CAFTA
 

Just a note, Spanky: No one actually thinks that mere possession of WMD is a causus belli, or however you spell it. And you are one of the very few people I know who believes that it is OK to invade foreign countries simply to bring them free markets.

Here is a WaPo piece (by David Ignatius -- hardly a lefty) about Bolton's efforts to sound the alarm about Cuba's non-existent WMD. Just so it's clear that I what I was referring to.

CAFTA
 

Castro wants to trade with us. He doesn't even have that justification.

eta: I just watched the end of Goldfinger on Spike TV. Goldfinger had apparently arranged sanctuary in Cuba. I'll concede to Spanky that this represents at least some justification.

CAFTA
 

Cuba is the poorest economy south of the border and the most oppressive government. You say sovereigh government like it should mean something to me. Just because most countrys recognize a government doesn't make it the legitimate ruler of a nation. Castro is a criminal thug who is holding a whole nation hostage.

If you believe the only reason for armed intervention if another country is if they pose a national security risk you are the one most "bereft of morality and brains" than anyone on this board. So I guess you think think that Clintons involvements in Serbia, Somalia and Haiti were all wrong? None of these countrys posed a national security threat to us.

I wish he were only annoying. He is the largerst human righs abuser in this hemisphere.

Unlike you I don't think we should judge whether or not an invasion is justified based on the rest of the world's opinion.

1) So did bombing Serbia make us a roque nation?

2) If you are witnesseing a a rape is it wrong to stop the rape if that rapist poses no threat to you? If it is OK to stop the rape, and Castro is raping his nation every day, what is wrong with stopping him?

CAFTA
 

He did encourage Kruschev to Nuke us. He wanted the whole world to be communist and he was actively trying to promote communism in your hemisphere.

CAFTA
 

You really just don't pay attention do you. It take a combination of abusing human rights and destroying the economy. If they have a democracy and are still destroying the economy ( like India from 1945 until 1992) we don't invade. If they are abusing human rights but the economy is growing then we don't invade. But if they are abusing human rights and destroying the economy then we should invade if we can. Countrys right now that fall into this catagory: Burma, North Korea, Syria, Iran, (although there are signs of market reform in both Syria and Iran), and Cuba. Why are for supporting regimes that abuse human rigths and are keeping their people in poverty? I don't understand this love you and Shapeshifter have for these sort of dictators?

For some reason you think that it was important for Iraq to have WMDs to justify our invasion. I just don't understand that position. And do not use as an excuse that Bush used it as a reason. Bush used it to help convince those people that don't care about human rights abuses. For those people that look at at US foreign policy soleley in terms of US self interest - then yes - they would need WMD's as a reason to invade. But these same people also opposed Clintons intervention in Serbia. But if you supported Clintons acts in Hait, Serbia or Somalia then you have no reason to harp about WMDs because none of these countrys had them.

CAFTA
 

I can't believe you posted about Goldfinger without discussing Pussy Galore. I also can't believe that's no one's sock.

CAFTA
 

I suppose Chile falls into that category, but you can dismiss the human rights abuses of the Pinochet regime? That's some impressive gymnastics.

I was posting about the misinformation Bolton was publishing about Cuba. You seem to think that when I typed "Cuba" I meant to type "Iraq." Not so. Do you really want to get back to the Iraq/WMD thing? I didn't.

CAFTA
 

Delong? I quoted what I was responding to. You said this:

"Clearly, you are the partisan, and you don't care about free trade except as a political issue."

I think my response clearly showed that I am not partisan when it comes to trade, but that people that were against CAFTA chose partisanship over free trade. Since you avoided addressing my arguments clearly you have no substantive response to what I said (if you do decide to respond to my post, please quote from it instead of saying in your own words what I am trying to say. I don't think you have ever once summarized what I have been trying to say correctly. Please let me speak for myself).

You really just don't pay attention. I had just said that as long as the country was growing then we don't invade. Pinochet was committing human rights abuses but the country was growing. I have been perfectly consistent.



I don't care about what you said about Bolton. You made the sacrastic response to SS that our justification for invaded Cuba is that might makes right and that they are developing WMDs. I was pointing out that neither of these justification are needed for invading Cuba. You and the liberals are the ones that get caught up on WMDs as you have done in Iraq. There are ample justification to invade Cuba, but for some crazy reason you guys think that the only justifications we could use are "might makes right" and they have WMDs.

Serbia v. Iraq
 

T-Rex: How come you never responded to this:

"For some reason you think that it was important for Iraq to have WMDs to justify our invasion. I just don't understand that position. And do not use as an excuse that Bush used it as a reason. Bush used it to help convince those people that don't care about human rights abuses. For those people that look at at US foreign policy soleley in terms of US self interest - then yes - they would need WMD's as a reason to invade. But these same people also opposed Clintons intervention in Serbia. But if you supported Clintons acts in Hait, Serbia or Somalia then you have no reason to harp about WMDs because none of these countrys had them."

Why did we need WMD's to justify Iraq but not to Justify bombing Serbia?

CAFTA
 

I don't understand your problem with my position. If you think I am wrong you must support one of the three following propositions:

1) We invade (or vigorously promote regime change) in countries where the regime is democratic but is destrying the country.

2) We invade (or vigorously promote regime change) in countries whose economies are growing but abuse human rights?

3) We don't invade (or vigorously promote regime change) in countriess whose regimes are abusing human rights and destryong the economy.

Which position do you support?

Roe v. Wade promotes the Culture of life.
 

Penske. Slave and the other Conservatives on the board:

Have you read the book Freakanomics? In the book the author demonstrates pretty conclusive evidence that Roe v. Wade (and the legalization and availability of abortion) led to the dramatic decrease in crime and murders from 1992 onward.

So the type of fetuses that were aborted were the unwanted fetuses. It was these unwanted fetuses if not aborted and became young adults that these were the young adult demographic most likely to commit crimes and more importantly murders.

In addition, when abortion became easily available (the proverbial abortion on demand) infantcide decreased dramatically. In other words when the amount of unwanted pregnancies were reduced the number of mothers that intentionally killed or negligently killed their children reduced significantly.

So woulnd't you have to say that the Roe v. Wade decision significantly enhanced the "culture of life" in this country by

1) reducing the amount of infantcides and negligent infant deaths

and

2) significantly reducing the murder rate.

CAFTA
 

I posted a link to a free-trade supporter who says the Bush Administration is hurting the cause in the way it gathered votes for CAFTA -- e.g., by trading support for CAFTA for support for farm subsidies. This undercuts the idea that CAFTA was necessary to keep up some kind of momentum for free trade.

You don't have to talk about this if you want to, and of course you can continue to hit the "Democrats bad, Republicans good" note.

CAFTA
 

Dude, you are falling off the deep end. We went to Serbia, Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq solely because it was in our self interest. If you have actually bought into the argument that we went for humantarian purposes unrelated to our security, you are really drinking the cool-aid.

I don't get how you can sound high-minded about democracy one minute, and then explain that it's OK to impose a different form of government on a country to ensure economic growth.

I don't think I've posted here about what sort of justification might be necessary to invade Cuba. I brought Cuba up only because I was talking about Bolton peddling WMD misinformation.

I tend to think that we shouldn't invade Cuba because we would be unlikely to get a result that we like. If you want to have that conversation, we can, but 'til now you've been yelling at "you and the liberals" as straw men.