you (formerly) hopeless pinko commie Sumbitch.

nah I'm still a pinko commie sumbitch

hahahahaha

but I'm trying to see all sides of the story more these days

The point to my article was that if we truly want democracy in Iraq, we could have made it happen. We just needed to selflessly pour billions into the country, not expect a return on our investments, and make people feel safe. I think a good starting point for democracy would be for the us government to make a blanket statement that we will no longer prop up dictatorships, though we will continue to trade with them. This should be accompanied by an opening of trade with Cuba and a creation of a democratic state of Palestine. This would send a message to our enemies that we will not stand by and watch as they terrorize their peoples and us. Think about it for a minute, name one truly democratic country that we have ever, ever, had a major war with or a major conflict with. I can't think of a single one. I think our best defense spending would be ridding the world of dictatorships; even those that we shortsightedly think are helping us (Pakistan).

if we truly want democracy in Iraq, we could have made it happen

Um, didn't they just have some elections?

a creation of a democratic state of Palestine

Well, Bush says he supports a Palestinian state.

name one truly democratic country that we have ever, ever, had a major war with or a major conflict with

Well, never forget that Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor of Germany.

" The point to my article was that if we truly want democracy in Iraq, we could have made it happen."

Their first popularly elected parliament met today. I'm curious as to how old your newspapers are.

"We just needed to selflessly pour billions into the country, not expect a return on our investments"

We, um, did pour billions into the country... and we, um, haven't gotten any return on our investment. Are you implying we could have done this somehow without invading, which you were adamantly against?

"This should be accompanied by an opening of trade with Cuba and a creation of a democratic state of Palestine."

Cuba is debatable. I don't think sanctions do any good when the rest of the world ignores them. I do, though, think that rewarding a government that peopel risk their lives on rafts to escape is just as bad. Catch-22.

As for Palestine, do you suggest we invade and impose Democracy there? If not, what more do you think we could be doing?

"I think our best defense spending would be ridding the world of dictatorships."

You've done a grand job explaining the Bush doctrine. How very open minded of you. The only short sightedness is the idea that we can somehow do it without allies. There are only two ways you can fly over people's airspace, lob missiles and shells, etc. You either make them your allies, or fight them as well.

Do you suggest we fight all the dictators at once, or leave them all as they are because we logistically can't make war without allying ourselves with a couple?

You are becoming quite the hawk, sandy. I think it is kind of funny hearing this now when you would have happily left Hussein where he was indefinately.

Rightwinger:

South Vietnam was not a true democracy when we went in, and we did nothing to ensure the growth of a healthy, stable democratic government while there; we continued to support the dictatorship. (and therein lies the difference, and how Bush HAS learned from the past) This caused the people South Vietnam to become more or less ambivalent to the reasons why we were fighting for them. So, if they lost, one dictatorship would be replaced with another. So what?

Good point.


Myrrander:

Geez, I'm sounding all moderate. I need to go read some Noam Chomsky and watch "Roger and Me" or something... Cheers.

"They made THEMSELVES economic powerhouses because they had the freedom to do so."
I have to wonder whether or not this person knows that in postwar Japan, the US kept full control of Japan's oil exports, thereby leaving them subject to political blackmail.
And the nice picture of Hussein with the cigar with the 911 twin towers backdrop....is this evidence or something? Is this fool saying the US should attack a country that associates 911 with SMILES AND CHEERS? http://www.rense.com/general44/those.htm Tel Aviv bound! Come on sir. Be realistic. A painting is evidence of a crime as much as Star Trek is a guide for space travel.

"I have to wonder whether or not this person knows that in postwar Japan, the US kept full control of Japan's oil exports, thereby leaving them subject to political blackmail."

Oh, so we ARE responsible for making Japan an economic powerhouse? I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, but by all means if you want to take the credit away from the Japanese people, that is your right.

Or, I guess you could just be making an irrelevant jab at the spectacularly successful rebuilding of Japan. Ah, the tireless quest to sully every positive historical detail with US stamped on it...

"Is this fool saying the US should attack a country that associates 911 with SMILES AND CHEERS? http://www.rense.com/general44/those.htm Link Tel Aviv bound! "

OMG, did you really just post a link to a 9-11 Zionist plot site? And you are calling Island Dog a fool?

"They made THEMSELVES economic powerhouses because they had the freedom to do so." I have to wonder whether or not this person knows that in postwar Japan, the US kept full control of Japan's oil exports, thereby leaving them subject to political blackmail.

*You* need to get a clue and read a little more history. The ONLY reason we kept control of Japan's oil is so that we kept control of any military presence that they might have put together though the exporting of their oil (money).

Well... I had typed up a few page long response, and I clicked out, and I am not going to retype the entire thing right now. I might do it later.

History has proven that the US doesn't support democracies. It has proven that the US supports capitalist governments of any type who are friendly to foreign (American) investors.

Remember 9/11/1973

I admit that the intelligence was not great but the intelligence did tell Mr. Bush that there were no nuclear weapons. Even if Saddam had chemical or Bio weapons, it was not a threat to the United States.

You know, COL, I already said here that I've thought all along that we ~~REALLY~~ went in for the purpose of cleaning up the mess the UN wouldn't let Bush Sr. take care of. The WMDs were used as a rationale, that's all. That's what I really believe. Right or wrong, we're there now. Get past it...let go of it and start dealing with what's happening now, which is looking increasingly good.

It's done; we're there and the people of Iraq are beginning to benefit from it, despite the continuing violence. This is what makes me say this argument is academic.

You are right we are there now. The important issue is not to allow Bush or any other President to make the same error again. WE can not remove the worlds evil dictators nor should we. If we go to war we must insist that the President tells us the real reason not what will get it through Congress. The only reason to attack another country is if they pose a real danger to the U S. Saddam was NEVER such a threat to this country, not even if he did have WMD. The long term impact on the government and what the new Iraq will mean to the U S is not clear. A governmnet could result that we will not like five years from now. If that happens, we will have made a tragic error. This is a crap shoot that has cost America 1,500 lives, 25,000 injured and $300 Billion so far with more to come. That is too high a price to give Iraq a chance to vote! If the Congress had been told the truth as stated above, they would NEVER have approved the attack on Iraq! Congress and the American People were mislead by Bush. He had this action in the planning stage before 9/11 and it had nothing to do with protecting America!

everyone, loves cheap oil, even at the cost of human lives

Well, we'd all love to pay less at the pump. But you have to understand that the oil motivation wasn't for CHEAP oil, it was just to have a friendly oil supplier at ANY price. With the oil peak on its way, "cheap oil" is a relic of the past, and "any oil" is going to become the term.

Cheap Oil is over. The higher prices will add to inflation and the trade deficit. That is why we MUST require higher milleage from SUV's ,cars and trucks. We must do more to develop alternate energy sources which Bush has refused to push. Drilling in Alaska does not solve the short or long term problem with oil. It is just like individual accounts does not solve the funding problem of Social Security. Why does President Bush propose solutions to the major issues facing the U S that DO NOT SOLVE THE ISSUES AT HAND?

This is a funny one. Being a Japanese man I think I know a touch more about this than you drones do. And it's no insult to the US. They kept control of Japan's oil. You can say it was because of the military threat, but kept control of it they did. Economic blackmail.
And what zionist shit? I dare that loser who said that to explain that lie. The idiot loser posted a pic of Hussein and a cigar with the towers burning. As if it's reason to slaughter Iraqis. So someone get this faggy boy to tell me why it's wrong for a painting to have a smiling Hussein with the towers burning behind him, but it's ok for US's ally Israel to have LAUGHING and TAKING PICTURES with the towers burning behind them. Explain it. Then you may have the right to insult. Zionist. What a load of bullshit.

reiki-house

you are a douche. go away.

reiki-house you are a douche. go away.

more like a flaming idiot! But in either case he should *still* go away!

haha

i love it when the good doctor and I can agree

Rightwinger---


Is it me or do most liberals sound like a broken record player.....must be me....:p;p

WE can not remove the worlds evil dictators nor should we.

Why not? Would you rather the world be filled with brutal dictators just so you don't make the euros mad?

I may be a little confused, but one of the reasons for Japan's attack on the US was because of our oil. We were the primary oil provider to Japan (and the world) before the war. The Japanese main Island does not have much oil (not even close to what their need was and is). Japan's conquest into the Dutch East Indies was all for a new oil Imports source. The US subs roaming the shipping lanes near the captured Dutch East Indies and torpedoed Japan's oil/rubber imports during the war. This is the one time when u-boat tactics completely did succeed

So to clear things up. Let’s say that the US used the oil Embargo (blackmail) before the war to affect Japan's foreign policies. It also started the war. So much for the theory that Embargoes prevent war, change country’s attitudes for the better and solve a crisis.

Now I will admit that we may have used oil (i.e. not selling them our oil) to effect Democratic reform in Japan after the war. We did not prevent Japan from selling their resources; we prevented them from buying ours. Now how is that blackmail agian? But I would say General McArther's gun barrel to the head tactics was more likely the reason the political change in Post war Japan then oil.

As for promoting Democracy, IMO the one great program (next to WW2) that saved more Democracies then any other event, was the Marshall Plan. Without the Marshall plan, half of Western Europe would have been red. The money grants (not loans) that we handled out to promote Democracies only (a strings attach thing) was just the incentive to keep the communist activist at bay. A Marshal Plan type of arrangement should have been offered to Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation and other locations around the world. But too many people opposed any involvement in other countries political systems in the last few decades. (i.e. Kerry's foreign policy/CIA witch hunts in the 80’s)

We are now pumping massive amounts of money into our military in Iraq, which is good. I just wish more of that money would go to the Iraqi Civil Engineering and Civil Services. But if a person feels that Iraq owes us that money back, they need to forget it. In time we have been paid in full for the money we gave during the Marshall plan. By not supporting Afghanistan in the late 80's, we got paid in full all right. We may risk the same thing again, if those who want to cut and run have their way.

That's My Two Cents

First we do not have the military or money to deal with the evil dictators of this world. Until they become a danger to us, we have no right to attack another country. Who appointed the United States remover of all evil? To ask our military to put their lives on the line there must be a real danger to us and our way of life. That was not the case in Iraq.

Who appointed the United States remover of all evil

The UN, I seems, at least over the last twenty or so years.

Who appointed the United States remover of all evil

The UN, it often seems, at least over the last twenty or so years.

That was not the case in Iraq.

How about in Bosnia-Hertzegovina? Milosevic was just blowing away Americans left and right, wasn't he?