[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So lets see, Libya JUST decided to hand over its WMD program.
Syria JUST decided to leave Lebennon.
Egypt JUST decided to have multiparty elections.
Kuwait JUST decided to let women vote.

Come on people, think all that would have happened if Bush were not in office and we hadn't invaded Iraq? The Middle East is a big ring of dominos and all Bush had to do was knock a few over to get started.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
quick answer: yes...
It would have been a matter of time, but then it would be a real breakthrough... and it would have been less bloody...

(Edited by Max on 6/29, 7:41am)




Post 2

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max said:

It would have been a matter of time, but then it would be a real breakthrough... and it would have been less bloody...

What is your basis for this assertion?  How much more time, 50 years?  What would have precipitated this 'real' breakthrough?




Post 3

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good Scott.

Max I generally agree with you. :-(




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Clarence Hardy:

"So lets see, Libya JUST decided to hand over its WMD program."

Um, no, Libya didn't "just" decide to hand over its WMD program. It had been offering to do so since 1999.

Tom Knapp



Post 5

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Qaddafi could have done the deal in 1999, but he stalled until December 2003, the exact same month that Saddam was found in his spiderhole.  But perhaps you think the other changes mentioned are coincidence too.



Post 6

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

You've joined the dark side. 




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"So lets see, Libya JUST decided to hand over its WMD program.
Syria JUST decided to leave Lebennon.
Egypt JUST decided to have multiparty elections.
Kuwait JUST decided to let women vote."


The US's invasion of Iraq was bound to cause changes in the region.  Some of them good, some of them bad.  However not every major policy shift in the region can be attributed to the invasion.  Syria leaving Lebanon being a classic example.  Did Syria really assasinate Hariri because the US invaded Iraq?  I know of no information that would back that up.  Why did the people in Lebanon rise up against Syria?  Perhaps it was a massive misjudgement by an arrogant oligarchy, the straw on the camels back.  Why did the people in Lebanon know they could come out and demonstrate basically peacefully?  Certainly not because the US invaded Iraq -- perhaps they did cause Lebanon was already liberal by standards in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc. or perhaps they were inspired by all the protests against the war in Iraq they saw across the world on Al Jazeera and other media outlets.  Does anyone think that Syria was afraid the US would invade if it didn't leave Lebanon or that its position in the region would be weakened if the US military engaged in limited strikes in Syria, rather than stenghtened?

The case of Eygpt and Kuwait are at least as dodgy.  Yes, the invasion caused policy shifts in the area -- but is arrogant and shortsided to see it as the sole reason or even the dominant one for every good action you can point to in the area.  Why give government all the credit when liberalizing and empowering forces like the internet, cable tv (al jazeera in particular), mass consumer culture and other forces of globalism are just as likely to be a force for good and in a much more subtle and peaceful way than a military invasion.




Post 8

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mick,

Save the rationalizations to defend the next demopublican that gets elected, and give credit where it is due.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I find it funny how the burden of proof has been turned around here.

Say I were to come in and claim there God exists, and my argument is "He must! You have to prove he doesn't, or I must be right!" Everyone would correctly recognize the fallacy and state that it was a burden of proof upon me to support the claim I made - not upon them to refute it.

Closer to the issue: if I were to claim that Bush's policies were what caused 2004 to be a record-setting year for number of terrorist events, or that they caused North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, the burden of proof would fall on me to provide evidence for there being causality rather than just correlation. Demanding someone refute it or else it must be true would clearly be invalid.

Likewise, if anyone wants to posit that Libya, Egypt or other cases were caused by the Iraq invasion rather than just correlations, then they are welcome to provide evidence for causality. Just saying 'It must be! Prove me wrong!' is another invalid attempt to shift the burden of proof.




Post 10

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron,

Liberals love to recite their anti-bush litany ad nauseum.  They stumble over themselves on other sites to be the first to rehash it endlessly.

We went through it all months ago.  It's over, no one here cares to hear the catechism anymore.




Post 11

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quick has a follow-up in a new post at Daily Pundit, "The Speech -- Part Two."



Post 12

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Mick,

Save the rationalizations to defend the next demopublican that gets elected, and give credit where it is due."


ok, you're right, I give credit to George Bush for the assasination of Rafiq Hariri. I'll also give Bush credit for Mukbarak putting his closest opponent in the presidential election in prison. Congratulations.

Bush isn't a demopublican? How am I rationalizing the argument. Bush and his crew deserve credit for the good stuff that has happened over there and at least a wee bit of the bad stuff that has happened. But to admit no other significant factors is to bury ones head in the neo-con sand.







Post 13

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

Yah the country and the world have be transformed by neocons.  We went from Clinton to instant and irreversable disaster.




Post 14

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, utimately, the question whether you think that Bush is a hero, a good politician or a champion of liberty, or not depends on what you regard as more important. The number of democracies arising or freedom at home. If you are a champion of freedom and you mean your personal freedom, not some freedom for some people far away, who want to kick your butts, then you may not choose Bush as a champion of liberty.

He is a Democrat at home and a General in foreign relations. The pressure on the middle east was increasing on its own over the last 6-7 years. It wouldn't have been Iraq that had fallen first, but maybe Palestine, Lybia, Egypt or Iran, but the democratic change was inevitable.
Now, however, Iraq has an Islam government rather than a secular dictator. This means less torture (obvious torture), but more anti-americanism and a unholy "amistice" between the 3 different social groups.

And if we look at Afghanistan we have a kind of a lesser Somalia with tribes clinging to their local dominions with the presidents power ceasing beyond Kabul. This is not the liberal country, Mr. Bush promised and Afghanistan didn't have the problems Iraq has. Plus, the extreme Islamists are leaking back into Afghanistan (German KSK troops have been forcing a new wave of attacks on resident terrorist groups since January).

Yes, I grant it always takes awhile for nations to adjust and balance out, but we already have 1 and a half year. After that time, Japan and German, the prime ideals, were well underway to prosperity. I still can't see that things in Afghanistan and Iraq...

And to the god theory, I must not support the evidence that Bush isn't a champion of liberty, but the others must prove their position and despite some good inclinations, I still think that he causes more harm than benefit.

(though his rhetoric skills have improved since his last term....)




Post 15

Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max,

None of our politicians are heroes.  They are all victims of an established bureaucracy that permits very little change from administration to administration. 

Someone here mentioned that Republicans are less dangerous because their ill-liberty falls on the personal side which is better than the Democrats who prefer economic ill-liberties.  His reasoning was laws against pot, etc. are easier to roll back or avoid that are laws that mess up the economy.  I agree.




Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.