View Single Post
      09-11-2006, 08:06 AM   #30
Second Lieutenant
Drives: E90 325i
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NJ

Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by pawarrant
You said:"I don't recall the Iraqis asking for our help"

Incorrect. There were several groups that we have been providing aid and support to prior to the war who were begging us to overthrow Saddam.

You said:" President Bush has consistently mentioned that we have liberated Iraq and have brought democracy to Iraq, and that the US will not withdraw its troops until such a time that the US determines Iraq has a stable democracy."

Incorrect. President Bush recognizes the new government of Iraq who can ask us to leave at anytime. It turns out the sovereign Iraqi government wants us to stay for now to aid in their security.

You said:"With respect to WWI and WWII, the US was but one member of nations who helped to rebuild those nations left defeated. In the Iraq war, the US is the largest player by far in the "rebuilding process."

I think we were the largest player in the rebuilding process of West Germany, and Japan during WWII. Those governments are flourishing, and we are not in control of them.

You said:"it is necessary for ABC to either remove/edit the parts which take creative liberties, or they should disclaim that those creative liberties have been taken,..."

You are opposed to creative liberties in film making. OK, what docudramas or films have been made with inaccurate information regarding President Bush, PM Blair, or the war in Iraq that you believe should be shown with a disclaimer or edited. The scenes in this mini-series that are being disputed by certain political members of the Democrat party have been confirmed to be true by other non political sources. In America we have a right to broadcast any side of that we want without government censorship. It seems you believe in censorship, only when the truth hurts your political goals.

You said:"Bush has set a clear agenda against gays, women's right..."

Can you name one case or one Constitutional right that has been taken away from any of those said groups since Bush took office?

You said:"Christian-right beliefs would also bring back school prayer (what about all of the non-Christians? Would they be represented?)"

I don't believe there is anyone who is proposing to force prayer on anyone. Just as the Pledge of Allegiance, anyone who does not want to participate can choose not to do so. No one is forced to do anything in this country.
Several groups is not indicative to me of the entire population. More than anything, those several groups are most likely the extremely strong political groups which represent an extremely small percent of the population. Those groups most likely don't have the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind.

If the Iraqi government seriously came to us and said, "Good job, go home," do you think we would leave? Just pull up and move out? I think that Bush saying that we will leave whenever you [Iraq] are ready is simply him manipulating the public's opinion ("See, we just went in there to help Iraq, and as soon as they're ready, we'll leave." ::trademark Bush smirk:: ). In the other thread ("Approach On The War In Iraq") you indicate your belief that the US wants Iraq as a friendly ally. I don't think the US will ever leave, and if they do, it will be on the US' timetable, not on the Iraqi's.

With respect to the rebuilding of Iraq, we're talking about a completely different type of nation. Germany and Japan were both sophisticated enough to launch successful attacks on neighboring nations, and this speaks to their economic, social and military abilities. While Iraq has been an aggressor nation, I don't think that we can put Iraq in the same league as pre-war Japan and Germany. With that in mind, this, much like the larger war in general, is one of those items which will only be judgable after some time has passed.

I am not opposed to creative liberties in film-making, so long as those creative liberties are mentioned, especially in a case where people would otherwise believe 100% everything being said. For example, when a news organization creates a show about the events leading up to 9/11, if even one shred of that show differed knowingly (unknowingly is of course a different story) from the actual event, then a disclaimer is necessary to indicate that the show is no longer a documentary in the strictest sense of the word. Many people treat the news they see on TV as the last word. It's responsible journalism to make sure that every effort is taken to retain accuracy or inform people of the lack therof.

(As a quick aside, I watched the first part last night. I'm happy with what ABC did with their disclaimer. The show itself was rather well done, especially for something 2.5 hours long without commercials. I look forward to tonight's conclusion, before commenting further.)

A lack of total success in Bush's conservative social agenda does not mean that he has not tried. Bush did succeed in halting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. This type of research is not opposed on the basis of valid science (science has not had enough time to determine the ultimate viablility of embryonic stem cells in therapeutic settings). Rather, this was done to please his conservative base whose religious views dictate that destroying an embryo is akin to taking a life. As an example of failed social policy, Bush's attempt to pass through a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and woman (again done to please members of the Christian-right whose only basis on why they have such hatred of homosexuals is that God says it's wrong). Granted, Clinton signed into law the DoMA, but stopped short of making it constitutionally impossible for same-sex marriage to take place. Clinton kept the decision up to the states, whereas Bush would have decided it on a Federal level. Both still fall short of true equality, however.

Continuing on his social policy, Bush (to please the Christian-right) has pushed for abstience-only programs to be the first and foremost method of preventing/reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancy and contraction of an STD. Nevermind the fact that most respected health organizations indicated that while abstience is the only 100% effective method, to stress that above all else is to cause more harm (as we all know, telling teenagers simply to wait is almost a useless move).

As you can see, Bush has pushed through, or has tried to push through, legislation that has or would have taken away certain rights, or would have had or has had a detrimental effect on the nation.

Part of the Christian-right ideology is to force their religiously-based views on the nation through political means. (See: American Family Association, Family Research Council). These organizations strongly support Bush and his fellow conservatives. If these organizations have their way, they *would* force people to do things. Interesting enough, if one takes a rather broad look at it, how much different are the end goals of Islamic extremist terrorists and groups like FRC or AFA? After all, they both want to see the US as a one religion nation. DISCLAIMER: I took a wide degree of latitude in that comparison -- FRC and the AFA do not use nor advocate the use of violence to meet their goals.
nostrum09 is offline   United_States
Reply With Quote