find no quote Bush that says Saddam planned or contributed to the attack in any way. What I am saying is that immediately after 9/11, Bush began to link or perhaps a better word would be associate Saddam's name and Iraq with terrorism and al-queda. Mr. Bush consisyently brought up Saddam's name or Iraq anytime he talked about teeroriat attacks...He did not mention the terrorist camps in any other nation nor did he repeatedly bring up the Saudi government in relationship to terror.

Well, you did say "Can you show me the definitive evidence that shows that Saddam was aiding Al-quaeda and that these actions have a direct forebearance on the attacks on America?". This implies that I claimed to have such definitive evidence, which I did not. Anyways, I think Mr. Bush brought up Saddam's name a lot because he had an agenda from the beginning of his administration to end the years of deception and finally confront Saddam Hussein, and he was trying to garner popular support. That's politics. Politicians have agendas, they use rhetoric, and, as long as they don't lie, and as long as their agendas aren't focused on personal gain at the expense of what is best for the country, I do not think it is unethical. I do not think Bush has lied, nor do I see how invading Iraq will benefit Bush personally, nor do I think the use of force on Saddam was detrimental to our country--I think it was justified and will be beneficial in the long term for reasons I have stated earlier.

So, Bush's agenda had to be adapted after the 9/11 attacks, as bringing Al-Qa'eda leaders to justice became the main priority. I think Bush did a good job capitalizing on the global outrage of 9/11 by declaring a War on Terror which so far, has made Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others give their support and take tougher stances against international terrorism. Terrorist cells have been brought down by international cooperation in countries like France, Italy, Spain, Britain, and Pakistan.

Why do you think the majority of the American public initially came to believe that Saddam's Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Did they think this up all by themselves or could it be that they came to this conclusion based upon Bush's statements?

Bush's statements say nothing about Saddam being involved in 9/11, so I can only imagine where people got that from.

Put yourself in the President's shoes for a moment: your intelligence people tell you that Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qa'eda. Do you keep this a secret from the public because you are afraid some people will infer that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Or do you use this information to further your argument to use force on Saddam, whom you know is an imminent threat and a brutal dictator, and an obstacle in the way of Middle East reform and the elimination of terrorism? Given what your intelligence people (and those of every other country in the world) were telling you with high confidence about Saddam's WMD and with moderate confidence about his nuclear weapons, would you have risked another decade of inspections before taking action to prevent a possible disaster (especially after your failure to prevent 9/11)? Would you have risked a few more months and given Saddam more time to do something desperate? Or would you have simply asked Saddam really, really politely? Please tell me what you would have done differently.

Do you define the Chechen individuals who butchered the innocent children in Beslan as rebels or terrorists? Personally, I call any group who slaughters innocent civilians for political purposes as terrorists. Why are we taking the time to communicate (not aid) with terrorists in Russia and yet had no patience with Bush's defined terrorists in Iraq? What kind of message does all our communication with terrorists in Russia do to our stance that countries who associate with terrorists are wrong?

I don't feel like I have enough information here. You said we were communicating with Chechen rebels. Now you're implying that we were communicating with the Chechen individuals who butchered the innocent children in Beslan. So I'm not sure with whom you say we are communicating. I also don't know what we are communicating...are we saying "Good work, terrorists! Keep at them Russians" or are we saying "Chechens--if you want your demands to be taken seriously, you must stop killing innocent Russians immediately"? If it's the former, I agree with you--that is hypocritical and we shouldn't do it. Though to be fair, I think our relationship with the Chechens started a long time before the Bush administration.

Mr. Spinkles, the majority of people, whether they support the Iraq war or not, are of the opinion that Mr. Bush mislead the nation on the the reasons we went to war with Iraq.

I respectfully disagree with the majority of people. I don't think Bush did a good job outlining the reasons to go to war with Iraq, but I don't think he mislead us. But now I'm wondering...does the fact that we are now discussing whether or not Bush mislead the nation on the reasons for going to war with Iraq mean you concede that going to war with Iraq was justified (for other reasons)?

 

[civilcynic]

Mr. Spinkles,
I have stated my position clearly as possible but apparently I am unable to communicate it well enough for you to grasp. I have, in fact, repeatedly clarified my points and yet you still somehow twist them or act like you misunderstand my statements. Frankly, I have really run out of ways to state my position and find it useless to continue to repeat myself in hopes that you grasp what I am saying.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Don't you give up on me! I thought we might be near a breakthrough where you were close to convincing me I'm wrong.

Tell you what: if you care to, just outline why you think Bush wanted to invade Iraq. In other words, if Bush didn't think that was the best thing for the country, what were his motives? Does he own stock in companies that stand to make lots of money from the war? Did he think invading Iraq would improve his chances of being re elected? That kind of thing. I won't even respond to it--I'll just read it and think about it on my own.

It would also be nice if you addressed that extremely long post of mine from a while back that dealt with whether or not the invasion was justified...but if you don't want to I understand. This debate is getting a bit tiresome....we can just agree to disagree and be friends.