Obama or McCain or Beemerboy?

[ParkTrips]

2.) We didn't invade Iraq to liberate a country.

if you go back to the speech Bush gave right before the war started - the one he told the Husseins to "get out" - he said this

 

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them....We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

"free Iraq" was most certainly a part of the initial agenda.

 

 

And what about Osama Bin Laden, the real mastermind of 9/11? We still haven't captured him, and we have relatively little resources working to do so.

How powerful is the group anyways? Is bin Laden even alive? So much of the leadership has been captured or killed, and so much has been disrupted, that the group's operations are really slim.

[ginzo]

"free Iraq" was most certainly a part of the initial agenda.

 

I very well could be wrong, but my recollection is that the liberation aspect was tacked on at the 11th hour before the "shock 'n awe" by Bush after he started to realize that they probably weren't going to find anything in Iraq.

 

I just looked through Colin Powell's UN speech that he gave about a month before we went into Iraq and couldn't find any mention of liberation as a reason to invade Iraq. Everything seems to be related to weapons and disarming Iraq. Powell mentions Saddam's cruelty to his citizens as evidence of how dangerous he is, but I can't find a mention of liberation as a reason to go in. Everything seems really centered on weapons and a threat to the US and other UN members.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html

 

I'm far too lazy to go digging through the various transcripts of the few months that led up to the war. But, if you can find something that references liberation before, say, March 2003, I'd love to see it.

[ParkTrips]

^ I simply pulled that out of the speech on 3.17.03 -- honestly I don't remember a lot of the other build-up, I think a good place to look would be the congressional resolutions but I was too lazy myself

 

Of course, I don't blame them for using the threat of weapons as the primary cause - Saddam hurting his own people within the borders of Iraq won't spark as much support for action from the American people (or, for tha matter, Brits and other allies) as would the perception that an attack on Americans being imminent would

[ginzo]

Of course, I don't blame them for using the threat of weapons as the primary cause - Saddam hurting his own people within the borders of Iraq won't spark as much support for action from the American people (or, for tha matter, Brits and other allies) as would the perception that an attack on Americans being imminent would

 

Aye, I think the real mistake was not invading Iraq back in 1991. It seemed really dumb to let him stay in power after trying to take over Kuwait. And the international community wouldn't have said a damn thing if we did it then.

[larrygator]

In the simplest terms.

 

Saddam Hussein = bad man.

Saddam Hussein is gone.

The world is a better place.

 

The motive for every action the US Government takes is political in nature. The situation is just much more tenuous in the traidtional unstable Middle East, or anywhere else where you deal with fanaticism. Especially, with all the relatively new weatlh in this area.

[cfc]

^^Actually, that wouldn't have flown either--particularly with the Saudis and other Arab nations. They just wanted Saddam out of Kuwait.

 

Bush's decision to invade Iraq is really hurting us when it comes to dealing with Putin and the Russian invasion of Georgia. (I don't blame Putin, coniving bastard that he is, for being a bit sarcastic when Bush said that nations don't topple other nations in the 21st century.) We are going to be paying for this misguided, mismanaged war for years to come, I think.

 

The "war of liberation" argument is a very slippery slope. What about North Korea? African nations controlled by despots? When are we going to "liberate" them?

[ginzo]

^^Actually, that wouldn't have flown either--particularly with the Saudis and other Arab nations. They just wanted Saddam out of Kuwait.

 

The Saudis would have had very little recourse against us at that point. And the Arab nations are going to hate us no matter what.

 

I still think that was the optimal time to do it with Saddam's military already crushed. The UN sanctions were dumb and just tightened Saddam's choke hold over Iraq.

[cfc]

^Bush the Elder was also honoring his agreement with our Saudi "allies." Are you suggesting that he should've broken that agreement?

 

I'm not sure that I buy the "they'll hate us no matter what" argument. After all, most of the Arab world was appalled over 9-11 (some factions aside). This was political capital that our government, unfortunately, squandered, leaving us with a nation (Iraq) we can ill-afford to "build," an emboldened Iran, a lot of residual anger in the Middle East, and a lower standing in the world community.

 

Granted, our invasion of Iraq did seem to sober up Libya, but it also helped make Ghaddafi a major player again by turning him into a "statesman" (not quite the solution we expected, I think).

[ginzo]

^Bush the Elder was also honoring his agreement with our Saudi "allies." Are you suggesting that he should've broken that agreement?

 

Why do they get to dictate how it's done if they're not doing it themselves? It's not like the US would have handed Iraq over to Iran at that point, eliminating the Saudis' precious buffer zone.

 

I just don't see how there's logic in leaving a guy in power who was shooting Scuds at Israel, a country capable of a nuclear response. (Thanks France!)

 

I'm not sure that I buy the "they'll hate us no matter what" argument. After all, most of the Arab world was appalled over 9-11 (some factions aside). This was political capital that our government, unfortunately, squandered, leaving us with a nation (Iraq) we can ill-afford to "build," an emboldened Iran, a lot of residual anger in the Middle East, and a lower standing in the world community.

 

Of course, 9/11 itself was funded and carried out largely by our "friends" from Saudi.

[cfc]

Why do they get to dictate how it's done if they're not doing it themselves? It's not like the US would have handed Iraq over to Iran at that point, eliminating the Saudis' precious buffer zone.

 

Because they allowed us to establish bases and mount an invasion from their own country. That gives them a "say."

 

The Saudis are a complicated bunch. They produced Osama bin Laden and contribute to Al Quaida, yet we're their number-one customers when it comes to oil.

[ginzo]

Why do they get to dictate how it's done if they're not doing it themselves? It's not like the US would have handed Iraq over to Iran at that point, eliminating the Saudis' precious buffer zone.

 

Because they allowed us to establish bases and mount an invasion from their own country. That gives them a "say."

 

The Saudis are a complicated bunch. They produced Osama bin Laden and contribute to Al Quaida, yet we're their number-one customers when it comes to oil.

 

To me, it just seems like they left us holding a big bag of shit for no reason. And Daddy Bush's overly chummy relationship with the Saudis didn't help matters.

[cfc]

^I think the nadir of Bush the Younger's attempts at diplomacy came when he went to Saudi Arabia and asked them to "please, pretty please" lower the cost of their crude. They pretty much laughed in his face.

 

I think our Bush discussions have become more like digressions when it comes to this thread, though. The idea is to discuss Obama v. McCain v. Beemer Boy, and how they'd handle our country's current situation.

 

Scott, will you block any attemtps to start regular monorail service between Iran and Iraq?

[ginzo]

^I think the nadir of Bush the Younger's attempts at diplomacy came when he went to Saudi Arabia and asked them to "please, pretty please" lower the cost of their crude. They pretty much laughed in his face.

 

I agree. That was an epic fail. I think it was not only Bush that tried that, but also Cheney. But, I'm not sure, because, as usual, I'm only half paying attention.

 

Anyway, digression over. I'm still waiting to hear from Scott about military tribunals for parks that install Vekoma rides.

[BeemerBoy]

I'll very loosely paraphrase a conversation I had with a friend of mine years back concerning issues such as what's been discussed over the last page or two. My best friend's dad worked for years in the CIA (I could tell you where, what, etc, but then I'd have to kill you).

 

He once said something to the effect of "Well, if Carter (or Ford - sorry, I honestly can't remember which one he referred to) hadn't signed that bill, then half of these red-flagged A-holes around the world would still be taken out under the cloak of darkness without anyone ever knowing we were even there. Instead, now anything our Special Ops forces are capable of doing needs a frickin' permission slip signed by every damn 'suit' in Washington before any gun is even loaded.....which is absolutely PATHETIC. And because of that, the Saddams, and Bin Ladens of the world continue to exist."

 

I guess you can make of that what you wish, but personally I'm willing to buy into it to a degree. I highly recommend reading Rogue Warrior by Richard Marcinko. That convinces me that some of what my friend said could very well be true.

 

 

 

Scott, will you block any attemtps to start regular monorail service between Iran and Iraq?

 

There will be absolutely NO monorail service between Iran and Iraq as long as I'm in office. However, I will not discourage the installations of Vekoma SLCs and boomerangs in those particular countries. The mere presence of Vekoma in America is a clear indication that terrorist cells do indeed exist in our country. They must be snuffed out by any means necessary.

 

Trims and poor flat ride cycles will also not be tolerated under my administration. The oppression of our people while at amusement parks must end. I will immediately launch a congressional investigation into the matter.

 

In closing, I'd also like to point out that, to date, neither of my opponents have felt the need to post in this thread. Evidently, the opinions of TPR voters are unimportant to Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain.

[ginzo]

^That's all well and good, Scott. But how do we know these aren't all empty campaign promises? How do we know you won't hog all the PMW to yourself after your inauguration?

[alpengeist04]

There will be absolutely NO monorail service between Iran and Iraq as long as I'm in office. However, I will not discourage the installations of Vekoma SLCs and boomerangs in those particular countries. The mere presence of Vekoma in America is a clear indication that terrorist cells do indeed exist in our country. They must be snuffed out by any means necessary.

 

Trims and poor flat ride cycles will also not be tolerated under my administration. The oppression of our people while at amusement parks must end. I will immediately launch a congressional investigation into the matter.

 

In closing, I'd also like to point out that, to date, neither of my opponents have felt the need to post in this thread. Evidently, the opinions of TPR voters are unimportant to Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain.

 

You have my vote, Scott.

[TheRapidsNerd]

However, I will not discourage the installations of Vekoma SLCs and boomerangs in those particular countries.

 

Does this mean Togos would stand as the water-boarding of the coaster world?

 

The more I read of the Beemerboy administration, the more I like it's one track mentality and it's singular devotion not to rail on pointless topics. It's well stationed and a very solid platform.

[John Peck]

Don't forget.. Voting for Obama will ultimately lead him into Reducing our Military, Allowing Congress to approve Millions of Dollars in Earmarks and allowing the country to go into another recession.. just like what Bill Clinton has done to us right now.

 

Yes.. our Current economy is not caused by Bush.. this is Bill Clintons doing.

 

Voting is a privelage...many don't even get the chance. In some countries.. they tell you who to vote for.. and if you don't... they put you in jail or kill you.

[cherrydrink]

Yes.. our Current economy is not caused by Bush.. this is Bill Clintons doing.

 

Care to elaborate? This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.

[mboy81]

Don't forget.. Voting for Obama will ultimately lead him into Reducing our Military,

 

Umm, what? I think you meant "Reducing our Military in Iraq."

 

I think the current administration has done a fine job already in reducing our military, with over 4,000 dead, and 30,000 wounded. This is 1,937 days after our president proclaimed "Mission Accomplished."

[ParkTrips]

Care to elaborate? This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.

I wouldn't call it ridiculous, but there is no real answer as to whom to credit. Some would say Reaganomics should be credited for the 90s boom too. Who knows, the debate could go on forever. Someone mentioned Alan Greenspan deserving a lot of the credit, and it wouldn't be hard to argue that the Federal Reserve has more power over the economy than does the president.

 

It's an argument with no real answer.

 

Umm, what? I think you meant "Reducing our Military in Iraq."

It wouldn't be surprising to see him cut troops, especially with the way warfare has evolved with precision weaponry greatly reducing ht eneed for massive ground forces.

 

Just think if Clinton didn't cut so much out of the military, how all these guys serving third and fourth tours in Iraq may not have to have gone over so often.

 

4000 dead in 5 years is pretty low considering what other wars - say, WWII and Vietnam - have done over the years. It sucks to see anyone die in war but there is always that risk when you sign up.

[BeemerBoy]

It sucks to see anyone die in war but there is always that risk when you sign up.

This is a very important quote. Blame can be pointed in many different directions as to why we're there. However, it's always important to keep in mind that with any present day discussion of military involvement, our soldiers volunteered.

 

I, for one, will focus efforts on homeland security. Our borders must be protected.......around Batman clones.

[mr_teisco_delrey]

Yes.. our Current economy is not caused by Bush.. this is Bill Clintons doing.

 

Care to elaborate? This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.

 

A lot of the problems in the housing market, hence the overall economy, can be traced to the securitization of very risky home loans that should not have been made. This "risk management" via securitization was made possible by the repeal of the Glass - Steagal act in the late 90s. Glass - Steagal made it illegal for commercial banks to be involved in the securities industry. If Glass - Steagal were still in force, banks and security brokers would not have had the ability to securitize risky loans that should not have been made in the first place.

I will grant that Congress pushed for repeal, but the ultimate responsibility, the actual signing and repeal, rested with the President.

 

That being said, I would like to say I don't like Obama or McCain. I don't know who I am going to vote for.

[mcjaco]

^ Let's not forget the American public which doesn't like to read what they're signing either. I'm not syaing the loans were bad in the first place, but blame has to placed one the people that went into the biggest purchase of their life without even doing a little bit of research.

 

It hurts my brain.

 

Off my soapbox, and back to drunken hop farming.

[mr_teisco_delrey]

^ Let's not forget the American public which doesn't like to read what they're signing either. I'm not syaing the loans were bad in the first place, but blame has to placed one the people that went into the biggest purchase of their life without even doing a little bit of research.

 

It hurts my brain.

 

Off my soapbox, and back to drunken hop farming.

 

Man, theres that personal responsibility thing raising it's ugly head again. I figure that the mortgage bankers figured in the signer not reading the contract as one of the factors making the loan riskier.