The administration is doing what all the anti-war people complained he didn't do before the Iraq war, that is to get the UN and Eurpean allies involved. I can't see anything happening right now on Iran untill the process has been completed with the Int'l Nuclear Commission, The Euros and the UN. And Buckeye T is right, even WWII (the great war) had antiwar activists, Lindbergh was one of them. Of course back then things were different and the Press wouldn't have given them anywhere near the space they would now and of course there were no where near the media options that there is today. They called them pacifists back then.
....indeed and even more serious than that. If I'm not mistaken there were congressional debates over impeachment proceedings for FDR's "violation" of US law at the time - the Neutrality Acts - given his policy of convoy protection and the provision of military supplies to the UK. Terry
Excuse me for choking on my beer when I see comparison's of the 2003 invasion of Iraq vs. the cause of going to war against the Axis powers in WWII. Check this out re: war protesters: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/rumsfeld.ap/index.html You guys kill me the way you stand by your man. And again BT, I think we are in a weakened state militarily right now to take on the task of military action vs. Iran. The longer we use our resources in Iraq the longer it will be before Iran could be contended with. Hopefully diplomacy will yet be the answer in Iran as it should have been in Iraq given the fact that even Rumsfeld said today there were no WMDs.
Well....I know of some who are listening and buying it lock..stock..and barrel: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/greenfield.mission.accomplished/index.html
The Public is entitled to change their mind, they often do that. That doesn't mean that they were wrong when they voted, or that they were wrong when they answered some pollster that they approved, circumstances change and peoples opinions along with them. Carter was almost landslided into office, so was Jerry Ford, neither were re-elected. Clinton however lied directly to the people, he commited perjury and got away with it, he lost his law license. He was a serial womanizer who was supported by NOW (figure that one out). He embarassed totally the integrity of the office of the President. Yet if he'd been able to run for a 3rd term he might have been elected again, it's still amazing that Gore was able to throw away the advantages that Clinton left him. Right now some people are convinced that Bush and his "oil buddies" are colluding to drive up the price of gasoline to make themselves richer. They completely ignore the market and just arbitrarily say it's Bushes fault. Before the Iraq War, Iraq was not contributing anything to speak of to the supply of oil due to UN Sanctions. People conveniently forget that, they conveniently ignore that China and India are big players. They forget that every time that madman in Iran threatens Israel or says something insane that those who participate in the Oil market get nervous and it drives up the price of oil. Buckeye T has explained all this more elegantly than this poor attempt. But the bottom line is that Bush is not popular right now. Maybe something happens that pushes his ratings back up, maybe not. Some of it is not rational to me. I see people all the time complain about the economey, yet unemployment has been extremely low, more people own homes, the economey is growing and survived terrible hits in Katrina and Rita (which also affected gas supplies). Those who claim to be democrats want low gas prices, but they don't want us to drill anywhere in the US for it, and they don't want us to build any more gasoline production plants. I have no idea how they think it will work if demand increases and supply is static. They don't want any solution to immigration that would involve actually enforcing the law, that would be mean. I can remember as a kid in high school people complaining about gas prices and wanting the govt to do something about it. We used to see bumper stickers in Texas that said if you like the Post Office you'll love Nationalized Oil. Terry
MCG, we have evidenced that diplomacy was NOT "sufficient" to alter the very behaviors of the Iraqi regime that prompted the diplomatic effort decades before.....do you honestly believe that a similar process will "yet be the answer in Iran". Just how much of a head start do you think you can spot them before it's too late? The risk/reward ratio in that scenario just doesn't seem prudent to me given their outspoken advocacy - through words and deeds - of the destruction of the US and our key middle east ally. As to the comparisons with another great conflict in our history and your beer choking problem....I think Mr. Churchill's words, quoted here, are eerily right on point..... Terry
Well said by Mr. Churchhill but I have to believe that a constant undertaking of policing the malicious in the world will result in a heavy downturn in a volunteer army. If you buy into this theory BT then we must go to war with N. Korea very soon as well as Iran and we must do it now. We'll need a drafted army of 3-4 million to have any sort of chance and our budget deficit will triple at least.
Scary stuff MCG, scary indeed....you can't be serious :?: Tell what is the viable alternative to when one has a sworn obligation to protect and defend? It almost sounds as if you're suggesting that from a policy perspective, we cannot afford to take the steps necessary to defend ourselves and our way of life? Are you serious? It's too expensive so I'll just stick my head in the sand, pretend that it doesn't exist and/or hope somebody does something????? That's not leadership. That's a freakin' fairy tale! Heaven help us..... Imagine poor Wilson - the great pacifist - drawn in to an unpopular war "over there" was forced to go from a budget surplus, increasing TOTAL government spending 10x(!) in 2 years(!), incurring massive deficits in the process. For the Bush administration to put forth deficits equivalent to poor Wilson's, the current budget deficit would have to expand 10x!!! Or worse.....consider the case of poor FDR. In the face of immense deficits after a massive run-up in government spending funding the New Deal, FDR really kicked it in high gear - again increasing an already bloated federal budget 10x(!) from 39-45. Again, in perspective, relative to budget receipts, the Bush administration would have to increase the existing deficit 10X to be equivalent to FDR's. Now imagine that was in a day with wherein Social Security/Medicare ate up very, very little of the federal resources. In 1945, FDR's defense budget amounted 90% of the total federal expenditures and was 300X the size of total outlays for Social Security/Medicare. By contrast the handcuffs imposed upon modern administrations by the federal dole are immense. The current federal budget for Social Security/Medicare is twice the size of the defense budget. Defense amounts to just 19% of the total federal budget. Virtually any increase in defense spending that you could possibly envision would pale in comparison to past efforts and would indeed be a small, small price to pay to protect and defend our way of life. Terry
BT, something tells me that you think there is some easy way to do the policing of the world that needs to be done. I would like to hear it. With regard to WWII, how effective would the U.S. have been if we had spent countless resources militarily and worn on the public nerves with an ineffective 5 year conflict in say...Yugoslavia in the immediate years prior to WWII? Think about that one.
Man we are really drifting here.... I'm curious MCG, do you think that if we hadn't gone into Iraq that price of gasoline would still be around 1.60? Terry
Somehow I think the oil powers that be and their friends in high places would have found a way to justify prices and the mega-billions in profit that goes with it. Certainly global demand is one of those excuses.
Easy? Is that your criteria for supporting initiatives necessary to protect and defend our citizens and way of life? Can you imagine what the world would look like today if we only did the easy things? Which of the major events that shaped the history of the United States was easy? Easy????? That is truly absurd! Re: Yugoslavia prior to WWII. Yes, I see, the parallels between pre-war Yugoslavia and Hussein's Iraq are striking. I can see why you would want to make the comparison. Let's examine them... 1) They both had a bad habit of unprovoked attacks on their neighbors and employing WMD's against neighboring countries and the mass murder of their own citizens.....hmmmmm 2) They both were documented by the world community as using the mechanisms of state to fund and provide support for world wide terrorist organizations....providing bounties and blood money for the murder of the innocent men, women and children of the US and our allies.....hmmmm. 3) They both were found to be in material breach of their international obligations in a unanimous vote of UN Security Council in open defiance of the world community......hmmmmm. 4) They both were found to be in material breach of their obligations in the cease-fire agreement that ended the first Gulf conflict.....hmmmmm. 5) They both were found to be guilty of planning and attempting the assassination of a former President of the United States...hmmmmm. 6) They were both guilty of firing on Allied aircraft flying missions in support of sanctions invoked by international agreement.....hmmmm. MCG, denying the existence of relevant facts of a material nature does not make them irrelevant or immaterial but it does tend to render the basis of your arguments somewhat lacking. Facts can be very pesky things.... Terry
MCG, just who are these mysterious powers and their friends that are manipulating the world oil markets. Just how do they do that? A great conspiracy theory...tell us more. Terry