Posted on 10/10/2002 2:59:30 PM PDT by knighthawk
Ranks right up there with some universal truths.
I said so back then and people called me a leftist.
No, you're not a leftist...you're a realist. Gulf War II should be pretty much the same, barring any real mass political reconstruction in the ME. (especially in Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia; but then again, whose gonna end up taking it up the a$$ to pay for it?) To me, if we can justify ourselves going to war in Iraq this quickly, how much QUICKER SHOULD we have justified and implemented a temporary halt of all immigration, secured our borders, (for real) pursue domestic oil production more aggressively, pursue and quickly implement alternative sources to import oil (Russia for one), and shut down any Ismamic terrorist group that has set up shop in the U.S. I guess its all perspective.
Ask yourself, why is this? I look at it this way: Politicians will always lie about their true motives. If they ever told the truth, it was only because it was expedient at the time, and even then they probably felt funny doing it.
The only way to figure out why they do anything is to know that they have agendas to push. What agenda? Easy: Actions speak louder than words. Don't ever listen to a word they say, instead, watch what they do. We can figure out their priorities pretty easy that way.
In this case, we can clearly see that immigration must be enormously useful to them in one or more ways, to the extent that they're willing to compromise national security for it. They aren't doing it to satisfy a constituency of immigrants who can't even vote yet. They want some side effect of immigration: Lower wages, more people at the base of the social security pyramid scheme, more future dem voters, and maybe even purposely allowing terrorists in so they can pass other laws in response. Some of these interests will appeal to each party, so there you have your bipartisan support.
Through this method, you should be able to answer the rest of your question.
You need to reread my latest post in which I specifically said that bringing democracy to Kuwait was not the main goal. It was a goal, however. As to creating a "democratic Iraq," I guess I take Dubya at his word, at least on this issue. You apparently believe he is trying to deceive us. I think that Dubya, and the neo-Con "American Greatness" types who advise, him actually believe that they can bring democracy to the Middle East as thus establish a democratic counterweight to Saudi Arabia and Iran. I *do* think this is the main reason for a war with Iraq though of course not the only one.
I also think you overestimate Dubya's abilities. This is, after all, the same man who gave us a thoroughly rotten transportion, farm, and protectionist bills and seems to have completely thrown in the towel on affirmative action and social security privatization. He did most of this *before* 9-11. What does this say about his abilities? You might want to check out the recent report of the Heritage Foundation which shows that federal spending increased at a much faster rate under Dubya than during the entire Clinton period.
I honestly do not think so, on any meaningful level. Of course you can probably point to this or that individual who Wanted To Bring Democracy To Kuwait, and then claim that it was a goal... of that person. (You can point to lots of people who have lots of goals, you see.) It doesn't matter. I'm under no obligation to defend other peoples' pipe dreams, as I said.
As to creating a "democratic Iraq," I guess I take Dubya at his word, at least on this issue. You apparently believe he is trying to deceive us.
I guess I have to explain in even more detail to help you understand my actual position on all this. First, 1. I do not think that Democratizing Iraq is the reason for the war, and 1a. I don't think that Bush or anyone in his administration does. 2. Of course, it would be nice - but as a means to an end (namely, pacifying Iraq), rather than an end in itself. 3. There's nothing wrong with trying. 4. In doing so, it may in fact be necessary to resort to decidedly non-democratic means. 5. In the meantime, it only makes political sense when making speeches to pay lip service to "democracy for Iraq". Why not? Never hurts to praise democracy. 6. I believe this is precisely what Bush is doing, but I don't believe that it means that Bush thinks "democratizing Iraq" is the main purpose of war with Iraq per se. 7. Neither do I believe by talking about democracy that he is "deceiving" us; rather, he is engaging in a little bit of salesmanship (and like I said, I see nothing wrong with that.) Finally, 8. When you view such a speech and then conclude "a-ha! So this means that Democratizing Iraq is the main reason for the war. But Democratizing Iraq is difficult. Therefore youse guys are all naive fools!", all I can say is, you're wrong. But not only that, you're disingenuous, because I don't believe for one second that you actually believe that "democratizing Iraq" is the primary goal of war with Iraq.
Ancillary goal, sure. 'Twould be awfully nice, of course. Means to an end. But not the reason for the war.
Please be honest and admit that I am right and that you don't actually believe what you are pretending to believe. Because it's very frustrating to have to spell all of this out in such painful detail if yours is just a pose and a pretense.
I think that Dubya, and the neo-Con "American Greatness" types who advise, him
What's a "neo-Con"? I honestly have no idea what that term is. It gets thrown around an awful lot, but as far as I can tell it applies only to Bill Kristol and perhaps his daddy and the people who work at his small magazine. Who are the so-called "neo-Con"s advising Bush? Is Rumsfeld a "neo-Con"?
I think that Dubya, and the neo-Con "American Greatness" types who advise, him actually believe that they can bring democracy to the Middle East as thus establish a democratic counterweight to Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Sure. In fact, I believe that we "can" do this too. That is to say, it's possible. It can be done, in time, and after fighting a war, and by using some highly non-democratic means for some period. (Perhaps, indeed, a long period.)
And it's worth emphasizing that the reason to even try this in the first place is not because Democratizing Iraq is a great goal in and of itself, but because it's a means to an end. If the end can be achieved by different means, then fine. In any event, war needs to be fought first, and the goal of the war is not "democratizing Iraq" but changing its regime to one which poses less of a threat to us and our interests. (This may indeed mean "democratizing Iraq" to some extent, if possible, after all is said and done, but it's not the goal per se, and certainly no one is saying it will necessarily be easy.)
In general, there's a difference between them saying about the Democratizing Iraq proposal that "we can do this", and them saying "we can do this RIGHT NOW and it will be a PIECE OF CAKE". You are being slippery because, while it's quite reasonable to suggest that Bush belongs in the "we can do this" camp, he hasn't exactly ever come out and said "it'll be a PIECE OF CAKE", has he? But you're pretending that he has, and then criticizing him on that basis (for something which you're pretending he said). In point of fact Bush goes to great lengths in practically every speech I've seen him give how difficult the task ahead of us will be, almost to a nauseating demoralizing extent. So what exactly do you think you're criticizing him for?
You might want to check out the recent report of the Heritage Foundation which shows that federal spending increased at a much faster rate under Dubya than during the entire Clinton period.
I guess at this point you've decided to bring up Bush's abilities regarding shrinking the size of the federal government in the face of a Democrat-controlled Senate. I'm not sure why, because that issue has very little bearing on what we were talking about (Bush's abilities regarding fighting this war). I'll certainly defer to your superior knowledge regarding whatever farm and transportation bills Bush signed, if that sort of thing ranks high on your list of priorities, and take your word for it that those bills are rotten... Let me know if you ever want to get back to the subject at hand (the war). Best,
Why?
Why?
Because Saddam is a nasty character who may soon have nuclear weapons, and because the Kuwaitis obviously feel no gratitude to us for having saved them from being swallowed up by Iraq. Kuwait is a British creation, as artificial as most of the countries in the Middle East and Africa...I don't know if the question of who has what territory over there is any business of ours.
That's why I was asking. Let the 'grateful' Kuwaitis defend themselves this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.