So if Bush says we need to go to war, I agree in principle, it's kind of like "Ok mom, you are right", but look for excuse for not doing it now.
First, Bush is not my mom, and with the exception of my mom, I don't have a knee jerk reaction to whatever someone tells me to do, and I don't think you do either.......at least, I hope not.
But as far as bombing other countries, eagerness of going to war, this administration started out somewhat isolationist, and would most likely be one of the most isolationist one if 9/11 did not happen.
I am unclear why this is germane to what we are talking about now. I don't think there was enough time between his inauguration and 9/11 to get a good picture of what this administration was all about. But clearly, since 9/11, military aggression seems to be its theme.
FYI, compare that to our military actions in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo/Yugoslavia, lobbing rockets at Afganistan, Sudan, bombing a few installation in Iraq, all of which happened during the previous administration.
First off, I expect there will be military actions from time to time.....specifically to save Americans who are in danger like we are doing in the Ivory Coast this week. However, there is a big difference between military actions and war.
Secondly, why do you assume I condoned all that happened during the last administration. I thought Somalia, Sudan and Afghanistan were ridiculous and accomplished little....but then again, the efforts were very small, and certainly not on the level of a war.
I don't recall your opposition to any of those actions, even though the reasons for most of them are completely dwarfed by 9/11. So calling this administration trigger happy because of the invasion of Afganistan (which is all they did so far) makes zero sense.
I didn't say this administration was trigger happy but rather that they are prepared to start a war for reasons that are suspect......at least to me.
As far as keeping attention away from domestic economy, this is what Bush ran on, it is what he would love to be dealing with instead, rather than post 9/11 actions. You may recall that during campaign, he had to "demonstrate" that he had interest in it as well.
As president, you don't have the luxury of dealing with just one thing. That's not the job description. Besides, this administration appears to be choosing to wrap itself up in war issues for whatever reason. Its unclear to me why they are ignoring domestic issues but ignoring them is what they're doing. And things are beginning to unravel badly.
Gore's speech the other night put a voice to the frustration felt by people like me. I am prepared to go to war when it can be justified; when all diplomatic measures have been tried and failed but not one millisecond before.
I am curious about this. Let me understand this in Iraq context. What diplomatic measures do you have in mind.
Developing consensus with our allies and pushing for a UN effort to bring an end to Saddam's antics. On the surface, the administration appears to be doing the latter and maybe even both, but in reality, they are managing to muddy up the waters and confuse the situation. An example is their response to Germany's reservations re Iraq. Germany is one of our key allies and a necessary one in our NATO alliance. Instead of trying to understand the German perspective and work with it, the administration is choosing to denigrate and snub German officials. For a moment, take that attitude down to a personal level both at work and in your social life. How far do you think you would get in either aspect of your life with that kind of attitude? The kind of behavior currently exhibited by the US is hardly conducive to maintaining good relations with colleagues, friends and family. This breach between the US and Germany will be healed but I wonder if the relationship will ever be the same.
As far as time, I see it completely differently. I think postponing action on Iraq is to watch them. While we watch them, we either develop more evidence / justification for going to war, or maybe, the activities we object to will stop, and there will no longer be need to go to war.
I certainly agree with this approach.
Furthermore, I will not have someone try to ramrod a war down my throat for whatever reason.
Again, I didn't see you objecting to Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia (destruction of civilian infrastructure), Afganistan, Sudan of previous administration.
We didn't know each other then. <g>
ted |
