Flutterby™! : ...damned if they don't.

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

...damned if they don't.

2003-01-19 22:33:25+00 by Dan Lyke 8 comments

I didn't march yesterday. I think the U.S. abandonment of the Kurds is disgraceful. I'd love to see various bullies in power in the middle east deposed, and I think U.S. military forces might be the most reasonable ways to go about this. But when Rumsfeld says that the failure to find evidence against Iraq could be evidence of Iraq's non-cooperation, I start considering that our leadership doesn't understand the real reasons we should be working for change in that region and is instead just pushing their own petty agendas.

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said.

Um. Yeah. "We've got a lot of weapons here that we really want to use, damn it!", he did not continue.

[ related topics: Politics moron Current Events ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 00:22:52+00 by: ziffle

Well lets say that Rummy and friends have cold hard evidence that there are[Wiki] WMD in existence and very hidden - then his statements make very good sense.

At some point we have to trust that our leaders are doing the right thing - unless the leader is Clinton of course.

Ziffle

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 01:19:05+00 by: Diane Reese

At some point we have to trust that our leaders are doing the right thing - unless the leader is Clinton of course.

Oh, give me a flpping break. If there were ever a "leader" whom I would never under almost any circumstances trust to do the right thing, it's Bush II. (Not that Bush I was any better.) He is not my leader, and I will never trust him nor his advisors. I cannot wait for him to be deposed, er, voted out of office.

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 03:16:20+00 by: meuon

The more I am involved with small city local politics, the more I understand that political leaders (at least at this level) believe they are doing the right thing, but are manipulated by others. What amazes me is the level of this influence, how fine grained and precise it is. - I can only extrapolate that much of the same happens at the Presidential level as well. Bush (I and II), Clinton, Reagan.. are just the 'electable' component of collectives of special interests.

For some insane sick reason (war economy?) this administration WANTS to go to war against someone. They seem to be spoiling for and picking a fight. Sure 9/11 is a reason, and our 'war' against Osama Bin Laden and crowd was/is unsatisfactory. But we should not be the assholes that initiate this crap.

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 03:21:49+00 by: Dan Lyke

If there is any such evidence, not only have Dubya and friends not presented it to anyone but Tony Blair, but the weapons inspectors have failed to find anything but, what, 13 empty shells which are by most reports left over from the Iran-Iraq war?

I'm not saying there isn't stuff there, in fact I beleive that there is, but Bush II is a well documented liar, to the point of appropriating Gore's campaign comments as his own, he's appointed a convicted felon who believes not informing his superiors of actions taken on their behalf a good thing, and the rest of his cadre has similar credibility. If his administration can't even document effectively that Sadaam Hussein is a bad man, we definitely should not be supporting him.

And government is an illusion in the mind of the governed, he's my leader only in that the military follows his orders.

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 03:22:40+00 by: Dan Lyke

Oh, and Meuon, I'd think that since they want to go to war with someone, they could pick a real credible threat, like North Korea.

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 03:47:53+00 by: Jeffery [edit history]

I'm fairly conservative and I actually served briefly in the military repairing air-defense radar, but the impression this administration gives me is one of an insecure bully, longing to find foes through which their low self-esteem and special interests can be stroked. There are better ways! I think that I also read a few months ago that the fleet fuel efficiency for cars in the US is actually .5 mpg WORSE than it was 20 years ago. 'Gimme a break!

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 16:06:19+00 by: Larry Burton [edit history]

>> I'd think that since they want to go to war with someone, they could pick a real credible threat, like North Korea.

The problem with N. Korea is that the ramifactions of a war with them is much, much worse than what could come from a war with Iraq.

I can't help but believe most of what we are seeing is posturing using a variation on the "Speak softly but carry a big stick" type of diplomacy that T. Roosevelt used. This is "Rant wildly and wave a big stick" diplomacy. I have no doubt that the stick would be used but I think they are hoping the ranting and waving of the stick will elicit the desired results.

From things I've read lately it appears that both the US and N. Korea are giving signs of backing down. N. Korea has said recently that they never admitted to having a secret nuclear program and Bush was talking about energy and food aid if N. Korea gives up its nuclear program. That would put us back to where we were before April of last year. Wouldn't it?

>> I think that I also read a few months ago that the fleet fuel efficiency for cars in the US is actually .5 mpg WORSE than it was 20 years ago.

I can believe that. Twenty years ago we were recovering from the 100%+ jump in fuel prices that occurred during the 70s. We've had time to forget the gas lines of the late 70s and discovered SUVs. Detroit is just following its market and big, heavy SUVs with massive engines don't do well on fuel economy.

#Comment made: 2003-01-20 22:06:47+00 by: TheSHAD0W

Well, let's see... You put extremely stringent standards on fuel economy on passenger cars, so stringent manufacturers wind up making them smaller, lighter, and ultimately less safe. So how can you blame people for ponying up the extra bucks for vehicles that AREN'T covered under such strict standards?

The big-government folks figured they'd have to force auto companies to make more fuel-efficient vehicles; why couldn't they just have let the free market decide, hey, gas is too expensive, let's all buy vehicles that'll be cheaper to run? Instead, they overdid it.

As for the war on Iraq/Korea/Arabia/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan/the whole damn Middle East/the whole damn Far East/the whole damn WORLD, I'm definitely not happy with the path the US is taking, but I am equally unhappy with the people who've usurped the peace movement for their own ends. I'm afraid the only thing to do is wait this out -- and in the meantime, push to reduce the size of our government. In the end, it should sort itself out.