[faustulus]

Most gun owners can see through leftist propaganda a mile away in a snow storm? why is it we don't turn the same critical eye to the right's propaganda? Something someone posted the other day on ruby ridge got me to thinking.
Most people I know who align themselves with the right think the government botched ruby ridge and waco. The believe that people's rights were trampled and the government fabricated evidence to make their case. My question is then why is it we take what the Bush administration says about Iraq at face value? There seems to be an errie similarity between the seige at waco and the war in Iraq.
I know the war brings out the emotions in most people but even if the analogy is too much the question still stands are we critical enough of the right?

[Vladimir Berkov]

I agree. It seems that most Republicans who would be ready to impeach Clinton (again) if he was in office and pushed for a war with Iraq, are praising Bush day and night.

Apparently, to the same people who claim that Clinton's only reason for involvement in the Balkans was his personal political gain, Bush's reasons for involvement in Iraq are entirely unrelated to politics, and a perfect moral stand by a perfect, moral president.

I just have to say that I am deeply suspicious of the entire thing, same as I was of Clinton when he was in power.

Although it is very humorous to see the current conservatives defend Bush as the liberals used to defend Clinton...

[Jim March]

<scratches head>

It's certainly a good question, esp. when you factor in the very real "Patriot Act 1" and the various rumors/reports of the far worse ver.2.0.

BUT, the sheer massive number of reports of Ba'athist brutality, going back decades, from survivors all over the world, is just impossible to fake.

My opinion is that when you have civil rights abuses THAT bad, any group of even semi-rational humans are justified in doing exactly what was done here.

[edamon]

well Iraq didn't come out of no where so I don't think anyone is blindly following the right/president on this one.

we know they've had wmd programs since the 80's. the likelyhood of them selling the technology to terrorist organizations wasn't a stretch by any means.

one less trouble maker to deal with, is well.. one less trouble maker to deal with.

-d

[Vladimir Berkov]

well Iraq didn't come out of no where so I don't think anyone is blindly following the right/president on this one.

Actually, it did. There was absolutely no change in the Iraqi situation in the period when Bush wasn't pushing for war, and when he was pushing for war. Pretty much, Bush got the ball rolling on this one almost entirely.


we know they've had wmd programs since the 80's. the likelyhood of them selling the technology to terrorist organizations wasn't a stretch by any means.

It was by definition a stretch, because there was no evidence of such deals ever occuring in the past, nor was there any indication Saddam was planning such deals in the future. In short, all we could do was speculate that Saddam MIGHT do such a thing in the future, and the terrorist groups MIGHT use them against America.


one less trouble maker to deal with, is well.. one less trouble maker to deal with

Yep. Only about 140 countries left to invade....

[faustulus]

Setting aside the war what about the moves the right has made. Bush federalized airport screeners after 9/11 and created the a enormous new government agency, how would we react if the left had made similar moves? Anyone who has had to deal with INS, the IRS, federal courts or any government program will know how inefficent and useless they can be, I hear the complaints all the time. Yet somehow we all feel safer with these guys checking our luggage and securing our 'homeland?'
Would we have supported Al Gore if he had made the same moves?

[Leatherneck]

Yep. Only about 140 countries left to invade....
That doesn't account for the deterrent effect upon beady-eyed haters of America around the world. Possibly, the next time we glare at a troublemaker country, that country's leaders will recall the march up to war with Iraq, and the subsequent "cakewalk" invasion.

But back on topic, there are many of us conservatives who were reluctant during the buildup, sensing exactly the kind of smokescreen and Kabuki Dance by the Administration mentioned above. But once hostilities were certain, we signed up to support the home team. Sort of "Our country, right or wrong."

TC
TFL Survivor

[popeye]

Maybe we we should all immigrate to Iraq and open Dunkin donut shops and 7/11's. Then send send profits back to U.S. relatives. We are part of the "world community" forced on us by our mealy mouth, mamby pamby government. What's it done for the U.S.? At least Bush took a stand and followed through basically thumbing his nose at the rest of the world. Screw the Iraqis and everybody else who stands for terrorism.

[AnklePocket]

From what I've seen I'd "blindly" follow this President anywhere (although it wouldn't be "blind"). The motive is the war on terror. President Bush was held at bay for quite awhile because of the head in the sand Democratic Party that jumped on board only when it looked unpopular to not. Leadership, security and duty - nothing more, nothing less.
Please feel free to disagree. 100+ men and women just died a violent death to ensure that Right.

[Vladimir Berkov]

That doesn't account for the deterrent effect upon beady-eyed haters of America around the world. Possibly, the next time we glare at a troublemaker country, that country's leaders will recall the march up to war with Iraq, and the subsequent "cakewalk" invasion.

Yeah, so the same people who are completely undeterred that the US invaded Afghanistan, WILL be deterred that the US invaded Iraq?


But back on topic, there are many of us conservatives who were reluctant during the buildup, sensing exactly the kind of smokescreen and Kabuki Dance by the Administration mentioned above. But once hostilities were certain, we signed up to support the home team. Sort of "Our country, right or wrong."


Yeah, it is indeed always best to support a war once the President starts one. After all, who cares if the war is just or if it means Americans are dying by the thousands overseas, right? So long as we "support the home team," it is all worth it.

At least, that was the logic behind Vietnam...

[Augustwest]

Of the two major parties, the GOP is just the slower (and rapidly accelerating) vehicle on the road to total statism.

[Preacherman]

Faustulus, Vladimir, good questions. I think that an uncritical, unreasoning support of ANYTHING is highly dangerous. I had grave doubts about the reasons for going to war before this one started, and stated some of them in threads here. However, I became convinced that there was sufficient evidence of Saddam's perfidy to make it necessary to remove him. Note that I did not say that he posed a direct and immediate threat to the US: but I'm pretty sure that left alone, he would have posed such a threat in the not too distant future. Think of the war as prophylaxis... :D

North Korea - different situation, with vastly greater risks to millions of people. I can understand why President Bush is not doing an Iraq there - the consequences in dead South Koreans, not to mention possible spillover into Japan and China, would be pretty ghastly. I like the way he's bringing China into play here. I think we may be surprised by developments in that part of the world.

For the future, I'm not sure that America is descending into statism, as some seem to fear. I'm reminded that change is a constant. The society we knew as children no longer exists: and when our children are born and grown, the society they were born into will have changed drastically too. From ancient times, every commentator has gloomily derided the "descent of society into chaos", or the fact that everything was "going to the dogs". Oddly enough, human society has survived and even thrived on the changes! I daresay we'll find a way through the muddle.

[Art Eatman]

So multitudes of newspapers from around the world, and TVers like Peter Jennings and Dan Rather are all liars when they report connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Quaida? I'm to believe there is no connection and/or mutual support among these three groups? I'm supposed to ignore or disbelieve what I've been reading about the various terrorist factions, these last 30 years?

3,000 people didn't die on 9/11? It was all fake TV, as some believe about the landings on the moon? And Bush just used that fake event for the aggrandizement of his awl bidness buddies?

Gosh, I'm sorry, guys. I forgot to wear my tinfoil hat, and the Administration's mind-waves have made me a brain-dead worshiper.

Art

[JohnBT]

I think we should have taken Saddam out of power the first time around and not waited years and years and years.

I don't see that Waco and Ruby Ridge have anything to do with it.

John

P.S. - The 'government' is not some monolithic beast. It is made up of thousands of agencies and millions of employees who make decisions - good and bad. In any case, most of the employees don't get much, if any, of a say in what occurs.

[Sleeping Dog]

I voted for GWB because he's slower at destroying gun rights than Algore would have been.

I would not have picked Iraq as the first target. I figured Saddam was a local thug, only a bit-player on the global terrorism scene. Saudi Arabia would have been my first choice, with Syria a close second.

The presidents Bush seemed to have it in for Saddam personally. Possibly because GHWB supported him from the CIA job. The downfall of Saddam sort of vindicates that transgression. Very similar to the support followed by downfall that was visited on Noriega. Coincidence? Maybe...

Then, (and get the tinfoil hats) there's both Bushes' connection with Skull and Bones, brought to Yale from the German Illuminati and secured in high positions in the CIA from its inception. Mysterious stuff, maybe benign, maybe.

Finally, shooters are probably split as to their view on issues surrounding abortion, but I'm not sure that's a topic for this board. I'll just say that we do not all agree with GWB on this.

Regards.

[Joe Demko]

No, but the shooters who haunt this and most other boards tend to be. There seems to be an assumption on their part that everybody who owns a gun must all hold the same set of politico-religious beliefs. 'Tain't so. Here at this board, for example, you'll find a few libertarians and a Democrat or two. Mostly, though, those people don't last long on gun boards because they get tired of getting shouted down and insulted by the Republican majority. THR and other gun boards don't reflect an accurate x-section of the gun-owning population, IOW.

Edited to add: I saw it phrased best at one of the old incarnations of AR15.com. A fellow there said something like "In the real world, we wouldn't all get along or even like each other. The only thing we all have in common is that we like guns."

[JitsuGuy]

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[Jim March]

Actually, it did. There was absolutely no change in the Iraqi situation in the period when Bush wasn't pushing for war, and when he was pushing for war. Pretty much, Bush got the ball rolling on this one almost entirely.

We knew he was sitting on all kinds of nasty crap (ask the Kurds) and that he wanted nukes in the worst possible way.

What he got access to on 9/11 was a proven delivery system that couldn't easily be traced back to him. THAT is what changed, and why he had to be dealt with.

[Ian]

One definite problem at the moment is that most people seem to use their strong support for our war to excuse, justify, or ignore the tremendous advances in Big Brother statism that Bush has made here at home.

Maybe if Clinton had launched a lot more missiles, people would have been ok with his domestic policy?

[JitsuGuy]

Folks, the Governemnt has even stated that to ensure our "safety" we may lose our civil rights. Franklin was explicit with that quote I stated above... Why, why, why are they doing all these things, yet they're leaving the borders wide open? They're making us slaves to the system but they're really not addressing the problem.

Yeah, they're fighting "terrorism." But at the same time they're also destroying our freedom, whether intentional or not.

Jits

[CZ-75]

Bush federalized airport screeners after 9/11


IIRC, he did this after the democrats pressured him into it. This was before the GOP had control of both houses.

[George Dickel]

I think we should have taken Saddam out of power the first time around and not waited years and years and years.

Under the provisions set by the UN for Desert Storm, Bush I would have had big problems had he gone into Baghdad. None of the arab countries supported it except maybe Kuwaitt and many of the other world governments were not for it either. I know, Bush II didn't have as much world support and none by the UN and went anyway, but Bush I didn't have a Republican controlled congress. Had Bush I decided to take Iraq anyway he may have had all funding withdrawn by congress and I think impeachment would have been a possiblity also. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was a different set of circumstances and conditions at that time.

[popeye]

Yep....The U.N. charter was to remove Iraqi invaders from territory they seized, and the U.N was to monitor Irags, I mean Iraqs military capabilities thereafter. Had Bush 1 chased Saddam, the collateral damage would have labeled us a rogue nation. That was then. 9/11 changed everthing for the U.S. Why is that concept so hard for so many Americans to understand.

[Vladimir Berkov]

We knew he was sitting on all kinds of nasty crap (ask the Kurds) and that he wanted nukes in the worst possible way.

We knew this for well over a decade.


What he got access to on 9/11 was a proven delivery system that couldn't easily be traced back to him. THAT is what changed, and why he had to be dealt with.

He has had access to terrorists for the past 20+ years. Nothing actually changed in the world on 9/11, I don't know how hard this is to understand. The only thing that changed was our foreign and domestic policy. There have been certainly examples of terrorists using chemical weapons, long before 9/11 in fact. What you are then saying, is that somehow Saddam ignored these but then saw 9/11 as an opportunity so large it would automatically cause him to attack the US by proxy using a terrorist group.

I am sorry, but this explanation is just too implausible.

[faustulus]

This discussion brings out the very thing I am talking about. Several posts have made reference to Saddam and 9/11. The propaganda is working, Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPT. 11 2001. Saudi Arabia had more involvement than Iraq, heck Florida had more involvement. There is no evidence to support this position yet people take it as gospel. The idea floated now is that Saddam was a bad guy killing his own people, and they are right, but that was not how the operation was originally sold. It was sold on WMD and vague terrorist links. A critical look must at least admit the possiblity that the right was snowballing us. I know I had grave doubts when Clinton bombed the Balkans.
The left is always painting us as gun nuts, the point to every school shooting and say "see guns make you crazy" they use statistics, and incidents to back up their arguement, but we look at those and say they are skewed. Why do we give the right an easier way?

Art,
So multitudes of newspapers from around the world, and TVers like Peter Jennings and Dan Rather are all liars when they report connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Quaida? I'm to believe there is no connection and/or mutual support among these three groups? I'm supposed to ignore or disbelieve what I've been reading about the various terrorist factions, these last 30 years?

Cite some sources if you don't mind I was aware that Iraq paid the widows of Hamas bombers but I haven't seen anything on the other two groups.
Also do you always believe what Peter Jennings and Dan Rather say? Even when it comes to gun issues?

[Standing Wolf]

Republicans are the lesser of two evils.

[Bainx]

I have often thought that if Algorebatross were President and had done these same things [Patriot Act, federalized luggage search, foot-dragging on arming pilots, swearing to re-up the AWB], I would have been "foot-stompin'" mad! Instead, I'm just "plain-old" mad.

Very interesting thread, faustulus.

[edamon]

Vladimir Berkov
Actually, it did. There was absolutely no change in the Iraqi situation in the period when Bush wasn't pushing for war, and when he was pushing for war. Pretty much, Bush got the ball rolling on this one almost entirely.

Going after Iraq was put in motion shortly after 9/11 if I recall.

The only period in which nothing "changed" was the 8 years prior to his office - when Clinton let the Iraq problem snow ball to the point inspectors were kicked out.

It was by definition a stretch, because there was no evidence of such deals ever occuring in the past, nor was there any indication Saddam was planning such deals in the future. In short, all we could do was speculate that Saddam MIGHT do such a thing in the future, and the terrorist groups MIGHT use them against America.

That wasn't an al qaeda associated terrorist camp in northern Iraq?

Not to mention, how do you know what deals have or have not happened? I guess you've got some top clearances at the CIA to be privy to what intel we have.


Everything we are having to deal with now is a result of Clintons lack of foreign policy.

Iraq - completely clinton. We won that war and it's our responsibility to enfore the sanctions of the "cease-fire" - the only reason that war ended. clinton didn't do a thing in this regard - less toss a handful of tomahawk missiles after the UN got kicked out of the country.

DPRK - $6B in cash and 500,000 tons of oil a year is what slick willy handed Kim Jong - yet he never bothered to follow up with inspections to insure that the NK was holding up to it's end of the bargin. The reason Kim Jong is hoppin mad now is that Bush cut off that aid completely, like clinton should have.

Al Qaeda - WTC bombing, 2 US embassy bombings, army barracks in saudi arabia bombing and the USS Cole.. all over the span of Clintons terms. Not a thing was done. Even when Sudan offered Osama on a platter in exchange for lifting some economic sanctions he ignored the offer. That was a pressure cooker in the making.. and turned out to be 9/11.

Then there is the Chinese and our nuclear intellectual capital, another clinton fiasco but we can save that for another thread.

Bush has done more good for this country then slick willy ever even considered doing.

Bush does the right thing. Popular or unpopular.

Clinton did the right thing... as along as it was in HIS best interest.

-d

[Khornet]

most Repubs SUPPORTED Clinton on the Balkans business.

You're right, most folks here can spot leftist cant a mile away. So?

As for people getting shouted down: what I see is a (for the most part, and exceptions belong to both left and right) reasonable discussion here. Those who leave may be the ones who can't take being contradicted. Too bad....that's the Leftist way, though. See Sarandon, Robbins et. al., who cry McCarthy whenever us peons refuse to shut up and get in line to buy their CDs and see their movies although they insult us.

Sorry, Vladimir, Faustulus- can't buy your premise. It neglects one key possibility: that the conservatives here at TFL might have thought things through and arrived at their opinions. Seems the left always thinks it has a lock on thinking.

BTW, Ruby Ride and Waco WERE heinous abuses, a conclusion supported by info after they happened. What's paranoid about recognizing that?

[JohnBT]

"I think we should have taken Saddam out of power the first time around and not waited years and years and years." - me

"Under the provisions set by the UN for Desert Storm, Bush I would have had big problems had he gone into Baghdad. None of the arab countries supported it except maybe Kuwaitt and many of the other world governments were not for it either. I know, Bush II didn't have as much world support and none by the UN and went anyway, but Bush I didn't have a Republican controlled congress. Had Bush I decided to take Iraq anyway he may have had all funding withdrawn by congress and I think impeachment would have been a possiblity also. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it was a different set of circumstances and conditions at that time." - you

And all of this means what? We should have taken him out - damn the torpedoes and all that - nobody ever said life was about taking the easy way out.

Thought we should have gone after Saddam back then and think that now. Just my opinion, not an analysis of circumstances with consideration of the political balance of the world.

You can mumble U.N. and sanctions and world opinion until you're blue in the face, but I still believe the world would have been a better place without him all these years. Ask the Iraqis and Kurds, for starters.

John

[faustulus]

Sorry, Vladimir, Faustulus- can't buy your premise. It neglects one key possibility: that the conservatives here at TFL might have thought things through and arrived at their opinions. Seems the left always thinks it has a lock on thinking.

I don't really have a premise just a question or two. However, if we agree with the need for homeland sec. and fed. screeners doesn't that mean we are contricting our doctrine of smaller government, at least in this instance and if this instance more is needed could there also not be other places we were wrong? We were saying we needed less government, now we are saying we need more, at least in this instance. It seems we should rethink our position if this is the case.

[Khornet]

you are correct about homeland security, and I too worry about its implications, especially the increase in the size and reach of government. I don't have the answer. Our history has ever been one of tension between government and freedom; in fact that sums up America neatly.

If we are attacked, e.g. Pearl Harbor, our response is, appropriately in my opinion, to gird for war. But building up our army is a massive increase in government, no? Yet nat'l defense is clearly a proper role of government, and a case can be made that Home Sec is also. I think reasonable people can disagree about particulars of Home Sec, but not on whether it is proper to government in a Republic.

On the other hand, the Dept. of Education, NEA, and like organizations clearly fall outside the constitutional purview of government, and their work constitutes an unlawful intrusion on our rights. Such agencies are rightly opposed by the Right.

It is no more inconsistent to oppose NEA while supporting Home Sec than it is to decry Ruby Ridge/Waco while supporthing RKBA.

[Hal]

Actually, it did. There was absolutely no change in the Iraqi situation in the period when Bush wasn't pushing for war, and when he was pushing for war. Pretty much, Bush got the ball rolling on this one almost entirely I see this same idea expressed in a lot of different ways,,,ie: Why now/Why did Bush push for war so hard at the time he did....why did he wait,,,etc, etc,

Have you considered the possibility that the US COULDN'T mount a conventional war until now? Please bear in mind, that the Clinton administration gutted the defense budget, then Clinton darned near ran the supply of "smart bombs" dry during Kosovo and then later in 1998. Then, to add insult to injury, he used a big chunk of the defense budget for "world travels". Some estimates had our supply of "smart bombs" under 100 in early 1999. One of the early threads over at TFL dealt with how Clinton had decimated an already depleted military. I remember scanning the web for actual numbers of "smart weapons" the US had in inventory at the time. It wasn't any secret that the US supplys were dangerously low. 100 may have been an exacerated number at the time, I'll admit,,,the most realisitc number that pops up is around 2000. But even 2000,,,considering that the US used 15,000 "smart weapons", in the first 3 days of the Iraq war,,,,puts into perspective of just how bad off we were. The lead time to produce many of the "smart weapons" is 2 to 2 1/2 years in case you wondered. Even if Bush had wanted to go into Iraq the day after he was sworn in, I doubt if we had the resources to pull it off until now.