Condi Testy Moany

[Brandon]

Yes, I would be crying foul because the United States - indeed no country - has the legal right to launch a pre-emptive military attack against any nation. If the United States considers itself part of the international community, then it must abide by the very rules of that community. Heck, Gulf War I was fought ostensibly to oust Iraq from Kuwait because it had launched a pre-emptive strike against a country it perceived to be a threat to its economic well-being. Let's not forget the American outrage over Pearl Harbour. The United States has the right to protect itself and its citizens with all means that conform to all international legal standards, but pre-emptive war is not one of these means.

If international law prohibits peaceful democracies from taking measures against rogue states that threaten them and harbor terrorists, then international law is in grievous error. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and ESPECIALLY Saudi Arabia were/are not peaceful, law-abiding nations by any means. They themselves have broken "international law" by harboring and even FINANCING terrorist activity, acquiring nuclear arsenals, and oppressing their citizenry with draconian Sharia laws. To denounce free, democratic nations for taking military action would be the most profound idiocy.

We need to abandon this ridiculous notion (that the U.N. fosters, I might add) that all nations are created equal. All people are created equal, but to call the goverments of Iran and North Korea morally equal to the United States is a tremendous mistake.

What do you call the provision that the United States must approve any Iraqi constitution before it can be put to a vote before its citizenry? What do you call hand-picking the majority of members of the provisional government who are drafting said constitution and doling out the development contracts for control of everything from garbage collection to water utilities?

It's still not "dictating the terms," it's merely making sure that the government Iraq intends to set up is the government we went to war to see created. We don't want them to slip by a faux Constitution that paves the way for theocracy, do we?

Your argument is irrelavant. The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration took NO STEPS to increase efforts to stymie al Qaeda. By all accounts, it cut staff to the counter-terrorism department for which Richard Clarke was responsible. It ignored a PDB by its hand-picked intelligence advisors that warned an attack against an American interest by al Qaeda was in the near future, viewing the report, as Dr. Rice described, as a historical analysis. It was feting Taliban officials, the very patrons of al Qaeda, in the summer of 2001.

I'm not making excuses for their inactivity; not by a long shot. My point was merely that Democrats are so intent on being anti-Bush that they've unwittingly created an argument that hard-line policies (which they've been decrying post-9/11) should have been implemented. They've gone into bed with the hawks over nothing more than pure partisanship.

[Buffalo Tom]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

It's still not "dictating the terms," it's merely making sure that the government Iraq intends to set up is the government we went to war to see created.

How is that not dictating the terms of the democracy? Bush apologists are oh-so-ready to fall back on the argument that the 2003 military invasion was an act to liberate the Iraqi people. Well, here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of liberate:

To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control

The Bush Administration seems to be imposing its vision of the political structure of post-Saddam Iraq, without consulting the international community, let alone the country's populace. Whether this structure is the correct one or not is irrelevant. They are perceived by large portions of Iraq's citizens as a foreign power which has taken away the right to self-determination. They can't avoid emnity that is being directed at them if they continue in this manner. One of the fundamental narratives of the American character, the War of Revolution, holds lessons about the galvanizing effect on the disparate elements of a society, when a foreign power unilaterally imposes its will on a people yearning for freedom and independence.

[AChimp]

We need an Irony Man character.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Tom

The Bush Administration seems to be imposing its vision of the political structure of post-Saddam Iraq, without consulting the international community, let alone the country's populace.

The international community? The only countries besides Iraq itself we need input from are the ones who actually played a role in the war. And your idea that the Bush administration is not consulting the Iraqi people is simply uninformed. Input from the Iraqis is the key part of drafting this new constitution.

Whether this structure is the correct one or not is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Pfft. It's completely relevant. The war was waged to make sure that Iraq would be free from both dictatorship and Islamic theocracy. Without our intervention they wouldn't even have the opportunity to create a new government, so I think they owe it to us to follow through with the democracy plan at the very least.

They are perceived by large portions of Iraq's citizens as a foreign power which has taken away the right to self-determination.

What citizens? The radicals in Fallujah? The ambassador herself assured the United States just yesterday that the vast majority of Iraqis are firmly in support of the United States' efforts to establish a democracy.

[mburbank]

I'll leave speciffic arguments to BT, who's doing a fine job and just say everybody already knows what I think of that codswallop.

"pussyfooting" and 'Tough Line" are great for action movies and afterschool specials. World diplomacy is a little harder than that, and the afterafects are a little more far reaching. We live in a world now created by foreign policy that walked away from the Mujahadeen after arming and funding them for half a generation, keeping troops in Saudi Arabia giving a rallying cry to the same religous extremists we'd used so effectively against the soviets. If The shape of our current mess was influnced so profoudly by the blowback from those misssteps, imagine what you'll be dealing with fixing by the time you're my age.

If you answered "A bold new Middle East inspired and reshaped by Iraqs fedgling Democracy" I'm going to go way out on a limb and say I doubt it.

[Brandon]

I'll leave speciffic arguments to BT, who's doing a fine job and just say everybody already knows what I think of that codswallop.

"pussyfooting" and 'Tough Line" are great for action movies and afterschool specials. World diplomacy is a little harder than that, and the afterafects are a little more far reaching. We live in a world now created by foreign policy that walked away from the Mujahadeen after arming and funding them for half a generation, keeping troops in Saudi Arabia giving a rallying cry to the same religous extremists we'd used so effectively against the soviets. If The shape of our current mess was influnced so profoudly by the blowback from those misssteps, imagine what you'll be dealing with fixing by the time you're my age.

If you answered "A bold new Middle East inspired and reshaped by Iraqs fedgling Democracy" I'm going to go way out on a limb and say I doubt it.

You can doubt all you want. The plain fact of the matter, though, is that the ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure you prefer) has done absolutely nothing to make us any safer from terrorism.

It's easy for liberals to call a hard-line approach to the War on Terror "codswallop," but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

EDIT: Liberal diplomacy has its merits; don't get me wrong. They only apply when dealing with benign nations, however.

[davinxtk]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Okay, again, for the record, I don't think assiging blame for not preventing 9/11 is meaningful.

I do however, think the way he Administration is reacting to all of this is highly meaningul. None of them can bring themselves to say "we could have done a lot better. Terrorism wasn't te priority it should have been for us or any previous administration. Now it is."

Instead, they back themselves further and further toward saying "If we had known the terrorist were going to fly planes into the world trade center, we would havetried to stop them. If we had known which flights they would be on, we would have done everything in our pwer to cancel those flights."

The main crime is not what they did before 9/11, it's what they did after. They should be greatful for all this focus on pre 9/11, becuase as bad as it may be for them, it's drawing attention away from how thye responded.

WOULD YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP?
You're one hundred percent right, burbank, there's nothing criminal in the slightest about their pre-9/11 behavior, but if this can get the administration, and more importantly Bush and the absurd right wing out of power, leave it alone and let it run its course.

I know that makes me a hypocrite. I prefer 'pragmatist.'

[The_Rorschach]

"The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration took NO STEPS to increase efforts to stymie al Qaeda"

Yeah. . .They asked Condoleeza why they didn't draw up a plan to invade Afghanistan to take out the Taliban pre-Sept 11, and yet still moan about Bush's pre-emptive war with Iraq.

Seemed pretty obvious that petty partisan politics were at play again, and rather than analyzing what could be done to safeguard American interests, lives and property in the future, assigning blame--not securing our nation against terrorists--is the true goal of this little Spanish Inquisition.

I'm losing faith in the Democratic Party -which is not to say I have any in the Republican Party either- but, well. . .Here, a small highlight of the hypocritical stances they've taken (from Maloney, so no credit goes to me):

Let's look at the foreign policy arguments the Democrats have been making:

The Bush Administration did not do enough to prevent September 11th. Some of the criticisms lobbed during the 9/11 Commission hearings question why the Bush Administration did not--prior to September 11th--start acting on a plan to invade Afghanistan preemptively, topple the Taliban, and rout al Qaeda. But if such a plan existed, and President Bush tried to carry it out before September 11th, does anyone seriously think the Democrats would have supported it? If you think they would have, then you haven't been paying attention for the last two years.

Saddam Hussein is a menace and must be removed. This was an argument made by many Democrats when one of their own--Bill Clinton--was in the White House. In fact, President Clinton, along with the Republicans and Democrats in Congress, made it the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq. Several times, Clinton even acted unilaterally against Saddam Hussein. There was no Democratic hand-wringing about consulting the U.N. first, nor was there any discussion about how the French, Russians or Germans would feel about it. Apparently, our foreign policy only requires outside approval when Republicans are in office.

Saddam Hussein never attacked us. We shouldn't have gone in and taken out his regime. The Democrats criticized President Bush for not acting unilaterally in Afghanistan before September 11th. And the Democrats supported taking out Saddam Hussein when President Clinton was in office. But once President Bush came into the White House, the Democrats changed their tune. They want unilateral action whenever President Bush doesn't take unilateral action, but when the president does take unilateral action, that's not good either.

We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush lied!!! During the Clinton Administration, Democrats said Saddam Hussein had such weapons. They were reading the same intelligence reports that President Bush relied upon. But that didn't stop people like Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy from accusing President Bush of lying and saying he "concocted the war in Iraq from Texas". (Kennedy, it should be noted, once said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.") To date, I have never gotten an answer to this question: if President Bush concocted all the "lies" about Saddams's weapons, then how did he manage to--years before he came into office--convince so many Clinton Administration officials that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
-Evan Coyne Maloney

[davinxtk]

Evan sir, I'll agree with you on the business about pre-emptive action in Afghaniwho?, it's absurd to think that anyone would have supported such a blaring movement of global political suicide. It was, however, more of a humanitarian concern with the Democrats and Saddam than an armament concern. Bush and the gang came within inches of literally perjuring themselves where the WMD issues are concerned, and they've only managed to stave this off by attempting the "I DIDN'T MEAN IT! AN OLDER KID TOLD ME TO DO IT!" approach to their simply lax intelligence gathering.

[mburbank]

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if Brandon is enaged in some sort of parodic excercise.

"You can doubt all you want. The plain fact of the matter, though, is that the ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure you prefer) has done absolutely nothing to make us any safer from terrorism. "

The 'plain fact'? That's just Vinth minus the communication disorder. Who made you privy to plain facts versus personal opinions? I think there are a few people out there who may have enjoyed not blowing up at LAX on the Millenium. And if you mean since 9/11, you're aware that ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure I do prefer, thanks) hasn't been tried, so we have no idea what sort of a job it would do, unless we're psychic or in some other way privy to plain facts.

"It's easy for liberals to call a hard-line approach to the War on Terror "codswallop," but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. "

Which 'glass house' are you thinking of? The Bay of Pigs? 'Cause I thought that was kind of less than liberal. Bay of Tonkin resolution? Democrats lies stink the same as Republicans. Which bit of empire building, red herring, america endangering distraction are you thinking is my glass house, exactly? Sure, there's a time for war. The annexation of Poland, the invasion of Kuwait, genocide in Rawanda (oops!). The gulf of Tonkin and this entire war don't pass my 'liberal' muster.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if Brandon is enaged in some sort of parodic excercise.

After listening to both sides of the argument, I'm unconvinced that the liberal approach (if there's any at all) to the "War on Terror" is going to be adequate. That's not to say that I'm a conservative, a Bush-supporter, or a Republican, but that I've merely changed my position on an issue.

I'm sure I'm going to get ridiculed anyway.

The 'plain fact'? That's just Vinth minus the communication disorder. Who made you privy to plain facts versus personal opinions? I think there are a few people out there who may have enjoyed not blowing up at LAX on the Millenium. And if you mean since 9/11, you're aware that ever-so-complex, liberal diplomacy with all its sophisticated little grey areas (which I'm sure I do prefer, thanks) hasn't been tried, so we have no idea what sort of a job it would do, unless we're psychic or in some other way privy to plain facts.

Ouch, Max. Very ouch.

Ok, fine. I'll rephrase it. "I have yet to see convincing evidence that liberal diplomacy has done anything to make us safer from terrorism." The point I'm trying to make is that a softer approach to terrorism and terrorist states has been tried. It was used many times during the Clinton administration, and it prevented nothing.

Clinton's administration put absolutely zero pressure on Iran or Syria, fingerfucked with Saudi Arabia (but then, most recent administrations have), and even bribed North Korea. Prudent as ever, he put just enough pressure (unilaterally, I might add) on Hussein to look tough but balked at actually removing him from power. (I'm only going over policy in the Arab world, BTW, and I'm aware he's used force elsewhere) Clinton consistently refused to take decisive action after every major terrorist attack, including the first WTC bombing. He turned down capture of Osama bin Laden at least three times.

Yes, clearly cutting back on our "imperialist" tendencies has done wonders for national security.

Did this diplomacy stop 9/11? No. The rogue states we avoided offending relished the fact that we were such pushovers while they went ahead and did what they planned to do anyway. They play Eddie Haskell, claiming to be our allies while making contributions to Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, etc. and providing asylum to terror suspects. North Korea and Iran happily go about acquiring nuclear arsenals.

We can't negotiate with countries like that anymore. We never could. You'd think more people would have learned that by now. Military strikes are still a last resort, but it's time that we strapped our spine back on and backed these assholes up against the wall. War isn't the solution to everything, but it is a solution to some things.

[mburbank]

See, these 'assholes' all look alike. They don't wear uniforms or announce themselves. This means when you 'back them up against a wall' you back up a lot of noncombatants. This is one of terrorists great sttrategic strengths.

They expect us to 'strap on our spines' and throw our muscle around, they count on it. Sure a few of them die, but it's not like they aren't ready and willing. In the meantime, the collateral damage convinces lots of other poeple that the US is just what they always said we were.

Do you suppose that our current actions will at some point make terrorist organizations say "Gosh, these guys is tough after all! We give up!"

Are you hoping that perhaps we will actually find and kill every terrorist and 'win' the 'war'?

Do you think that we will peer pressure people into not supporting terror by being terrifying ourselves? "Support terror and we'll overthrow your government, occupy you and kill lot of people!"

ask folks in Madrid how well this has worked preventing terror. Not a whole hell of a lot better than 'diplomacy'.

Terror is a terrible, terrible crime. Calling it a war misses the point, puts us in the position of perpetrating violence, puts ever more power into the hands of terrorists (since one bomber can derail an entire peace plan). This is why after a drive by shooting we don't attack from the air and then send in a tank division.

The aim of terror is to make people afraid, angry and irrational. It's what you do when you know the people you're fighting are way, way more powerful. They aren't trying to get us to surrender, they know we won't. They're trying to get us to screw up. They want us to do things like invade a state we can never hope to run, unleashing chaos, ethnic hatred and death, which they can then blme on us. The way I see it, the terrorists are winning.

[The_Rorschach]

". . .the invasion of Kuwait. . . "

The Kuwaiti's were engaging in lateral drilling into Iraqi oil deposits, which was the mainstay of the Iraqi economy at the time. Personally, I see Saddam's actions as being totally resonable - That is to say in theory, because he was hardly fighting to safeguard his people's financial security, nonetheless hostilities were justifiable. If Saddamn Hussein had been, say, more like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I rather greatly doubt the United States would have felt any need to interfere.

[Brandon]

In the meantime, the collateral damage convinces lots of other poeple that the US is just what they always said we were.

Most of whom hated us to begin with.

Are you hoping that perhaps we will actually find and kill every terrorist and 'win' the 'war'?

Most of them, at least.

Do you think that we will peer pressure people into not supporting terror by being terrifying ourselves? "Support terror and we'll overthrow your government, occupy you and kill lot of people!"

The problem with your line of thinking is that our actions are different and more moral than those of the terrorists.

Invading a "sovereign" nation. Doing some collateral damage. Ok, those are bad, but understandable.

But you know what else we did there, Max? We built hospitals and schools. We removed an oppressive dictator. The Iraqi economy is growing by leaps and bounds.

You can't reasonably compare U.S. military action to terrorism. Terrorists intentionally murder innocents. Terrorists threaten to burn hostages alive. Terrorists desire the proliferation of oppressive, theocratic governments. Terrorists also long for the overthrow of the Israeli state, failing the wholesale slaughter of every Jew living there.

We're not doing the wrong thing. We are not "unleashing chaos" or "ethnic hatred." Reasonable people can see that we're not "doing what the terrorists want us to do," and, those that do see it that way, as I said, probably hated us anyway.

Your argument basically goes something like this, Max:

"Terrorists want us to retaliate so that we look bad. We don't want to look bad, so I guess we should just take our lumps and prosecute the people who happen to fall into our nets."

Something tells me the American people won't really go for that strategy.

[davinxtk]

Brandon, Baghdad was a flourishing metropolis before we bombed the living hell out of it. There already were hospitals and schools. Saddam was oppressive and the Baathist regime wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops, but they were peanuts compared to shit we've let slide in other countries in the past.
Besides, we didn't attack Iraq because of terrorists, remember?
We attacked them because of WMD. WMD!

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by davinxtk

Brandon, Baghdad was a flourishing metropolis before we bombed the living hell out of it.

And it's mostly back to normal, now.

Saddam was oppressive and the Baathist regime wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops, but they were peanuts compared to shit we've let slide in other countries in the past.

Saddam is just the first of such shit that the "War on Terror" plans to clean up.

Besides, we didn't attack Iraq because of terrorists, remember?
We attacked them because of WMD. WMD!

We attacked Iraq for several reasons other than WMD, even if that's all we publicized.

[davinxtk]

And it's mostly back to normal, now.

My point is that it seems like we're trying to take the credit for it being that way in the first place.

Saddam is just the first of such shit that the "War on Terror" plans to clean up.

Yes, let's just level the entire content and call it America II.

We attacked Iraq for several reasons other than WMD, even if that's all we publicized.

I don't want to sound like I'm in the eighth grade or anything, but the phrase "No shit, Sherlock." comes to mind. I was being sarcastic, not naive.
We made a mess that we shouldn't have made. Any attempt to justify our actions is fucking ludicrous.
I'd like to think we could pull our troops out on June 30th regardless of what condition the country is in, but we can't. We can't leave Iraq the way we left Vietnam.
Unfortunately, we don't have much choice.
I wish the fucking UN would get their asses in gear. I don't care if they don't want to take responsibility for our mess, they're the UN and they're only further undermining themselves by not acting on this situation.

[mburbank]

"Are you hoping that perhaps we will actually find and kill every terrorist and 'win' the 'war'?"
-Me

Most of them, at least.
-Brandon

That's your perogative, but I think it's naive. Ho many innocents are you willing to kill along the way? Not that the death of innocents isn't unavoidable, but it's always good to look at ratios your willing to accept. 2-1? 50 - 1? Thousands - 1? If you don't think about the line, you can cross it unaware.

"You can't reasonably compare U.S. military action to terrorism."
I believe quite strongly that the purpose of war is to terorize your enemy. 'The terrorists' lack the military options we have, which is why this isn't a nice civilized war. It's hard to say what 'the terrorists' might do if they had an army, an air force, a navy. Perhaps they'd drop massive bombs on cities full of non combatants, or start firestorms or deforest jungles. States justify all sorts of barbarity within the confines of war.

Do you want me to say we are better than the Jihadists? We are. Quite a bit right now. But see, we ought to be, us being the good guys and all. I think we could do better. As to schools and hospitals, many of those we build we blew up first. We intend currently to hand back all responsability for Hospitals in June. We chose this war. It had nothing to do with 9/11, and ot prevents us to this day from devoting manpower, money and attention to the criminals perpetrators of 9/11. Let's go build schools and hospitals in central Africa. At least we didn't already pay for their demolition.

"Reasonable people can see that we're not "doing what the terrorists want us to do," and, those that do see it that way, as I said, probably hated us anyway. "

I see it that way. I'm reasonable, and I don't hate us. I think Osama Bin Laden wanted us to attack Iraq. I think it benefits him every day. I think it's the main reason Al Quaeda has been able to regroup to the degree it has. I think it's why Afghanistan is still unstable and an ideal staging ground for Al Quaeda. I don't think any of these things becuase I hate us. I think Bin Laden hoped one of the first thing a Buh administration would do once we were struck was invade Iraq. Imagine for a moment we'd put all the resources we've put into the raq war into tracking Bin Laden down and dissmanteling his organization. Maybe we'd still have failed. But it's a LOT of resources.

"Terrorists want us to retaliate so that we look bad. We don't want to look bad, so I guess we should just take our lumps and prosecute the people who happen to fall into our nets."

See, had we actually sent OUR army to the other side of the Tora Bora caves I wouldn't said whoever we captured fell into our nets. When we prevented the Millenium bombing it wasn't because the terrorists fell into our nets, Britains recent anti terrorist success wasn't a case of folks falling into nets. These are cases of active, cooperative international police work. Since much of it's secret, I don't know for sure, but my guess is the war in Iraq didn't do squat for any of those cases. It demeans you to characterize my argument the way you just did. Is your argument "We need to kill everyone where the terrorists are and that way we'll know we got 'em!"?

Much as I hated it, I supported the overthrow of the Taliban. ecause it was justified and because they wouldn't separate themselves from Al Quaeda. I also thought they were scum, but that's not a reason for war. Iraq is a whole different thing. It's a stupid ass vendetta against a country that while awful was far less dangerous to us than some of our current allies.

I respect your difference of opinion. I would also suggest that you are allowing your passions to make you manipulable. "Something tells me the American people won't really go for that strategy." Really? Where might that cocksureness come from? Stating my argument so incorrectly and then following it up with a certainty that "America" would agree is a shallow sophist tactic typical of penny ante pundits, and it's beneath you. I have no idea if the 'American People' agree with me or not.

[AChimp]

Ok, fine. I'll rephrase it. "I have yet to see convincing evidence that liberal diplomacy has done anything to make us safer from terrorism." The point I'm trying to make is that a softer approach to terrorism and terrorist states has been tried. It was used many times during the Clinton administration, and it prevented nothing.

You should try Canada's tried, tested and true method; we like to call it LEAVE THEM ALONE. And they respect us.

[The_Rorschach]

When Al Qaeda learns of Canadian Pumkin Harvests, you better believe they'll bomb you out of envy alone.

[kellychaos]

Originally, a war on Saudia Arabia was considered but the lil' buggers somehow hopped on some of the last planes out of the country on 9/11 and we were unable to sequester them for vital intelligence.

On the one hand I can side with Dubya on the fact that you really have no way to defend against "intentions" but, at the same time, he seemed pretty glib in his consideration of FBI (and other agencies) intelligence gathering.

[Brandon]

We're not really in a position to leave anyone alone at this point, Chimp. We've chosen to abandon isolationism in the past, it's put us in the mess and we have to follow through.

Ok, Max, I respect your argument.

Imagine for a moment we'd put all the resources we've put into the raq war into tracking Bin Laden down and dissmanteling his organization. Maybe we'd still have failed. But it's a LOT of resources.

Here's my thinking. Just hear me out, ok?

Terrorists need both money and places to set up camp, right? States in the Middle East such as Iraq (yes, it's true), Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been providing both. And if the states themselves don't fund terrorists, people inside them do.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if these states stopped harboring and funding terrorists, it would effectively cripple most operations.

So why not put pressure on these countries?

[davinxtk]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

So why not put pressure on [read: bomb, invade, occupy, restructure, capitalize, assimilate] these countries?

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by davinxtk

Not all of the above.

We can't be afraid to threaten military action, either.

[mburbank]

I'm all for putting pressure on them, especially the Saudis who use their Bush family connections to avoid scutiny.

But there's kind of a gulf between 'putting pressure' and the military overthrow and occupation of a country.