General discussion

Locked

Iraq Aftermath

By TheChas ·
After seeing a blurb on CNN Headline News about Walter Cronkite's opinions about the war in Iraq, I just could not help myself.

Check out this article:

http://tinyurl.com/qj8h

I quote from the article:

"worst policy decision this nation has ever made."

Walter Cronkite is perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news.
If he is so concerned about the Bush administrations Iraq policies, I believe it is time for anyone who still supports the actions taken to re-evaluate their position.

In foreign policy issues, we cannot afford to use the ends justify the means rebuttal that the Bush administration is attempting to use in the face of mounting world criticism.

Yes, Saddam is a ruthless person who terrorized his people to stay in power.
Under that justification, what country will we decide to invade next?

Bush is already focusing on deposing Fidel Castro's government in Cuba.

It is time for the US people to demand no new US aggression against foreign leaders without clear evidence of a imminent threat to the US or our allies.

Chas

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

168 total posts (Page 1 of 17)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

An Iranian viewpoint ...

by jardinier In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Almost every day I have the pleasure and privilege of speaking with an Iranian who runs (with his equally delightful family) a mini-mart. His most recent comment: "Why does Bush spend so much money on war, and none on peace? Why does he not spend money on peace?"

Another Iranian to whom I speak almost every day is equally critical of Bush.

These people, who of course have family members in Iran, are obviously in a better position to hold a considered viewpoint on the issue of
the volatility of the whole of the Middle East.

As for Iraq, well quite frankly I can't see how the unwarranted and univited damage to that country can ever be reversed. The other countries of the world who voted in the UN against a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, are not going to help the USA clean up the mess. A precise tally is kept of the number of US military personnel who are still giving their lives to a stupid cause.

But has anyone bothered to count the Iraqi children who are the innocent victims of this invasion? Even before the invasion started, Australian MP Mark Latham drew attention to the inevitable loss of children's lives that would result.

Collapse -

An Iraqi Viewpoint (actually several)

by road-dog In reply to An Iranian viewpoint ...

This opinion piece was written by a man who went to Iraq as a peace activist and left with his views completely changed.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Joseph20031012.shtml

I agree that the ends don't justify the means, but I suspect that the case for war is best made by those directly affected.

In the case of Iraq, the UN failed miserably in keeping the peace. Iraq was a known threat to the region and the world by its ability and intent to dominate the middle east. By failing to enforce it's own resolutions, denied an opportunity for a peaceful resolution.

Collapse -

Good Link - Interesting everyone should read it

by JimHM In reply to An Iraqi Viewpoint (actua ...

Interesting link and article - everyone should read it ... but them again - someone will say its just GWB propaganda ...

Collapse -

Re: Iraq Aftermath

by Jim Phelps In reply to Good Link - Interesting e ...

Chas said: Walter Cronkite is perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news. If he is so concerned about the Bush administrations Iraq policies, I believe it is time for anyone who still supports the actions taken to re-evaluate their position.

Chas, are you saying that I should believe what Walter Cronkite says because he is "perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news"?

The only one I really trust on any of the big three networks is Ted Koppel. He is the only one who doesn't seem to have any hidden agenda or slant. No matter who he interviews or what the topic is, he always is courteous, and he always asks the same type of probing (but not condescending) questions.

Too bad ABC doesn't let Ted Koppel anchor the evening news, or better yet, be in charge of the news department.

Collapse -

Re: An Iranian viewpoint ...

by Jim Phelps In reply to An Iranian viewpoint ...

jul646 said: But has anyone bothered to count the Iraqi children who are the innocent victims of this invasion? Even before the invasion started, Australian MP Mark Latham drew attention to the inevitable loss of children's lives that would result.

Jul:

Please explain all of the Iraqis who CHEERED for the Americans, British, and yes, Australians. The average Iraqi was ELATED and OVERJOYED that we liberated them.

You can sit back in your comfortable chair, a long distance from the actual situation, and have all kinds of opinions about "the children" (Bill Clinton was a master at weaving in "the children" to every scheme he tried). If you watched the news coverage, however, of the actual events, you saw that the children, and their parents, were VERY GLAD that we came.

I vote with those whose lives were affected by the action, rather than with someone who is full of theories.

Collapse -

President Bush's welcoming committee ...

by jardinier In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Those of us preparing to protest US President George W Bush?s visit to Australia must tread a fine line ? between condemning the policies of an illegitimate president with a dangerous agenda and damning an entire nation.
Those mobilising the Weapons of Mass Derision rally next Sunday have the right idea - turning the President who never won an election, with a cartoon view of the world and childish notions of good versus evil, into a joke is the only constructive response.

And in making a joke of our own Prime Minister's genuflection, we are calling for an Australian leadership with the strength to represent our national interests rather than blindly following its dominant ally.

That said, we would be foolish if we turned our protests into a round of Yank bashing, because in doing so we would be attacking many of the principles of freedom, democracy and individual liberty that we also take for granted.

Anti-American protests only detract from the anti-Bush message - and that is, his policies are the very antithesis of this American ideal.

In taking to the streets against the US President, we are protesting Bush's policies of pre-emption and unilateralism; as they manifest in military action, trade negotiations, environmental and in terms of cultural imperialism.

And in doing so we join an increasing number of Americans who are rejecting Bush and the values he represents.

Americans like Michael Moore who famously wrote to Bush: "Instead of having to earn it, you have been handed the presidency the same way you've come by everything else in your life. Money and name alone have opened every door for you. Without effort or hard work or intelligence or ingenuity, you have been bequeathed a life of privilege."

American's like the Dixie Chicks who were pilloried by the Right for stating they were embarrassed to share a home state with the President, yet rewarded by fans with huge increases in sales.

And Americans like General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who knows more about war than Bush ever will and knows that pre-emption is dangerous and short-sighted and only this week stated:

"We are in a crisis in our relations with the rest of the world. Today, at a time when we need friends and allies more than ever, resentment of America has never been higher, and that makes every American less safe at home and abroad."

If the anti-Bush protests make Australians - and the world - laugh at Bush's ignorance, they will play a small part in strengthening the hands of the only people who can remove him from power - the American people.

But if they become an attack on America they will only add to the siege mentality that began on September 11 and continues to provide Bush with the cover he needs to promote all manner of madness and ignorance.

[Peter Lewis, Editor of Workers Online]

Collapse -

Give me a break

by maxwell edison In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Walter Cronkite is not trusted.

Walter Croknite's editorials have been appearing in my local newspaper ever since he "came out of retirement", so to speak, to become an opinion writer. I've been appalled to see the anti-Bush and pro-Democrat slant in each and every one of them - without exception. For anyone to say that the Iraq liberation was "the worst policy decision ever made" has to be either delusional or senile or partisan, or, in Cronkite's case, all three.

The worst policy decision ever made? And this from the guy (Cronkite) who covered (Democrat) President Johnson's Vietnam War from start to finish? The Vietnam war which literally tore our country apart and killed over 54,000 American soldiers, wounded hundreds of thousands more, and killed and wounded hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of Vietnamese? You've got to be kidding me?

The worst policy decision ever made? And this from the guy (Cronkite) who saw the United States' (Democrat-Socialist) Roosevelt administration sit idly by while Adolph Hitler was running amuck in Europe conquering neighboring lands, killing tens of thousands, no, make that tens of millions of people? You've got to be kidding me?

The worst policy decision ever made? Did he (Cronkite) conveniently forget that having legalized SLAVERY was a POLICY DECISION? You've got to be kidding me?

GIVE ME A FRIGGIN' BREAK!

Walter Cronkite - a champion of environmentalism and alternative energy sources - who led the fight to block efforts to put wind farms near his precious Martha's Vineyard vacation home - who later did an about-face under mounting pressures and charges of hypocrisy, but is "still waiting" for a government study on the matter.

Walter Cronkite, just like Helen Thomas, can't hide behind his shroud of being an impartial journalist any more. His opinion pieces shine brightly on his partisan agenda. And let there be no doubt about it, Walter Cronkite has made his bias very clear.

From the outset, the Bush administration said that the Iraq liberation would not be a short term effort, but rather an endeavor that would take several years.

Chas, give me a break. Regardless you what you claim to be, politically speaking, your extreme liberalism and anti-conservative, anti-Republican views shine very brightly for all to see. But, of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as one-sided as they may be.

Julian, about your comments:

You said, "the President who never won an election"? With all due respect, Julian, you are either in denial, or you don't understand our electoral process (because he DID win the election), or you conveniently forgot (or didn't know) that the Bush opponents started and continued the court challenges (after several defeats), or you are proving those disingenuous comments made about you in the past. (Or all of the above.)

And you believe the likes of Michael Moore? Do you really know who - and what - Michael Moore really is? I'm sure you've heard me use the term, taking an ounce of truth and whipping up a pound of lies. Well, in Moore's case, he takes that pound of lies and whips up a ton of slander. Michael Moore is an American embarrassment.

You praise Wesley Clark as a former NATO commander, but you forgot to mention that he's a former FIRED NATO commander because he almost started a war with the Russians and was a general (no pun intended) pain-in-the-*** to every other military commander. Moreover, your assertion that he knows more than Bush when it comes to military matters becomes nonsense when compared to claims from other American (and British) Generals who DO believe Bush is doing the right thing and/or that Wesley Clark is dangerous.

How about General Colin Powell? Why not believe him - as a General - instead?

Read what British General Sir Mike Jackson had to say to Clark when he ordered him to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital. "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told General Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo's provincial capital.

Read what the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, said about Wesley Clark. "I've known Wes for a long time," Shelton said. "I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. ... I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
Read what Retired Army Brig. Gen. David Grange, the U.S. commander in Bosnia (at that time), said about Wesley Clark. "Clark was so focused on succeeding that 'he would maybe not be cognizant of some of the feelings or concerns of some of the people around him. There's no question that General Clark is for General Clark".

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Marc Cisneros said Wesley Clark, "just outright lied".

And how about General Norman Schwarzkopf who was - and still is - in favor of President Bush's Iraq policy?

Wesley Clark, who praised Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush - and his administration along with their Iraq war efforts - until, of course, he decided to run for President himself.

That makes my six Generals against your one (And I didn't even dig into it looking for more.) It sounds to me that Wesley Clark is a self-serving liar.

Do the research for yourself to find the "Generals" who support Wesley Clark versus the ones who don't. You'll find scores of those against him, and very few - if any - supporting him.

Do the research for yourself to find the "Generals" who support George W. Bush versus the ones who don't. You'll find scores of Generals who support the President, and only one who doesn't - now that he's running for President himself, of course.

These discussions are just becoming too much for me.

I'm going to leave this one for all you Bush-bashers to have your little love feast without further comment from me. (But I reserve the right to change my mind.)

Collapse -

Reformed Conservative

by TheChas In reply to Give me a break

Yes Max, I suppose that I am getting more liberal every day. If so, it is only because of seeing the increasing damage to our country that has been caused by the conservative movement.
Heck, I may even vote for my first Democrat in the next election.

I started my political beliefs as a Democrat.
Blame it on the ever present portraits of JFK that filled the classrooms of my youth.

When I reached the age to vote, my views had shifted to the Republican party.
I hold Presidents Reagan and George H. Bush in high regard.
They were both MEN who did what was needed and prudent at the time to make the world safe for Democracy.

What shifted me over to the "dark side" of liberalism?
The devastation to Michigan that the arch-conservative John Engler foisted upon us.

Education:
Shifting K-12 funding from the stable revenue source of property taxes to the most volatile revenue source, the sales tax is devastating our public school system.
My local school system has been forced to cut nearly all courses for advanced students.
I have spent time with some of the High School teachers and the superintendent.
There is no waste in the present school budget. There is scarcely any meat either.

Roads:
Shifting our hi-ways from concrete to asphalt turned 1 of JE's friends into an over-night millionaire.
However, asphalt flows under the weight of large trucks. So when it rains, we have excellent ruts in the road that are great for hydro-planning.

Local Planning:
In another hand-out to a political friend, JE got a law on the books that PREVENTS local governments from limiting or even controlling mobile home parks.

Environment:
The Michigan DNR now has NO staff to even check on the details of a requested permit, let alone monitor and verify that rules and limits are being followed.
We have gone from thoughtful review of permits to little more than a rubber stamp.

State funds:
JE ignored history, and cut taxes so that the state was at minimal funding during prosperous times. Leaving little or no surplus funds.
Remember, unlike a business, government spending needs to rise when the economy goes into a slump.

Not that our present governor is a prise.
Every move she makes appears to be choreographed as a photo op. readying her for her next step up the political ladder.

In another thread, you stated that were JFK running for president now, he would be a Republican.
Not if he was still based out of Massachusetts.
Like many politicians, the choice of party affiliation would be based on getting elected to local offices first.
So, unless the Kennedy compound moved to a Republican area, JFK would NEED to be a Democrat to begin his political career.

Of course politicians like JFK and Ike could not be elected in todays political environment as both were far to close to the center to make it through the fund raising and primary process.

One more comment:
Bobby Kennedy must be rolling in his grave with all the mergers and collusion that has taken place in big business over the past 20 years.

Chas

Collapse -

On President Kennedy

by maxwell edison In reply to Reformed Conservative

Yes, I did say in a separate thread that John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today OR (don't overlook my "OR" continuance of that remark, lest you'll take it out of context) he would have prevented the Democrat party from taking the extreme left turn that it did under LBJ. (I didn't bother to find the exact message in which I said that, but this is, in essence, what I said.) However, I suspect the latter.

I don't really think JFK would have switched parties, but had he lived to lead the party into the future (which is now the present), we wouldn't have seen the HUGE growth in the welfare state industry that happened under LBJ. We wouldn't have seen the class warfare - the class envy - rhetoric that we see today. And we would have seen the encouragement for people to take personal responsibility instead of the "everyone is a victim" nonsense that we see today. I believe the whole focus and face of the Democrat party would have been vastly different. Even Ronald Reagan, who has often been called a "Kennedy Democrat", and who supported Democrat Harry S. Truman (and was a Democrat for Eisenhower), saw the left turn the party was making, and he officially changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1962.

But probably more importantly, the point I was trying to make was that JFK and his policies were based on a couple of very basic current-day Republican principles. The first, of course, is the importance of having a strong - a very strong - military. The military was absolutely devastated under the Carter administration (one of the reasons I left the military in 78.) And Bill Clinton, as we all know, loathed the military, even though he used it and abused it, slashing the military budget in favor of more social spending.

The second Kennedy - and Republican - principle to which I'm referring were his statements - and actions - about cutting taxes in order to stimulate the economy and increase revenues - supply side (trickle down) economics.

(And a third - Take personal responsibility.)

John F. Kennedy Democrats:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Today's Democrats:

"Ask not what you can do for yourself, demand that others do it for you."

Collapse -

Not MY opinions ...

by jardinier In reply to Give me a break

Max, you might note at the bottom of my posting that these comments are from the editor of an online publication, and NOWHERE have I said that I agree with them. Perhaps I should have made this clearer. I just thought that some TR members might like to learn that George Bush may not receive a warm welcome when he visits Australia.

You can read this item for yourself at http://workers.labor.net.au/latest

You may even care to submit a letter to this online publication, because no opinions are rejected. While it is Australian based, articles and letters come from people in other countries.

Back to Community Forum
168 total posts (Page 1 of 17)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums