Dean says he would have supported Iraq if we'd had UN permission

- Collapse -

Mother, may I?

by Kiddpeat Dec 17, 2003 4:51AM PST

Wow! This guy doesn't have a clue! He says Bush was wrong to act unilaterally in Iraq, but

'He pledged to expand the existing U.S. program to find and control the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons inventory of the former Soviet Union.'

he wants to 'find and control' weapons in Russia?

- Collapse -

Re:Dean says he would have supported Iraq if we'd had UN permission

by Josh K Dec 17, 2003 4:58AM PST

I hadn't seen it but it's in line with statements Dean has made previously. While there are a couple of valid points (e.g. Bush's ?brash boastfulness?), overall I think that if he's nominated, he's going to draw the most support from those who (like myself) would vote for Donald Duck before they'd vote for Bush. If he gets the nomination, I think it will be liberals, more than more mainstream Democrats, who give it to him. I wonder upon what he bases his claim that Saddam could have been captured six months ago.

I'd like to see what Kerry had to say as well. So far he is looking like the best of the lot to me.

- Collapse -

Damned by faint praise?

by Kiddpeat Dec 17, 2003 6:00AM PST

'So far he is looking like the best of the lot to me.'

- Collapse -

Re:Re:Dean says he would have supported Iraq if we'd had UN permission

by Roger NC Dec 17, 2003 6:03AM PST

I think you're probably right about his support being the strongest among those that would vote for anyone rather than Bush.

But I also think it'll just more polarize the country, continuing a trend by both parties to play to the extreme fractions within themselves and hope to demonized the other side enough to keep the compromise and middle of road voters against the other.

roger

- Collapse -

(NT)Opps there I go rung sitting again, target for both sides.

by Roger NC Dec 17, 2003 6:04AM PST

- Collapse -

Re:Re:Re:Dean says he would have supported Iraq if we'd had UN permission

by Josh K Dec 17, 2003 10:04PM PST

Hi Roger:

I agree, and that's another reason why I'm starting to gravitate towards Kerry. He strikes me as being more "middle of the road" than Dean, despite his liberal past. I get the feeling that he's the Democrat most likely to be able to get moderate-liberal Republicans to vote for him.

- Collapse -

Re:Dean says he would have supported Iraq if we'd had UN permission

by T Lee Dec 17, 2003 7:50AM PST

Roger,

Nice to see you all but RUNGing in the new year with a twist I used in an attempt to show you the error of your ways.

Tim

- Collapse -

(NT) I tend to get along maybe, but I have a huge stubborn streak.

by Roger NC Dec 17, 2003 8:14AM PST

.

- Collapse -

I think the question would have been more appropriate as this

by SteveGargini Dec 17, 2003 9:45AM PST

Dean says he would have supported Iraq if we'd had permission from a bunch of a*seholes(UN)

We had to bypass the UN because of their relentless differing. I wouldn't have used the W.M.D excuse myself, but I fully support the overthrow of a very evil despote.

- Collapse -

Who Do We Invade And Occupy Next???

by Blake Cook Dec 17, 2003 6:03PM PST

We had to bypass the UN because of their relentless differing. I wouldn't have used the W.M.D excuse myself, but I fully support the overthrow of a very evil despote. - SteveGargini

My question is this. Since we were so successful in removing Saddam and "liberating" the Iraqi people, who should we go after next? There are plenty of people around the world who deserve to be free and are not. We could go after North Korea or China for starters...

China is currently threatening Taiwan for even considering freedom. Surely in the defense of Taiwan's liberation from China's grip, we should go after China...

North Korea has weapons of mass destruction. So since that was a good enough excuse to justify an invasion of Iraq, it should be enough to invade and occupy North Korea. And if we can't find any WMD's in North Korea, we can also use the liberation excuse. So North Korea would make a good choice...

Then again there's Iran. We helped destroy Iran's democratic government and imposed the Shah of Iran on them. Then the Iranians decided to run the Shah out of town. How dare they? Iran is still not considered a friendly nation and it is sitting right in between Afghanistan and Iraq. So we would be able to invade them on at least two fronts. Once we "liberate" the Iranians, it will be like Tick Tack Toe, three in a row...

Of course we could liberate the Saudis and/or Kuwaitis from their dictatorial governments. Surely those people deserve Democracy. But we can't really do that at this time since those governments are currently friendly to the US. But then again, that could make them easy targets and there would be far less risk...

There are so many countries to choose from and so little time. Surely TPTB are the best to decide who we should invade and occupy next. All people of the world deserve to live in freedom under a democratic government and it is our duty to make sure they get it. Our military option seems to be the best and only option to achieve that goal...

- Collapse -

Don't forget....

by Charlie Thunell PL&T Dec 17, 2003 7:32PM PST

Cuba and Libya! They are two "brat" countries who just won't obey... Reagan spent a few millions on bombing the crap out of Tripoli and throughout the history EVERY single president has spent billions of dollars to get rid of Castro. We have even trained terrorist groups (Alpha 66) to get rid of him.

- Collapse -

Nahh, let's try Somalia again. Bill Clinton did so well there. (NT)

by Kiddpeat Dec 17, 2003 10:46PM PST

.

- Collapse -

Basic Shah of Iran bio...

by J. Vega Dec 17, 2003 10:46PM PST

Basic bio/info of the Shah from 80s.com:
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was the shah of Iran from 1941 to 1979, except for a brief period in 1953 when Prime Minister Muhammed Mosaddeq overthrew him. Mosaddeq was in turn overthrown with assistance from the U.S., and the shah was returned to power as a U.S. ally. He greatly modernized Iran and established social reforms, many of which angered fundamentalist religious leaders. In 1979 the religious opposition, lead by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, drove the shah into exile. Khomeini sought the capture of the shah, and when it was learned that he had been admitted into the United States for medical treatment, Iran's response was the start of the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Teheran. After dismissal from the hospital the Shah fled to Panama, then Egypt. He died on July 27, 1980, at the age of 60.

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info