Democrats and dictators

[steve]

And I think Knucklboner put it best so far in this thread with his statement on " pretend[ing] to play utopian idealist monday morning quarterback in this issue. was it better in the long run? did it help avoid a hot war with many more deaths?".

That says a lot.

However, with the issue of Hussein, containment of Iran in the 80s, and the gassing of the Kurds...let us not forget that the Senate passed a resolution (led by Al Gore) for economic and political sanctions against Iraq after Saddam gassed the Kurds. the Bush administration rejected that proposal however. So on this particular issue, I would argue that the Bush admin's cozy relationship with Saddam superceded even contemporary ideals of the time. If you look back, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and the Bush admin's suppor to his governent was a very hot topic for (unfortunately too short of a time) that the Bush admin wished to go away.

To this day we will NEVER see a public trial of Saddam Hussein because it will go something like this:

Saddam on witness stand:
"i am a bad guy. i have done wrong. But the US enabled me. They gave me the chemical weapons and authorized me to use them onthe Iranians."

So while I many ethical questions regarding alliances can often be a question of hindsight being 20/20, the case of the Bush admin's relationship with Saddam was not.

[John Ashcroft]

Come now dude, it's not all our fault. Say it with me... America is gooooood.... America is gooooood... Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

And KB's da man for sure. But I'd bet he's gonna vote for Bush this November. He's what I like to call a "Closet Conservative", which is entirely understandable in his line of work.

[steve]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Actually, my point was never to state Dems are the only ones who "cozy" up to dictators. What I'm saying is that your party seems incapable of removing such dictators when the need arises. Your party used to pride itself in being concerned with human rights, and now it mourns the loss of Saddam Hussein??? This is the state of your party. It's so helplessly lost that they don't mind making hipocritical fools of themselves on a daily basis. Look at Kerry's flip flopping for Christ's sakes! You can't pin the idiot down on a single issue. He's against the Israeli wall and for it. He's for Yasser Arafat and against him. He's for tax cuts but against them. He's for a strong military but against it. He's for ousting Saddam, but against it. Dude, opinion poll leadership is not what this country needs given the threats we face (or used to, Dubya's taken care of a bunch of the terrorist scumbags. Don't believe me? So how many terrorist hits against American real estate have we had since 9/11?) Anyway, your entire party seems fine with taking up the human rights march, so long as it's the "right" administration doing it (kind of like the "right" people for tax relief, and the "right" people for talk radio, etc...)

Oh, and congrats on keeping cool. Good job! I was pushing some serious buttons to get a rise out of ya. I guess I'll have to try harder next time 'round...

No biggie, man. It's all about just chillin' out and being full of oneself and always thinking said self is right - like me .

Anyway, with regards to Democrats not removing dictators, I still disagree with you...

Franklin Roosevelt; HELLO?!

But you've got a point with Kerry - while I am presonally inclined to take up the position that the NY Times did in its editorial backing Kerry (where they said that "where others see a waffler, we see a thinker debating complex issues" - something to that extent), I realize that he's got to change his ways, and fast (ironically ). That is, he's got to not go into his "thinking out loud" personality. While I kind of see an inherient honesty in it (as in, nobdy knows everything and issues are more complex than George Bush's answers), it's definitely his political liability.

[John Ashcroft]

Ah, I'm glad you brought up Roosevelt...

Yep, he was a great one for sure. Almost an icon in your party. So, did he "lower" himself by using the war in his campaign for reelection? Evidently Dubya's not allowed to do that, so I'm wondering what gives?

[steve]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Come now dude, it's not all our fault. Say it with me... America is gooooood.... America is gooooood... Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

And KB's da man for sure. But I'd bet he's gonna vote for Bush this November. He's what I like to call a "Closet Conservative", which is entirely understandable in his line of work.

hmmm...
America the "concept" is good. However, even under the best of circumstances, power corrupts. Orwell's 1984 said as much if not more about human nature/human politics than anything ever written IMHO.

I would say this...
"in the shitsea that is human politics throughout recorded history, America has been the best large-scale aproximation at moving in the right direction" endquote.

So don't put me and the other critics in a wooden crate with the Tazmanian Devil and mail me to Iran just yet - because their political leadership sucks WAY worse than we suck. We suck less than others. Oh...save Great Britain - I like their politcal system better. But they have bad teeth.

[John Ashcroft]

I wonder if their various colonies (past and present) around the world feel that Great Britain's system is "all that and a bag of chips"?

Are you saying a monarchy is the answer?

But not all's bad! We at least agree the limey bastards have, let's say a "less than stellar" dental hygiene...

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Ah, I'm glad you brought up Roosevelt...

Yep, he was a great one for sure. Almost an icon in your party. So, did he "lower" himself by using the war in his campaign for reelection? Evidently Dubya's not allowed to do that, so I'm wondering what gives?

Circumstances were a bit different. FDR was leading a war against Adolf Hitler's Third Reich and the Emperor of Japan. Two real life entities who were fighting a real war against real armies.

Not a vague abstract like the indefineable "terrorist" or a made up "Axis of Evil". And the guy who supposedly committed PERLE Harbor (911) remains at large.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
Circumstances were a bit different. FDR was leading a war against Adolf Hitler's Third Reich and the Emperor of Japan. Two real life entities who were fighting a real war against real armies.

Not a vague abstract like the indefineable "terrorist" or a made up "Axis of Evil". And the guy who supposedly committed PERLE Harbor (911) remains at large.

Wrong answer. In case you've forgotten, we had two big buildings leveled and the Pentagon smashed a bit, played right on live TV. Reasonable people realize that terrorism is at least as serious a threat as Hitler's army, and a harder one to combat. You see, your party's labeling of the War on Terrorism as not "a real war" is backfiring on you. People don't buy it. Yeah, your liberal friends all have your back, but the hard left only accounts for about 20% of the voting public (oh, and that number is shrinking on a daily basis). See resent election results for confirmation. I also wonder if the soldiers fighting terrorism around the world share you assessment of the war. Another little hint for you, the don't. They overwhelmingly support President Bush, I promise you. So don't even waste our time with the one or two stories of dissent in the military. It's really quite a desparate joke.

And on to this:

Originally posted by steve
hmmm...
America the "concept" is good. However, even under the best of circumstances, power corrupts. Orwell's 1984 said as much if not more about human nature/human politics than anything ever written IMHO.

I would say this...
"in the shitsea that is human politics throughout recorded history, America has been the best large-scale aproximation at moving in the right direction" endquote.

So don't put me and the other critics in a wooden crate with the Tazmanian Devil and mail me to Iran just yet - because their political leadership sucks WAY worse than we suck. We suck less than others. Oh...save Great Britain - I like their politcal system better. But they have bad teeth.

Any comments from my Conservative friends on this?

I guess if we "suck" the least, we're doing ok. After all, all anyone can ask for is to "suck" less than your peers (unless you're a porn star that is...)

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
I'm saying that neither side of the aisle has a clean slate in this particular matter. But I'm also saying that Republicans seem to have no problem mopping up the messes they (and others) make. Dems seem to have a problem in this area. I mean, when you've got Jesse Jackson defending Saddam Hussein I don't believe he could be considered a member of the "human rights" party...

heh heh. i know. i was pushing buttons as well...


but as for defending saddam hussein, i haven't really seen any mainstream democrats actually defend him. arguing against the pre-emptive strike is not necessarily the same thing.


though, i'll give you, that many of the democrats don't have a vision for iraq's NOW. whether we should've gone to war or not is over and done. simply saying, "we were wrong, let's pick up stakes and head out" is stupidity.

[John Ashcroft]

And remember the joint resolution of Congress urging President Clinton to remove Saddam by force?

The Dems and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the removal of Saddam (and the Dems in the Senate were the ones who authored it). Interesting that you had a Democratic President who was loathed by Republicans, yet when it came time to do the right thing for our country politics were set aside to do so. You aren't finding that now, that's for sure (with some minor acceptions like Lieberman and Miller).