Iraqi voting has started

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But at least we can all rest assured that Taiwan is still under Chinese control.

We can all look at priorities of administrations present and past and disagree with them.

By the way, I dislike the "one China" policy. Suggestions on what to do about it? We are sworn by treaty to protect them from Chinese aggression, are we not? Certainly some inconsistency there, as there has always been.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

We can all look at priorities of administrations present and past and disagree with them.

My point in bringing that up is demonstrating that Bush's rhetoric of freedom is a bunch crap. He's a broken record, repeating a doctrine which he has proven time and time again to not even believe. By focusing everyone on the election, and the glory of democracy, he's hoping that we will all forget about the mistakes and lies that have lead us to this point.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

My point in bringing that up is demonstrating that Bush's rhetoric of freedom is a bunch crap.

Well, 4 years in office and 50 million people now allowed to vote in two separate countries.....doesn't sound like crap to me. Sounds like the first steps in a very long process.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, 4 years in office and 50 million people now allowed to vote in two separate countries.

Bush didn't go into either country with the intention of spreading freedom. You're confusing reality with post-invasion spin.


Again.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

We can all look at priorities of administrations present and past and disagree with them.

Sorry to drag this back up, but I've been meaning to readdress this. We're not talking about priorities. We're talking bald face hypocricy. It's not like Bush said, "Sorry Taiwan, we'd love to help, but we're a little busy right now." No, he sided with China. This from the man who's said that wherever people are struggling for their freedom, he'd help. Gee, well, here's a prime example, and he instead does the exact opposite and tells them to screw off.

The thing is, I don't know enough about the situation to know whether he was right or wrong to do that. But that's not even the point. The point is, the man is cramming this freedom and liberty rehtoric down the American public's throat as if he's on some holy mission, and then doesn't follow through. He talks in grandiose ultimatums, but only applies them to Iraq. So what does that say? Clearly he doesn't believe the rhetoric he's spouting, else he wouldn't be having brutal dictators touring his private ranch. So to me, it just shows that he's using the rhetoric to cover his mistakes, and to cover whatever his real motives in Iraq were (which has been so shrouded in lies and double-talk that I'm oblivious to what those are, but oil and revenge are likely candidates). It probably means he doesn't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people beyond how their plight affects his approval. So whatever the outcome in Iraq, the fact remains that Bush is a pompous blowhard out for his own interests.

[SacTown Chronic]

Oppressed citizens of non-oil producing countries do not deserve freedom. Everyone knows that, GD.

[Name]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Sorry to drag this back up, but I've been meaning to readdress this. We're not talking about priorities. We're talking bald face hypocricy. It's not like Bush said, "Sorry Taiwan, we'd love to help, but we're a little busy right now." No, he sided with China. This from the man who's said that wherever people are struggling for their freedom, he'd help. Gee, well, here's a prime example, and he instead does the exact opposite and tells them to screw off.

It probably didn't help that we trade so heavily with China and they are huge investors in many area's of the country. Gotta keep the shareholders happy.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I saw this yesterday and thought I would share. It's from the NY Times, dated September 3rd, 1967.

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ends do not justify the means. While I will be glad if Iraq turns out well, it does not absolve Bush.

[scaeagles]

To the contrary. One clearly stated point of the war on terrorism is that democracies do not attack each other and democracies do not support or sponsor terrorists, and therefore spreading democracy is the best way we can protect ourselves.

This was most definitely one pre-invasion reason for disposing of the Taliban. While certainly not at the forefront of the invasion of Iraq, it was still a reason.