Here's why you shouldn't vote Republican

[guest-koast]

Ted,

I really do wish he could set the amount of judges from each side (and on top) of the fence equally.  As a voter who decides not by gang affliation but by the stance a certain government official takes I would like to see a balance.  Sometimes the conservatives are dead on.  Sometimes the liberals are dead on (all IMO of course).  Sometimes its a little bit of both that gets the job done.

I also believe we need more representation from other groups other than white.  White people are not the only people in this country.  Just like Christians are not the only religious people in this country.  Us white guys have plenty of representation.

With all that said......its pretty much wishful thinking.

[Joe Vancil]

Kerry agrees with your positon on Iraq, by the way.

Uh...*NO*, he doesn't.  This war NEEDED to be fought.  It should have been fought back in 1998 or 1999, 5 minutes after the Iraqis first threw the UN inspectors out.  Anything that implies the contrary - such as we should have waited for "more support," is contrary to my opinion.

Granted, Bush bungled in fighting while inspectors were there, and the strategy and equipment aren't up to what I expect the standards of my military to be, but Kerry wasn't interested in Iraq AT ALL.  And if he believes in the UN, then he should have been one of the first in line.


 

[rickortreat]

I meant he agreed with what you think needs to be done now.  I didn't realize you were so eager for us to go to war with Iraq.  

But if you were President, when would you have attacked Iraq and why would then have been the right time, and under what principals would you justify the attack?  

[Joe Vancil]

I would have attacked Iraq after the first round of sanctions failed after the Iraqis threw out the weapons inspectors in 1998 or 1999.  The reason I would have attacked is because they had violated an integral part of the cease-fire which settled Gulf War I.  I'd give UN sanctions a chance - A SINGLE CHANCE - to work to get the inspectors back in, and unimpeded, and then, I'd go back in with the troops when it had become apparent that the sanctions were not going to be lifted.  And that opportunity for UN sanctions was offered only because I would be trying to be a nice guy about things.  The moment the inspectors were impeded, sanctions should have been raised.  The moment they were ejected, the planes should have been in the air.  Years of "no-fly" zones and more UN sanctions and the like were ridiculous, and should have been realized as such.

It wasn't about whether or not they had weapons of mass destruction, to me, until Bush said definitively that they did, and that that was the reason we were going.  It was whether or not they intended to live up to the terms of the cease-fire.  

HOWEVER, I have to question why Bush went in WHILE THE INSPECTORS WERE THERE!  That, to me, was just plain stupid.  If, as many people say, he was determined to go in, he should have done it immediately, because he already had his justification, in my mind.  The idea that it didn't happen until the inspectors went back should leave us all at least a bit skeptical.

It was the RIGHT war, wrong reason, wrong time to me.

 

[Derek Bodner]

pearl james?

[jn]

I believe Pearl James was a New York playground legend who got a tryout with the ABA's Virginia Squiers before his coke habit spiraled out of control.  He can currently be found hanging around Rucker Park trying to get money in exchange for what he claims are old pieces of Dr. J's Afro.  

[rickortreat]

Thanks for the clarification.

I would say that if the violation of the UN cease-fire agreement is the basis, then the UN should have gone in with us.  The fact that some in the UN had side agreements with Saddam, and that some UN officials were getting kick-backs from the oil for food program, indicates the UN needs to be overhauled.  

The side agreements emboldened Saddam and made him think he was a legitimate
leader.  He was still in power in his country and would have stayed that way.

So I can see your point,  Iraq wasn't living up to it's end of the deal, and the UN was tolerant and trying to work things out in a seemingly endless game of diplomatic communication.  To me, Bush lost patience with the situation and acted prematurely.

Without the UN behind us, we looked like a rogue nation.  But the UN was in many ways responsible for this mess, when it didn't demand that Saddam comply precisely with the agreement.  The UN has to enforce it's agreements and it's members have to support the decision to act when it's agreements are violated.  Unless it does that, no one will respect it and instead of helping the world become more stable, will actually contribut to its instability.  

I'm not sure how patient I would have been in that situation.  It's clear that Saddam wasn't an immannent threat and that although there were violations, the sanctions were effective.  To me the issue is more about the UN's integrity and effectivenmess as an organization.  The whole idea of the UN is for all countries to develop a consensus about how they can all get along without fighting.  The opposite of a situation where every country thinks what's in it's own best interests and makes direct agreements with other nations.

There was no concensus in the UN, because some countries were overly tolerant.  It  will not help the US in its goals and we should consider withdrawing from the organization.
 

[Joe Vancil]

There was no concensus in the UN, because some countries were overly tolerant. It will not help the US in its goals and we should consider withdrawing from the organization.

And that's the second part to my argument.  If the UN is going to sacrifice US soldiers during the first war, then I absolutely insist that they enforce the cease-fire.  If they WON'T, then I would seriously consider withdrawing from the UN.