Very well then. You support our inflaming the Arab world by liberating the "hated" Kuwaitis and preventing Saddam from taking Saudi Arabia too. You haven't sounded like that in the past but if that is your position, what is your gripe with US ME policy?
For the life of me, I don't understand why you don't put all the dots together. Saddam invaded Kuwait because he didn't think anyone would step in to stop him, let alone the US. Why? Because the US had been supplying him with aid and military assistance all during the 1980s even though America's official position was that Saddam was a brutal dictator to be avoided. Offically, America said little when he gassed the Kurds. But then we gifted him with helicopters that supposedly were for agricultural use but could easily be converted for military purposes and used to gas large populations. This kind of interaction went on for ten years. Even a few days before Saddam attacked Kuwait, the US gave him another nice gift package.........even as DC was rife with talk that Saddam was getting ready to invade Kuwait. No one was more shocked then Saddam when we intervened and stopped him.
--------------------------------------------
Really. Apparently some righties believe in the myth:
"The term neoconservative, used in that context, simply means ‘new’ conservative and there are distinct views and positions that go along with this ideology that vastly stray from traditional conservative views. Most notably among those views is the adoption of a foreign policy of preemption. Preemptive war and preemptive strikes are distinctly neoconservative, or old far left, positions and stray vastly away from the traditional conservative or Christian view of ‘just war’.
"
stanky.wordpress.com
There is no theoretical objection to the concept of preemption for the vast majority of conservatives, whether "new" or "old". The primary conservative that rages against "neo-conservatives" is Pat Buchanan, who got less than a half of one percent in the last election.
If true, then we need to fear neocons and conservatives equally.
------------------------------------------
Hardly. If you are not partisan, you don't have to look far to find things to hate about Bush. I am proud to say I disliked Bush on the campaign trail and voted for Gore. After he got elected, I grew to hate him.
By your own admission you're a parisan opposed to Bush from the beginning. If Bush hadn't gone to war, you could hate him for allowing Saddam to remain in power and cite all the Clinton era evidence of Saddam's WMD programs.
I realized early on what Bush was. That doesn't make me partisan. It makes me very aware.
And if someone else had been the Republican candidate, you'd have hated him from the beginning too.
LOL. I don't think so. I voted for Bush I his first time up to bat. What I find most disturbing is that its 2007 and you are still defending the indefensible. If that isn't an example of ideology trumping good sense, I don't know what is.
|
