The Forge Archives

I suspect this thread will burn brighter than any thread we could produce on religion or sodomy, but what the hell....

Ralph wrote:

QuoteWhat we basically had is a vile tyrannical dictator who attempts genocide on his own people. He'd had WMDs before, he'd demonstrated he's willing to use them, he'd demonstrated that he continued to try an obtain them, he had ties to terrorist organizations that he certainly would have provided them to and who would certainly have used them.

Whether he had any at the particular moment of invasion is entirely irrelevant and a complete and utter red herring put out by those with ulterior agendas.

There was a time when we propped him up as the lessor of two evils against the Ayatollah. Mistake? Maybe, maybe not. No telling where Iran would have gone if they hadn't been stymied by Iraq for years.

There's 3 groups of people who are leading the rabble rousing against Iraq.

1) Those European Powers who stood to make a ton of money off of their relationships with Saddam and didn't want to see those arrangements threatened.

2) Those people who believe in handing the riegns of world government over to the UN (including many Americans) who are furious that we dared finally give up on their ineffectiveness and do it ourselves.

3) And those Europeans who felt the opportunity to throw their weight around and score points by being as vocal as possible about "not following the U.S". For these people the issue had nothing to do with Iraq or WMDs or anything. It was completely a question of demonstrating their independence from us by going left when we asked them to go right.


All the rest about what the intelligence agencies did or didn't know, or whether Bush did or didn't exaggerate is just a bunch of stuff and nonsense put out by the above 3 groups to conceal their real motives for being upset.

Excuse me?

First, um, I don't think I'm really "rabble," and it's sort of a desperate ploy to discount the opposition as meaningless mind-wasters.

Second, your final point, that either myself, or, say Richard Clark, fit into groups one, two or three is so disengenious a statement I'm going to have to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume you typed faster than you meant to.  Neither Clark or I is European, Clark has no qualms it seems about unilateral decisions for assassination, and I'm a "If it's time to go to war, let's go to war," kind of guy.  I'll wait till you get back to me on this one.

But the larger point, "All the rest about what the intelligence agencies did or didn't know, or whether Bush did or didn't exaggerate is just a bunch of stuff and nonsense..." is simply terrifying.

It's clearly not "just" a bunch of stuff and nonsense.  There are officials from the intelligence agencies, the pentagon and the adminstration all making it clear the truth was bent to the will of the administration to get us into a war in Iraq no matter what.  

If the President of the United States is making a case to go to war, and is using specious or deceptive arguements to make the case, then something's gone wrong.

Your arguements about the situation in Iraq being better with Sadam are correct. (I suspect anyone who thinks otherwise never gave a rats ass thought about the Iraqis before we went to war, and are now stunned to hear daily reports of violence from a very fucked up place.)

That doesn't change the fact that when Bush and his administration were making their arguments not one of the glowing points you brought up was used as an argument.

We weren't getting rid of him because he was a "bad man."  We weren't getting rid of him because he sought WMD and might have them "some day."  We weren't getting rid of him because he had vague ties to terrorist organizations and had to be removed because of that.  

Bush never made these points, because he knew that would simply not sell the war.

If he tried to sell the war with these points, we'd also have to invade, at least, North Korea and Pakistan.  Because those points are just as valid for these nations.  And, lo, we didn't.

He sold the war saying:

a) the weapons programs were in place (despite the inspectors saying, "we haven't found them yet, we doubt they're here, give us a little more time.... oh, you're pulling us out because you're invadiing... okay...)

b) he sold the war saying, "the threat from Iraq to the United States was "imminent," (as Rumself himself said on the air a little over a year ago),

c) he sold the war saying that Sadam was in part responsible for the 9-11 attacks.... And everyone I've read in the intelligence community has made it clear that Bin Ladin and Sadam had as much in common as anti-abortion assassins have in common with a greenpeace eco-terrorist.  He had *nothing* to do with the 9-11 attacks and nothing to do with Bin Ladin

So my concern rests on four points:

1)  If the points you've raised were valid reasons for going to war, why were these not the points argued?  

2)  If the points that were raised valid, why have all of them collapsed under revelation of officials through the government and revelations of the situation in Iraq.  

And 3)  How is it just a red herring to ask why the sitting president made his case to go to war never mentoining all these spiff, newly revealed really good reasons for having gone to war, while all the reasons he sold the war on turned out to be either fabrications or an almost willful ignorance.  I mean, you might reply, "Well, people wouldn't have wanted to go to war if the reasons were he was a bad man, who might in a decade or two have WMD again, who harmed his own people, so we had to make it more of an immediate threat to the US and payback for 9-11."  That's the *best* case I can put forward -- and I still think it's shit.

And finally (again, waiting for your clarification): where in high heaven do people get off saying that if I'm concerned about either deception or incompetence in the administration, I'm either a European or a kow-towing whimp.  Please.  Might it by possible I'm actually, genuinely concerned that Bush and his team were simply and naively focused on Iraq at the expence of pursuing objectives against Al Quida?  That the naive assumption that it would all go rosey after the war speaks to in incompetence that would get a creative director fired off a video game.  (You brought up Normandy to say, "Look, more died there in one day than all the US soldiers died since the war ended."  Let's take another set of numbers....  How many US soldiers died from enemy action after the fall of Berlin and Tokyo in World War II?  Zero.  That's right.  Zero.  All I can see, we're still at war.  Could somebody in the White House please say that?)

I think my concerns questions are vital and important.  They address directly the nature of the Presidence, the role of popular sentiment in the decision to go to war, and the ability of this administration to lead.  I'm not saying they *can't.  I'm asking, can they -- and only because of all the issues I've brought up above.

Now, as you pointed out, the fall of Sadam is good in many ways.  But, frankly, I'm concerned about the leadership of my country before I'm concerned about the leadership of Iraq.  As an concerned, informed citizen, I'm supposed to questin what's going on when the administation plays either loose, lazily, or deceptively with its arguements for going to war.  And to simply dismiss such questions and concerns as being the words of "rabble" is insulting to those of us who take our role as being citizens of a republic seriously.

Yours in frustration,

Christopher

[edited] PS: at this point, you have to imagine me at the party with my foruth screwdriver in hand, jabbing my finger *toward* (but not touching Ralph), the tempo increasing as I drive toward the bottom of post, cutting him off with each attempt of his to speak with each of my bullet points (cause I really do speak in bullet points and block paragraphs), until I really drive it home with that striden climax of taking the role as a citizen of the republic seriously with just enough of a raised voice that everyone within fifteen feet *has* to stop what they're doing and listen to me finish up.  For this reason, most of all, I usually limit myself to half a glass of wine in any social circumstance.

What's wrong with sodomy?

*****

Ok, some little bits to add.

If the Bush administration was really dishonest enough to lie about WDM, then they would've just planted some in Iraq.  I mean, we are occupying it, shouldn't be that hard to keep up the ruse.  Hell, we sold 'em a lot of US equipment when they were our little pawns against Iran (USSR backed, IIRC) during the cold war, so, ya know, we should have some stuff that matches.  That leads towards the ignorance conclusion.  Conquering a whole nation because of ignorance ain't exactly flattering.

Ok, Saddam was a bad man.  Yeah, I buy it.  But why this particular bad man?  Why didn't we march into, say, any number of places in Africa.  They've got terrorists, people attempting genocide, all sorts of bad men to deal with.  Why this one?  There is obviously another reason.  A US interest.  It bothers me that the adminstration tries to shroud what they are doing in 'evil doers', 'terrorists', 'WDM', and what not.  Come out with it, those are swell reasons and all, but they ain't why you picked this particular bad man over the others.

Don't want the evil doers to have evil weapons?  This just pisses me off.  We've got the largest stockpile of 'evil weapons' in the world.  That's just manipulating the public.  Their weapons are 'evil', ours are a 'holy sword' or some shit.  We can have them, but they can't?  Do as I say, not as I do.

Ok, so we've got 'preemptive strike'.  Gee that sounds smart.  You think that guy is going to punch you, so you hit him first.  Hmmm, yep, that's the smart thing to do.  Too bad it isn't the right thing to do.  Guilty until proven innocent?  Huh, I didn't think that's what the USA was supposed to stand for.

*****

Flame on Iraq thread.  Flame on.

The easiest way to disabuse yourself of the comfortable and comforting delusion that opponents of the occupation of Iraq fit into such alleged "easy categories" would be to go on a demo.  Just walk around and talk to people and you will find a huge mix of opinions and reasons.

But its an easy sort of slanderous attack that, in fact, depends on the audiences ignorance of the issues and circumstances; its equally appallingly cynical, as its the line peddled by those who supported Saddam while he was a Western ally, gassing Kurds and so forth.  Suddenly the hypocrites discover their bed-partner to be unsavoury and overcome by overdue faux-concern, ride to the rescue.  

What apologists for this illegal and immoral war fail to address are the real reasons for opposing the war.  It was widely and correctly poredicted that this would raise the risks of terrorism, but this was ignored: becuase for the imperialists, human life means nothing, on either side.  A few of our dead citizens is a small prioce to pay for the immense wealth that Halliburton and their White House chronies gain from reconstruction, or the geopolitical security that comes from being able to obviate Opec.

All this humanitarian rhetoric is merely cover, merely the propaganda of the gas-masked rapist and the babies torn from incubators, the lies produced by Gulf 1, or more accurately, the Second Oil War (this present being the Third).

Unsurprisingly, the above post was mine.  Dunno how it appeared as a 'guest' post.

I support military intervention for humanitarian purposes.

So, uhm, North Korea and Burma, which one first?  Anyone?

*looks around at the now-silent hawks*

Yeah.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  Congo, Haiti (now), Tibet, Indonesia, etc...  This is a lifetime's work.

just one little nitpick:

Quoteb) he sold the war saying, "the threat from Iraq to the United States was "imminent," (as Rumself himself said on the air a little over a year ago),

Having been through this up and down, high and low in several discussions in the blogosphere, I'm very very confident, that no-one in the administration ever spoke of "imminent threat".* If you can dig up quotes to the contrary, you're better than about two hundred pretty smart and obsessive (politics-wise) bloggers left and right, the CAP and the Democratic party. Good luck ;)
FWIW: this is the worst the CAP could come up with (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970), note that the Fleischer quote is hardly conclusive (as Spinsanity points out) (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html) and the McClellan quote is not without troubles either (again, Spinsanity) (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_02_01_archive.html#107574662948215391)

If we're talking about "in spirit if not necessarily in letter" OTOH, you're quite right IMHO.

*"imminent threat" would justify war in self-defense under international law. The Bush admin was careful not to make that claim, focussing on a rhetoric of "acting before the threat becomes imminent" instead.
God, I miss wasting my time doing this shit </nitpick>

Perhaps, but thats not the whole story.  On this side of the pond, major papers splashed with "45 minutes from doom" headlines on the basis of ther claim made several times in the Dodgy Dossier - repeated several times in the PM's foreword alone.  The subsequent articles made clear that the papers understood this to refer to weapons that could threaten Britain.

The government argues that they never actually said that.  When asked why they did not correct the papers misunderstanding, they respond that this would be an endless and futile task (and yet pilloried the BBC).

It is not adequate to excuse this mess by saying they didn't actually say 'imminently'; they clearly implied this, and allowed everything to contribute to this impression.  Fundamentally, such a semantic argument is pretty puerile in serious politics, because if "words just meant what they meant" we probably would not have politics at all.  Thats what they are in the business of doing, they can't just hold up their hands and plead incompetence on a matter which means life and death.

QuoteFirst, um, I don't think I'm really "rabble," and it's sort of a desperate ploy to discount the opposition as meaningless mind-wasters.

Sorry Christopher.  I guess I probably should have been clearer that the "Rabble Rouser" quip was directed at the media who seem bound and determined to paint our efforts in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster despite the fact that its been quite successful at achieving the majority of the goals that it set out to do and has done so quicker and with less loss of life than any other similiar endeavor in history.

Definitely not pointed at you.

QuoteBut the larger point, "All the rest about what the intelligence agencies did or didn't know, or whether Bush did or didn't exaggerate is just a bunch of stuff and nonsense..." is simply terrifying.

It's clearly not "just" a bunch of stuff and nonsense. There are officials from the intelligence agencies, the pentagon and the adminstration all making it clear the truth was bent to the will of the administration to get us into a war in Iraq no matter what.

But it is.  On what day did the American people become so screwed up in our priorities that we think we actually have a right to KNOW any of that.  

Did we clamor to harass the CIA over what they did or didn't know before setting off to assassinate half a dozen world leaders and topple governments during the cold war (say in Guatamala).  You had some discussion, some raised eyebrows...nothing like this.

This is America.  We elect officials, We trust them to do the job We hired them to do, and if don't we like the job they're doing we get another shot in 2-6 years to fire them and hire new ones.

But once they're in office there are things that are called "top secret" for a reason.  And to suggest that we have a right to know that stuff is absurd.

QuoteIf the President of the United States is making a case to go to war, and is using specious or deceptive arguements to make the case, then something's gone wrong.

There's a HUGE volume of literature questioning what FDR did and didn't know about Pearl Harbor before using it to drag us into WWII.  Point being this sort of thing goes on ALL the time.

Spin is an unfortuneate fact of life.  The reason why Bush felt he had a need to spin this story is because its hard to tell the difference between the news media in this country and the tabloid press.  So he took a gamble, made some more extreme remarks to get the country united and hoped it worked.  It didn't.  Big deal.  It shouldn't have been necessary to begin with.

What I regret most is that we live in a time where that's even necessary.  What should have happened is "Hey Saddam's got to go, why?  Cuz he's killing is own people, letting them live in poverty while he lives in luxury and builds up his army, and his crazy sons are torturing dissidents.  After that there's a couple more bad guys who need to be dealt with."

That should have been enough of a reason to get us to go.  But its not.

Unfortuneately the Western World doesn't really give a rats ass about how bad off other places have it...As long as it doesn't directly effect the lives of soccer moms taking kids to school we aren't going to care about the fate of the Kurds.  We've had 10 years to prove that, not that there was any doubt.

So Bush, targeted something that WOULD get us fired up.  The threat of bad stuff happening to us here.  And in order to get us fired up about it, maybe he engaged in a little hyperbole.  The only wrong thing there is that we've become such a self centered society that the only way we'd support a war against a tyrant is if that tyrant was directly able to target us...otherwise...oh well.

But to me.  So what if the president spun the info he had.  That's his job.  You can't deal with issues of national security in a public forum, no matter how much the information age has tricked us into thinking we need to know everything that goes on behind closed doors in the white house.

QuoteThat doesn't change the fact that when Bush and his administration were making their arguments not one of the glowing points you brought up was used as an argument.

Hey, I'm not a Bush apologist.  That guy has unfortuneately bumbled his way through his entire presidency.  If you want parity I could list any number of bush league mistakes (pun intended) he's made.

We should have been a hell of alot better prepared for the reconstruction of Iraq afterwards rather than having to rush around pushing through no bid contracts in a desperate act to get people over there.

We've had 10 years to figure out who the individuals the people of Iraq would respect and listen to and make a priority out of contacting them and getting them involved from the start rather than waiting to see who the people rally around and then doing damage control.

We've had 10 years to institute bilingual training in the armed forces so that in every unit there's at least someone who can speak the language passably well without cue cards strapped to his wrist.

We had plenty of time to do a better job approaching and working with our European allies to get a better response from them rather than expecting them to just fall in line.  Yeah, I think the French and German response was very disappointing, like an old friend letting you down.  But you can't really blame them for being pissed off.  No one likes being taken for granted.

Is he perfect.  Hell no.  But he's doing something.  And you know.  No one in history has really made a habit out of going after dictators where they live, kicking them out, putting in democratic governments and rebuilding their economy except us.  Its been 60 years since the last time we tried this on a major scale.  Rough parts are to be expected.

QuoteBush never made these points, because he knew that would simply not sell the war.

Exactly right.  So he did what he had to do, to get done what needed to be done.  Seems to be he had the balls to put his career and reputation at risk in order to make something happen that needed to happen, that wouldn't have happened any other way.

The truly sad part is not that he resorted to exaggeration and partial truths, but that he had to.

QuoteIf he tried to sell the war with these points, we'd also have to invade, at least, North Korea and Pakistan. Because those points are just as valid for these nations. And, lo, we didn't.

Yup.  Hopefully we do.  There's a lot of governments in the world that need to go.

Quoteb) he sold the war saying, "the threat from Iraq to the United States was "imminent," (as Rumself himself said on the air a little over a year ago),

Hey, if Clinton can get away with debating the definition of "is"; I think we can get equal mileage out of debating the definition of "imminent".

I mean exactly how short a time does it need to be before its ok to react to it?   Should we really have to wait until the WMDs are delivered to the terrorists who are going to use them before intervening.  No, I don't think you'd suggest that.  So then, wheres the line?

Personally, nailing the bad guys BEFORE they get the weapons seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Quote1) If the points you've raised were valid reasons for going to war, why were these not the points argued?

You've already answered that yourself.  Because no one would care.

Should he have brought them up anyway.  Yeah.  Should he have led with those and held the WMD thing in reserve.  Yeah.  I never claimed he was all that astute.

Quote2) If the points that were raised valid, why have all of them collapsed under revelation of officials through the government and revelations of the situation in Iraq.

Not sure what points you're referring to?  The WMD things?  Did you really expect that we'd find some?

Maybe I'm just a born cynic but I had my money on never finding any from the day we first went in.

QuoteAnd 3) How is it just a red herring to ask why the sitting president made his case to go to war never mentoining all these spiff, newly revealed really good reasons for having gone to war, while all the reasons he sold the war on turned out to be either fabrications or an almost willful ignorance. I mean, you might reply, "Well, people wouldn't have wanted to go to war if the reasons were he was a bad man, who might in a decade or two have WMD again, who harmed his own people, so we had to make it more of an immediate threat to the US and payback for 9-11." That's the *best* case I can put forward -- and I still think it's shit.

That is how I'd respond.  And I in no way think its a shit reason.  Its his job.  The shit reason is that its true.  We didn't care about the Kurds. We didn't care about future WMD potential.  Lots of important people around the world were getting rich off of Saddam's manipulaiton of the Oil for Food plan so THEY weren't about to care about those things.

Kennedy invaded Cuba with less preparation and worse intelligence.  The British let civilians get bombed rather than reveal they'd cracked Enigma.  The Spanish American war was entirely manufactured out of evidence more fictitious than WMDs.  

Check history.  This is how the game has worked since...well, pretty much Washington left office.  The only difference is now we have the
media telling us about it as it happens.

The biggest problem with Bush is that he's not nearly a good enough liar to be president.

Yup, that's what I said.  Show me a president who didn't lie through his teeth to the American people.

Clinton?. nope big fat liar
Bush the First?  Heck no, we're still reading his lips.
Reagan?  Greatest president of the 20th century...fantastic liar
Carter?  Well, ok.  I might have to concede Carter.  He was way to honest for the job...and it showed in his performance.

How far back do you want to go?  

Point being that I find the level of outrage that "oh my god the president lied to us!" to be truly funny.  

To me the only sane response to such outrage is "ummm....yeah...why would you possibly expect otherwise...thats what they do.  Its what they all do."

Ben Lehman:

Quote
I support military intervention for humanitarian purposes.

Yes, good idea. Sudan. I'd very much like to see someone do something.

Oh that's right, they are (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/30092.htm).

Please excuse me for not cheering for this magnificent effort.

Sorry. "Guest" is me.

Quote from: Valamir
There's a HUGE volume of literature questioning what FDR did and didn't know about Pearl Harbor before using it to drag us into WWII.  Point being this sort of thing goes on ALL the time.

Or, we might just stop following these wasters of life and limb and start cutting our own path?  If we know these are lying, butchering bastards, why believe them at all?

Quote
What I regret most is that we live in a time where that's even necessary.  What should have happened is "Hey Saddam's got to go, why?  Cuz he's killing is own people, letting them live in poverty while he lives in luxury and builds up his army, and his crazy sons are torturing dissidents.  After that there's a couple more bad guys who need to be dealt with."

Easy - nobody believes that argument.  He was the Wests bosom buddy for so long, this strange conversion to the rights of Iraqi citizens is most peculiar.  If anyone suggests that the West should evenh, say, pay reparations to slaves, which is not going to cost anyones life, the answer is always "why should we suffer to make the world a better place?"  Why, therefore, would anyone have the remotest expectation that the west would send its sons and daughters to die in foreign lands for nothing more than the gratitude of the oppressed?  It's prima facie riduculous.  A more rational explanation must be offered.

And so, Why Here, Why Now?  Thats the issue the Dodgy Dossier was supposed to lay to rest, only that contained only more deception.

The answer to Why Here, Why Now, is oil.  

Quote
Unfortuneately the Western World doesn't really give a rats ass about how bad off other places have it...As long as it doesn't directly effect the lives of soccer moms taking kids to school we aren't going to care about the fate of the Kurds.  We've had 10 years to prove that, not that there was any doubt.

Well, you're absdolutely right - in fact, the West takes certain steps to ensure that other places stay poor, miserable, and in hoc to Western interests.  

But equally, the irony is I think you'll find soccer moms have a disproportionately high awareness of what was happening to the Kurds.  

Quote
So Bush, targeted something that WOULD get us fired up.  The threat of bad stuff happening to us here.  And in order to get us fired up about it, maybe he engaged in a little hyperbole.

So he lied, because he knew better than the hoi polloi.  Plato would have been proud; how very Aristo (for a family thats been Senatorial for what, 4 generations?  I forget).

Quote
 The only wrong thing there is that we've become such a self centered society that the only way we'd support a war against a tyrant is if that tyrant was directly able to target us...otherwise...oh well.

No actually, we're so cynical we support tyrants, and only go to war in the name of oil.  All the rest is propaganda.

QuoteHell no.  But he's doing something.  And you know.  No one in history has really made a habit out of going after dictators where they live, kicking them out, putting in democratic governments and rebuilding their economy except us.  Its been 60 years since the last time we tried this on a major scale.  Rough parts are to be expected.

And thats exactly the excuse that every Imperialist power uses, almost without exception.  So colour me cynical, but I find this totally implausible.  Its also in direct contradiction with what used to be America's stated intent of avoiding this sort of opportunistic rationalisation and committing not to be involved in foriegn wars.  Once upon a time, America had a principled anti-colonial policy, but now thats its military dominance is assured it see's no need for such a cumbersome thing as ethics, or morals.

QuoteSo he did what he had to do, to get done what needed to be done.  Seems to be he had the balls to put his career and reputation at risk in order to make something happen that needed to happen, that wouldn't have happened any other way.

Well, thats fair enough: then he's a mass murderer and should get the chair.

QuoteYup.  Hopefully we do.  There's a lot of governments in the world that need to go.

Remaking the world in your image, are we?  How is this not classical (and I do mean classical) Imperialism?

Quote
Hey, if Clinton can get away with debating the definition of "is"; I think we can get equal mileage out of debating the definition of "imminent".

Because my oponent is a doofus does not mean I don't also lose credibility by being a doofus.  This is not a zero-sum game.

Quote
I mean exactly how short a time does it need to be before its ok to react to it?   Should we really have to wait until the WMDs are delivered to the terrorists who are going to use them before intervening.  No, I don't think you'd suggest that.  So then, wheres the line?

Its precisely becuase there is no clear line that arrogant self-righteous Imperialism is widely regarded as a bad thing.  But even so, of all the places in the world least likely to hand nukes to terrorists, Iraq was high on that list (unlike, say, Pakistan...).  Again, this is just an appeal to popular gullibility (polls still show that a high proportion of Americans believe the claim that Iraq and AQ were linked, ridiculous as that may be).

Quote
Personally, nailing the bad guys BEFORE they get the weapons seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Remember that remark the next time you start to get excited about terrorists killing children.

QuoteYou've already answered that yourself.  Because no one would care.

Rumsfeld certainly did not when these points were raised in the 80's no.  Whats this then, late life crisis, guilt, the ghost of christmas past?

Quote
Check history.  This is how the game has worked since...well, pretty much Washington left office.  The only difference is now we have the
media telling us about it as it happens.

Your argument is wholly illogical, Ralph, it has descended to desperate apologetic.  If its the same its always been, then the right we claim to "liberate" foreign lands is bogus.  We are NOT the enlightened West, we are as we have always been, expansionist, opportunist, Imperialist.  You cannot have it both ways.

And even if your claim were true, and the president lied "out of kindness and empthy" [presumably of the 'we had to destroy the village to save it' variety], should a president subordinate their position, their responsibility, their duty, to pursuing their private agenda?  Should the presidents conviction overule the democratic mandate he carries and allow him to act purely on his conscience?

Is he president or king, you have to wonder, that he can spend so freely the spend the lives of his citizens?

Quote
To me the only sane response to such outrage is "ummm....yeah...why would you possibly expect otherwise...thats what they do.  Its what they all do."

Thats right.  And so when they say they invaded Iraq out of alleged humanitarian concern, I don't believe them.  I think its a big, fat, hairy lie.  This 'humanitarian concern' has such a track record of being an opportunistic lie that only a fool takes it at face value.  If you want to help in a humanitarian way, to alleviate suffering, dismantle the stringent world trade regulations that hold developing countries back, allow freer migration of populations, and stop trying to turn the third world into a cheap sweatshop that sustains Western consumption.

Let me make sure I've got this straight:

The fact that people have always lied makes lying okay.

If that's what you're saying, then I wish to go on record as disagreeing.

I'm against the war in Iraq, and have been from the beginning. My reasons are pretty standard: we are getting lots of Americans and Iraqis killed and permanently crippled, for the sake of a decrease in America's power and goodwill throughout the world, a decrease in respect for the sovereignty of nations and international law, an increase in worldwide terrorism, an increase in worldwide military expenditure, and somewhere between minimal gain and total humanitarian disaster for the people of the middle east.

In other words, I'm against the war because I believe there are few benefits and great costs, the least of which are the budget-busting financial ones. This is an empirical prediction I made when we went to war. So far, I consider myself vindicated. If things turn out differently, I will admit that I was wrong.

I'm going to have to "ditto" Sean's remarks heavily.

Invading Iraq is cool if American was willing to deal with the consequences.  However, we're not.  No way, shape, or form.  Have people ignored the fact that most other nations in the world have many good reasons to hate us?  They did even before we started invading other countries just because we didn't like their governments.  America is the world's only superpower these days, and that's dangerous because no one can check potential abuses and tell us when we're just flat-out wrong about something.  

If you think the checks and balances in the American system of government are important, consider the fact that the current world government consists of America as an authoritarian dictator, with the UN and other countries as a powerless legislature that complains a lot.  Only countries with nukes get to vote (which is why we don't start wars with China, North Korea, or Pakistan).  It's disenfranchisement, pure and symple.

The world right now is very much like the current Chinese system of government.  It's an odd metaphor, but follow me on this one:

1. Capitalism is everywhere, with minimal controls in place to prevent abuses.

2. Everyone pay lip service to the ideology of the founders (in this case, Democracy instead of Communism), but that doesn't really reflect how stuff really gets done.  More often, it's power and money instead of the votes of the people.

3. There is an authoritarian power that tries to govern everything by making choices that are in the best interests of the greater whole.  It relies on the moral judgement of this power to make sure that these choices are good.

4. Dissenting voices are acknowledged, but not really repected or dealt with in a concerned fashion.  Instead of attempting to build consensus and gain the support of others, choices are made quickly in the hopes that success (which they expect will be quick in coming) will prove all dissenters wrong.  If success is not quick in coming, it's obviously the fault of the dissenters.

Now, the Chinese government system works pretty well, at least, in the past few decades.  But many people have serious issues with the way the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) enacts policy, especially in the United States.  I find this, ironically, very amusing, considering the United States acts just like the CCP, except on a global basis.

Hi Guys,

Ralph, thanks for the replies.  I do understand your point of view now.  I find it wrongheaded to the extreme.  However, *explaining* why would be a long, multi-threaded debate.  We're no longer arguing the facts of the war and the adminstration, but statecraft itself -- which I believe could produce an entire website itself.  And, as noted in other posts, I'm simply out of time for a lot of web posting these days.  

We're also arguing if the beliefs and interests of the american people are "correct."  Most americans believe in defending their nation, but not going out to pick fights.  Whether or not anyone believes the nonsense that Pearl Harbor was a "set up" -- after the attack, it was time to go to war, no matter what.  So, what is the role of the US in stepping into fights all around the globe?  Again, another multi-theaded topic all on its own.

(In both cases, I mean multi-threaded website to imply it would take a lot of work to untangle the issues and then put them back together into something new -- not that I *only* have a knee-jerk reaction to what you've proposed ("Lying to the US people is the only way to use our nation's might for good.")  I *do* have a knee-jerk reaction against that -- but, again, the disucussion would have to be nuanced, subtle, frustrating in its lack of moral clarity and more...  It would be a tough haul.  But my short hand version is: no, thanks.  I'll take the facts and make my own decision, thank you.)

Next,

I would like to spike Montag's dare.  Here you go:

http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?Phrase=immediate+threat

It's a great web site.  

I understand that the above link has nothing to do with your concerns, Ralph.  However, the efforts of such people as Waxman mean a great deal to *me* -- and here's why:

What this is about for me is administration officials going on the air these days and blatantly contradicting their own words time and time again, simply, baldly lying about what they said, what others have said, and expecting to get away with it -- even though the facts are on public record.  I think they behave this way because for two years they *were* able to lie baldly and no one in the the large media outlets ever did catch them on it.  *I* heard them lying all the time -- and was amazed no one called them on it.  

When O'Neill's book came out, I remember hearing, "No one writes 'tell-tale' books about about a sitting president.  It just isn't done."  I checked, and it was true.  The kiss-and-tells are usually published after an adminstration leaves.  I thought: "well, either O'Neil is the freak the Bush administration is painting him to be.... or things are so fucked up in the White House this will be the start of something really bad for them."

I believe the second case is occurring.  I believe it will only get worse from here on in.  When you've got career civil servents and career soldiers going on record every two weeks saying, "This is how this administration is screwing up the [econonomy, war on terrorism, the middle-east policy...] I think something *huge* is happening.  It's only all confirming what I suspected for two and a half years by putting together clues on my own... But it's alwasy nice to know I'm right.

The reason this checking of facts matters is because a lot of time the Administration uses lies and exagerations to trash other people critical of the adminatration -- and let me be clear here Ralph -- it is NOT the media that's doing this.  The media may be making noise about these lies and distortions, but the lies and distortions are ONLY there because folks with decades in civil service and the military are stepping forward and saying, "Something is wrong here."  Many of them.  THAT's the story.  That's not the media.  That's just people worried about the future of a nation they love.

Thus, everyone's favorite whipping boy, "the media," is off the table for this one.

And now, back to work...

(raising glass) Happy birthday all!  But I gotta get up early in the morning.

Christopher

Oh goody! I can rant now...wrote this up last night in response to the post on the "religion" thread.

"Smoke and mirrors by people with ulterior agendas"? The irrefutable fact of the matter is that Bush lied to the American people about there being an "imminent threat" from Iraq, distorted facts about the ties it held to terrorist organizations, and promised us that he had unquestionable evidence that Iraq had and/or was developing WMDs. We went into war based on falsehoods used to whip up hysteria and fear, not to liberate Iraq or its people from a brutal regime.

Oh, and Markus, sorry, but a simple web search (http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/110503.aspx) turned up quotes (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970) showing when and who used that and similar phrases ("imminent" ie: immediate, soon, near-by, coming down the pipe, etc). Regardless, the whole "oh, he didn't say imminent" argument is a dodge of the real issues, anyways, an attempt to put a distracting spin on the issue via a semantical smokescreen. Because, all things considered, whatever exact words the president or his administration used, he made a case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America at any time, through the hands of terrorists, and that we needed to perform a pre-emptive strike to prevent that from occurring. (Unless you'd now like to argue that the Bush administration never called this action a pre-emptive strike?)

I pointed out the problems with the "evidence" when it was all first going down, and I can repeat it now in light of advisors crawling out of the woodwork with said evidence of manipulation of intelligence by the president's office, with the addendum, "I bloody told you so."

Ulterior motives? You bet! As one of those "rabble rousers" villified in your defense of the action taken, I don't like the abuse of power displayed by our current administration in pursuit of it's personal goals.

I can't belive Bush isn't answering to a Congressional tribunal right now, especially given we had to listen endlessly to crap about Clinton SCREWING AN INTERN! I mean, seriously, what gives? Manipulating intelligence to coerce the country into war is less of an offense than adultery, which only affects a couple people's private lives?

So, yeah, I have an ulterior motive: accountability.

Red herring? I don't think so.

Yes, the world's better off without Hussein. Yes, the man was a vile dictator committing terrible atrocities against his own people. Yes, he would have sooner seen America burn than not.

But before I allow anyone to make that argument in defense of the war, I point out that 1) that wasn't the reason we were given for going to war 2) if that's the case, we'd damn well better invade North Korea, liberate Tibet, and take out Cuba NOW. Among a half-a-dozen other actions we should take if we're going to play world-liberator. Seriously, those saying how it is a "moral" issue because Hussein was evil and posed a threat to the world order had best just put their dicks on the chopping block, push for a massive military campaign against all the evils of the world, or shut up about it.

Plus, I'm with Ethan: "He lied, but everyone in office does, and we don't do much about it usually, so that makes it ok" is also a pile of steaming dog crap.

I also have to laugh at the ridiculous idea that because you elect someone into office, it's OK for them to lie, steal, distort facts, and otherwise behave dishonorably because they were elected! (And BTW, I didn't vote for him, so I have every right to complain about his behavior in office.)

And you only mention the American casulaties of the war. Very sad.

Finally, I don't like the fact that we're spending gobs of money on this situation we've created overseas when our own economy has been in a nose-dive for the past couple of years, and I don't see any damn aid packages for Americans being rushed through Congress.

Quote from: First Christopher Kubasikb) he sold the war saying, "the threat from Iraq to the United States was "imminent," (as Rumself himself said on the air a little over a year ago)

Quote from: Then Christopher KubasikI would like to spike Montag's dare.  Here you go:http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?Phrase=immediate+threat (http://hgrm.ctsg.com/index.asp?Phrase=immediate+threat)

Big difference! Especially since that Rumsfeld quote essentially called Saddam the biggest menace out there, which was arguably true, but a far cry from "imminent threat" a technical term which allows for an attack in keeping with int. law. (If they'd gone for that, all that UN business would have been unnecessary. All that hassle to find Saddam in violation of resolution damn-forgot-the-number (1448?) would have been unnecessary.)
As I said, it's nitpicking, but in this case crucial nitpicking ;)

edit: here's probably the most comprehensive debate on the issue, http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000830.html#000830 going back several posts by both sides, check it out if you like

I really couldn't disagree with Ralph more.

I think That Man (Bush, not Ralph) should be dragged out onto Pennsylvania Avenue by the hair and stoned to death.

But I'm not picking on That Man.  I think that's true of every president we've had while I was alive, and maybe every president.  For whatever reason, presidents are bad men.  

QuoteWhat we basically had is a vile tyrannical dictator who attempts genocide on his own people. He'd had WMDs before, he'd demonstrated he's willing to use them, he'd demonstrated that he continued to try an obtain them, he had ties to terrorist organizations that he certainly would have provided them to and who would certainly have used them.

Does it matter to anyone that the government of the US (over time) would fail this sort of a test if held to these standards?

Hussein is a bad man too, but who really thinks he's worse than the people pulling our strings?  If we left Bush in office as long as Hussein, I wonder how they'd compare.  In the time that Hussein has had to perpetrate evil in the middle east (with out help), how much evil has the US perpetrated in Latin America?  

April 15th is looming near.  I'm not going to litterally write a check because it was handled for me -- transparently, every two weeks all year.  But as I confront the numbers and the forms, I wonder how many deaths I'm buying.  How many children here in the US and around the world will grow up without a father because of my thousands of dollars?  How many don't get to grow up at all?  What is my level of personal responsibility for continuing to prop up our corrupt and vile system?  I keep asking myself if my country is a net positive force in the universe or a negative one and I'm just not sure.

Chris

Hi Markus,

You'll have to forgive my addled brain.  Please spell out the difference for me.

Better yet, if you're willing, let's take "imminent" off the table if you wish.

Rumsfeld said two years ago, Iraq was an "immediate threat" -- which clearly implies the US was in danger NOW.  Exactly what is being argued here?  I'm at a loss.

With respect,

Christopher

PS Just checked out your link.  Good site -- however, I'm not arguing the technicalities of imminent.  My concern has been about the "selling" of the war.  Rumsfeld's language in the quote I offered makes it clear that the biggest threat to the US came from Sadam... Clearly not true.  The biggest threat came from nationless terrorist organizations based in Afganistan...  You know, the ones who launched a successful attack on our nation.   We can mire down into thesaurus debates, but that's not my point.  My point is, how did the administration frame the need to go to war through the press and to the people.  "Immediate threat" may technically not be "imminent" but when when people need to know their leaders are doing something to protect their kids, its more than enough to confound the meaning in the imaginations of most people.  Polls showed conclusively, and still do -- that a majority of Americans think Sadam had ties to the 9-11 attacks.  There was a lot of confusion rushing out of the media outlets and the administration (which is why I laugh whenver I hear about the "liberal media."  It was Rush and Co. who helped simply peddle lies for the adminstration, and they're media, too.  So, again, you want to take imminent off the table.  Fine.  Rumself said Sadam was the biggest immediate threat.  This was either a lie or self-willed ignorance -- or a terrifying incompetence.  On all counts, bad news.

Christopher,

I think Markus is talking about the legal terminology--international law apparently treats "imminent" as a technical term that, if I'm reading Markus right, would have allowed the U.S. to make a claim that the invasion was legal under U.N. law.

Markus, tell me if I'm right on this.

So you're not really arguing about anything, I think, except that you're using "imminent" in it's non-technical sense, as a synonym of "immediate," while Markus is really focused on the legal implications tied to the technical usage of "imminent threat."

Rich

Rich,

I typed up my PS when you were posting.

Yes, I think your right about this.

He's talking law.  I'm talking PR.  Both are vital elements of statecraft.  But we are talking different things.

Thanks,

Christopher

"Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use them himself or transfer them to Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Quaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on US forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300 or 3000 people dead, but 30000, or 100000... human beings."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.  There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

"The Iraqui regime is a threat of unique urgency....  t has developed weapons of mass death."

Messrs Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.

"A week...", "unique urgency...", "no doubt".  Just like Blair was lying to us, your guys were lying to you.

Now, you guys are lucky - cos you didn't vote for him the first time.  We at least have to shoulder some responsibility for the way our PM is acting.

As long as we're indulging, here's an absurd connection that I consider telling, even though it's absurd: remember the last days of the 2000 election?  Remember the (not actually important and almost certainly timed-for-effect) "revelation" of Mr. Bush's drunk driving arrest?  Remember his EXPLANATION for why he hadn't revealed it?  He didn't want to set a bad example for his daughters.  He thought they'd be better off not knowing that daddy was arrested.

Yes, it's a huge stretch.  To tell you the truth, I'm not a big fan of judging a politician based on what you can glean of his or her "moral character" - look at the issues, see where they stand, compare to your stance, and vote accordingly.  But . . .

Bush is a man who believes it's OK to lie if that lie serves a greater good.  More importantly (since I can imagine instances of "lie" and "greater good" in which I agree with that belief), his judgement about the lies that are OK and the greater goods that justify 'em is WAY off of how I'd see it.  Going into Iraq virtually unilaterally, and using questionable tactics to convince enough of the American public that unilateral action is OK - the man, and his administration, have done more damage in those acts than can be justified by the obvious good of removing Saddam.

As a confession - I have buddies in Iraq right now.  One of my oldest friends was going to be home in January, but will now be there for another year (mostly voluntarily, best as I can tell from his email).  I've got mixed feelings on what we do now - how to "finish the job," or disengage, or begin sharing the load . . . very mixed feelings.

But the manner in which we got to where we're at seems to me an entirely worthy subject of inquiry, and the people who went about bringing us here are quite reasonable targets of scrutiny.  And I don't like what I see, not one little bit.

Gordon

@Chris
it's not entirely about law, though that is a major part of it. Rich's got it right, in that "imminent threat" is sufficient grounds for pre-emptive* war, the kind of war you are allowed to start if your enemy is moving his troops to your border. Pre-ventive* war OTOH, which is based on the assumption that the enemy might attack is insufficient grounds for starting a war (by int. law, that is; not that people have spent much time pondering these distinctions in the past ;) *e.g. this link (http://www.oaoa.com/columns/edit021004.htm) (sorry, couldn't find a better source in a hurry)
IIRC it was John Kerry (some Dem anyway) who first introduced the phrase "imminent threat" into the debate, while the Bush admin had gone to great lengths to avoid the particular phrase. Since a lot of people came to believe Bush & Co. actually used that phrase and I believe in speaking up even on behalf of the scoundrel when he is wronged I've tried to set the record straight on that one.
Now, for the larger question of intent. This is kind of hard for me, since I believe the Bush admin is guilty as hell of lying to the American people and the world. Anyway, here's the positive side, as best as I can argue it: Bush & Co. repeatedly stressed that – in this new situation with 9-11 and all that – that the traditional doctrine of preemption=good, prevention=bad did no longer work. They said, yes, that guy is not threatening us right now, but he got the WMD (an intel fuckup which in turn can be argued endlessly about, but suffice it to say that the Bush admin very probably wasn't the only part in this which failed the American people) and sooner or later we will have to deal with him. They did not say "the threat is upon us" (i.e. imminent) but said "this threat is the kind of threat that passes right through the imminent phase, the kind of threat that goes from a vague possibility on the radar screens of the CIA to catastrophe quicker than we can stop it" ... "and this is why we need to do something about it now". So, from that perspective, the _absence_ of "imminence" is actually the crucial element in the admin's case for war.
This argument, about "what to do about rogue states which might hand WMD to terrorists" has IMHO not yet been addressed by the international community, and while I'm not a fan of the approach Bush and the Neoconservatives favour, I have to admit it beats sitting around and waiting (FWIW, clear guidelines have been suggested by some int. strategy org., don't remember which one that was right now. best solution IMO). Anyway, claiming Bush et al. spoke of an "imminent threat" kind of sidesteps this issue, could be said to deliberately miss their point and attributes hidden meaning to their words which (a) doesn't sit quite so well with their other words and deeds and (b) is mindreading, i.e. entails the claim that one is able to accurately infer what Bush et al. "really" meant. The later is fine for private opinion, but unsuitable for any other debate except the one about whose mindreading-fu is better. ;)
Hope that clears it up a bit.

Hi Markus,

Thanks.

As stated, I've taken "imminent" off the table.  Doesn't matter to me as a word.  Really doesn't.  

Look at the Rumsfeld quote I linked to.  Look at a couple of the quotes a Guest posted three posts up.  For those US citizens who watch Meet the Press, read newspapers, watch clips on the evening news, talk to co-workers at the water coolers... such words speak as if Iraq was a problem that had to be dealth with immediately, because Sadam a) had the resources, b) wanted to use them against us, c) could use them at any second and well might, d) might well be selling his stuff to Al Quida.  In the court of public opinion, not the court of law, this mean, this guys ass had to be put on the spike *now.*

None of these points was true.  (More than a "fuck up," by the way, though  it did cut across agencies and people.  Driving it was very much a systematic distortion of intel by White House officials who broke protocol and created new chanels of gaining and interpretting information within the Pentagon and the CIA as they searched for info that would support a war against Iraq and ignored intel that didn't serve their agenda.)

I understand your point about the absence of imminence being a reason to go to war with Iraq -- since we didnt' want to get caught off guard in this "new"world of danger.  And if: Sadam's infrastructure hadn't been destroyed by ten years of bombing and sanctions, if he actually had a weapons program in place, if there was a shred of real eveidence he had such systems in place, if the adminstration had let the inspectors finish their job instead of forcing them out by means of war so the question was left hanging in the air, if Sadam and bin Ladin would have been anything but enemies, if Sadam could have delivered such weapons to the US, if Sadam had one frickin' reason to bring down the rain of US might on his head! -- the war might make sense.  But, of course, not one of those ifs bears any resemblence to reality.

The truth is, as O'Neil, Clark as well as folks from the Pentagon, intelligence agencies and others have noted, Bush had a jones for Iraq even before 9-11.  

And here's my big, big problem.  There were threats out there that had to be dealth with in a new way.  There really are.  Al Quida's not going to be bringing grievences to the UN before launching another attack against us!

But Bush's response in attacking Iraq -- usless to dealing with the actual problems facing this nation, threatening our stakes in the middle east, tossing resources away from the real issues at hand, built on arguments that are specious at best -- completely ignored these real problems.  

So, please, let's let the scoundral defend himself.  In a world full of threats right now, shouldn't he be going after the one that matters most?  And if Iraq wasn't the one that mattered most, what in god's name are we doing there instead of going after the actual threats?

Christopher

Hi Christopher
(I hope you don't mind me continuing this debate, I love that stuff)

I'm right with you as far as the court of public opinion is concerned, but as the advocatus diaboli I have to point out what the right usually points out on this matter, namely that e.g. Kerry's (I know, I really should check who it was) use of the phrase "imminent threat" and warnings against the Iraqi threat by e.g. Clinton, Gore etc. did certainly cement that impression. IIRC, before the inspectors went in, lots of people had good reason to expect "bad stuff" from Saddam and between that and the point where a retreat would have made the US "loose face" (a stupid, but unfortunately not irrelevant aspect in int. politics) there wasn't really a lot of room.

On the intel stuff I tend to agree with you, but I think it was a bad case of Groupthink (roughly: faulty decision making based on valuing group coherence (i.e. the neoconservatives and the "old guard") over incongruent or contradictory evidence/opinions).

As to "why Iraq", and "does it make a sensible first step in the WoT", I find myself nodding in agreement with you and would like to add the over a decade old dream of "remaking the middle east" and the issue of "finding a new – territorial – enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union" to the list of reasons.
At this point, I'm thinking Iraq was simply the best response they could come up with, domino theory of democracy sounds cool on paper and heck, if it works out after all it will be a major accomplishment. That doesn't make it a good policy in my book, but looking at the whole thing, I see (i) spin, but a plausible line of reasoning (the "imminent" stuff I talked about above) (ii) incompetence in managing intel, might call it bad management (iii) an admin that choose to do what is easy and easily sold instead of doing the hard stuff, like tackle Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea. Points one and three are par for the course of every administration I'm aware of, worldwide (doesn't excuse it of course). Point two is hard to tell and IMO the best ground for calling this admin "unfit for office", but really, all I see are "stupid white men" (damn that serial liar (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html) Moore for coming up with such an apt phrase).

QuoteAs to "why Iraq", and "does it make a sensible first step in the WoT", I find myself nodding in agreement with you and would like to add the over a decade old dream of "remaking the middle east" and the issue of "finding a new – territorial – enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union" to the list of reasons.

There's actually some very very good reasons for why Iraq.  But I don't think the general populace would find them very paletteable.

First, if one is looking to undergo the first major land invasion since the armed services got some notable doctrinal and organizational overhauls following Desert Storm, you don't go pick a fight with the biggest baddest threat in the neighborhood.  

You want to test out your fancy new hardware, you want to test out your fancy new operational theorems...so you pick a target that's enough of a threat to be a good test bed, but not enough of a threat to actually be dangerous.  Iraq fits that bill nicely.  North Korea and Pakistan do not.


Second, you want to test out you allies, quite honestly.  You don't want to committ to a major confrontation with a major enemy without knowing if the old cold war alliances will make the transition to a new strategic objective.  Again.  You pick an enemy you know you can defeat alone if you have to.


Third, you want to send a message to the world.  No the message isn't the one that people like to promote about.  The message isn't to those people.  The message is to the people who will understand it.  It is the simplest message of all.  Fuck with us and we have the power to crush you and dismantle your government.  To send that message you pick a target who is powerful enough to impress by dismantling, but not so powerful enough to actually cause us any trouble.


My experience with friends at various levels of the DoD, Pentagon, and various think tanks indicate to me that THESE are the sorts of questions that were far more important in the decision making process than WMDs or the like.

I don't have to guess what most posters to this thread will think of them as reasons.

Quote from: ValamirThere's actually some very very good reasons for why Iraq.

It's because Iraq is right in the middle of Bush's dartboard.

I know that I already got my chance to spout off earlier, but I think the reasons for "why Iraq" are pretty clear, pretty different from what has so far been expressed, and pretty logical.  But evil as hell.

We spent lots of time and money building up the Iraqi army to doink with the Iranian army.  Over decades, we twisted their entire structure of governance into a military-machine.  It was to our "advantage" because of the "danger" presented by Iran.  (Imagine their gall to nationalize the British oil resources in their country!)  In 1988 the Iran-Iraq war finally drew to a close and Iraq had an army capable of destablizing American interests across the Middle East.  So our guys looked for a good way to downsize them.  And our wish came true when Hussein asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait.  Once we gave him the green light, he moved on them and like a crazed weasle, we turned on him.  We downsized his army.  A decade of inhumane sanctions later, after deciding that the Iraqi military remains a menace, we've decided to downsize it more effectively.  

I mean, really, if we were so opposed to Saddam Hussein, the man, why wouldn't we have assassinated him in '91?

We opened Pandora's Box and this was the only way to close it quickly.  And yeah, like Ralph pointed out...it's only 600 Americans dead...no biggie.  Oh, and countless thousands of Iraqis...I mean, if you count them as people.

Chris

Quote from: ValamirI don't have to guess what most posters to this thread will think of them as reasons.

I'm not "most posters", I'm just me, and I can't be sure exactly what it is that you're guessing folks would think, so - here it is:

It's perfectly reasonable to want to know the results of those tests and to want to establish that message, as part of national policy.  That a unilateral invasion of Iraq was seen as a reasonable means to persue those goals - that the risks involved were seen to be outweighed by the benefits - looks to me like a big, BIG misjudgement.  For many reasons.  I don't like it when my government makes those kinds of mistakes.

Folks can disagee about what they think is a mistake, and/or about what is a reasonable risk, and/or about what's acceptable as part of national policy.  If you were expecting disagreement about what's acceptable - you aren't getting it from me.  But I STRONGLY disagree that what we did was worth the risk.  In fact, I think the risk-assesment step (regarding Iraq, and possibly other things) was poisoned by the current administration from day one.  The essential attitude of speaking truth to power was compromised due to (among other things) a purely political agenda, and that's a very, VERY bad thing.  Not that you can keep politics entirely out of the equation (history, Spanish-American War, etc.), but  - I find the practices of Bush and friends in this area to be egregious.

Gordon

Quote from: quozl

Quote from: ValamirThere's actually some very very good reasons for why Iraq.

It's because Iraq is right in the middle of Bush's dartboard.

LAUGH!  Thanks for that.  Though - you credit Bush with more dart-skill than I would've expected.  Unless maybe the "middle" of his dartboard is bigger than normal . . .

Gordon

Sorry Ralph, have to disagree with you there. There may be some additional background you didn't add to the post, but as it stands the reasons you cited only make sense on the surface IMHO:

1) test armed forces in land invasion
works up to a point, though it's questionable how much you can generalise from Iraq to other terrains. The real stumbling block however is, "want to test how good your armed forces are if they've got to do peacekeeping which they aren't trained for and work in a country without enough capable translators". Which, in my book, is a pretty stupid test, since you've got major negative factors against you when going in, which (a) makes it difficult to assess peak performance and (b) clutters the data with interactions you could easily have avoided.
2) test hardware and theorems
again, the carry-over effect is dubious, precisely because there is no real danger
3) test allies
Well, if you needed to actually test whether you can pull the wool over everybody's eyes in the first place, you know a lot less than you should know as the POTUS. If you needed to find out whether people get pissed off when you try to push them around or send Rummsfeld to do it, then again, you've got far bigger problems than this question. And if you think a war without good justification is a decent test case, then again, it seems  that hubris might be a more interesting object of study
4) message to the bad boys
You mean the ones you've decided not to attack because you are not sure, if your army, your hardware and your alliances are up to them? The ones who note that half your armed forced are tied up in the occupation of Iraq and that you'll have to invest heavily in that country for some time down the road? The ones who know you won't attack them because they've got nukes? And the ones who know that regardless who 's in office, the American people are not going to be keen on another war soon?

On balance, I'd say one and two make some remote sense, but then again the poor postwar planning seems in direct contradiction to these stated goals. Reasons three and four seem like major cases of sloppy thinking to me.
Frankly, "I'm not convinced" ;)

Quote from: Valamir
There's actually some very very good reasons for why Iraq.  But I don't think the general populace would find them very paletteable.

Well, you're right there, but because these arguments stem from a military analysis about which many people are profoundly suspicious and unsympathetic:

Quote
First, if one is looking to undergo the first major land invasion since the armed services got some notable doctrinal and organizational overhauls following Desert Storm, you don't go pick a fight with the biggest baddest threat in the neighborhood.  

Granted, but this demonstrates that the rhetoric of humanitarianism is indeed only rhetoric, as many claimed.  So this concedes the central challenge to the war on Iraq.

Quote
You want to test out your fancy new hardware, you want to test out your fancy new operational theorems...so you pick a target that's enough of a threat to be a good test bed, but not enough of a threat to actually be dangerous.  Iraq fits that bill nicely.  North Korea and Pakistan do not.

... because they have nukes, as has been repeatedly pointed out.  And indeed, this raises the interesting prospect that Iraq was selected precisely because it was known NOT to have WMD.  So firstly this is a highly cynical exercise in killing people and initiating a war for 'testing' purposes, and secondly completely destroys any alleged humanitarian intention as the 'test bed' is clearly intended to suffer.

Quote
Second, you want to test out you allies, quite honestly.  You don't want to committ to a major confrontation with a major enemy without knowing if the old cold war alliances will make the transition to a new strategic objective.  Again.  You pick an enemy you know you can defeat alone if you have to.

Sure; and your allies tested you, and found you wanting.  Because entry into an alliance does not make us a client state obliged to send auxiliaries for whatever colonial adventure you may decide upon.  this is especially galling when your allies do come along, and have extensive experience in urban pacification, and this experience is ignored and overruled.  Do you want allies, or just human shields?

Quote
Third, you want to send a message to the world.  No the message isn't the one that people like to promote about.  The message isn't to those people.  The message is to the people who will understand it.  It is the simplest message of all.  Fuck with us and we have the power to crush you and dismantle your government.

This is problematic for several reasons: firstly becuase your enemies are relatively unlikely to have a government, and secondly because nobody is in any doubt as to the US's readiness to inflict violence: thats how this situation began.  US subsidies purchase US weapons which are used against Palestinians daily; the US engages in nearly one foreign intervention per year; it spends the highest quantity and IIRC the highest proportion of GDP on arms of any country on the planet; it has the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and holds it in an aggressive stance ready to use a first strike.

Absolutely nobody is in any doubt about the US's capacity and willingness to resort to force.

Quote
My experience with friends at various levels of the DoD, Pentagon, and various think tanks indicate to me that THESE are the sorts of questions that were far more important in the decision making process than WMDs or the like.

Cool.  All the more reason to say: "shoot generals, not soldiers".

QuoteGranted, but this demonstrates that the rhetoric of humanitarianism is indeed only rhetoric, as many claimed. So this concedes the central challenge to the war on Iraq.

Not in any way.  At all, actually.  It may be rhetoric.  But nothing at all is conceded.  Christopher K was absolutely right when he pointed out that this discussion has less to do with Iraq, and more to do with statecraft and how its practiced.

You seem to think that the governments actions were wrong.  I, however, firmly believe that they were right.  They represent precisely how effective government is supposed to work (although unfortuneately rather ineptly executed).  


The fact that Saddam is gone, there is a prototype constitution in place, and elections will be held is 100% proof positive that going in was the absolute right thing to do.

Makes no difference if this was the primary reason, or even A reason.

A tyrant has been removed, a people freed who will soon be in a position to choose their own course, and its been done with an astonishingly limited loss of life.  That's right regardless.

And since it is, in my book, irrefutably right to have gone, that proves that all arguements against going were erroneous.  Which, in my book, means it makes little difference what spins, hyperboles, or overstatements were necessary to get us there.  And even less difference what the true motivation behind it was.  This to me is the part and parcel of the very definition of statecraft.  

Its the way governments, American or European, have always operated.  It represents the right way for them to operate.  Anyone who is aghast or horrified at that notion is simply now seeing being the curtain of statecraft for the first time thanks to modern news coverage, and Bush's awkward inability to handle the business of state invisibly.

Those who understand that this is exactly how government is supposed to function (again, ideally with more skillful execution), simply look up, yawn, wonder what the hub bub is about and then, go back to whatever we were doing because there really is "nothing to see here".  Its business as usual for Washington or any developed nation capital the world over.


That's the bottom line.  It doesn't need to be any more complicated or convolulted than that.  All of the accusations that have been leveled...heck they may be completely true; but ultimately, so what.  They are not and cannot be reasons for why it was wrong to go.  Because it wasn't wrong to go.  They are merely ammunition for people who were going to snipe at Bush anyway.

Personally, I think he's provided more than enough targets for sniping without going after the one thing he's got right so far.

Quote from: ValamirA tyrant has been removed, a people freed who will soon be in a position to choose their own course, and its been done with an astonishingly limited loss of life. That's right regardless.
And since it is, in my book, irrefutably right to have gone, that proves that all arguements against going were erroneous.

I agree on the first part, and I doubt you will find anyone here or elsewhere who disagrees. It's a great thing Saddam 's gone.
But .. (there's actually two of them) for one, the ends do not always justify the means. You may be a cynic (I'm reading your post that way. Please don't hesitate to correct me there, I don't want to put words into your mouth) when it comes to government and I share some of that. However, that "(the 1st rule of journalism is that) governments lie. All governments lie." is no reason not to demand that they don't. Basically, the ends sometimes do justify the means, sometimes they don't, and I find your personal cynicism (or disillusionment, see the note above) about government insufficient as an argument (it may or may not suffice for you personally) why in this case the ends justify the means.
.. the second, much larger but is: opportunity costs.
Taking Saddam down had a price in money, time, international relationships, intel-to-government relationship, unity of the nation etc. Saying "the end result is good" is simplistic IMO, because it suggests there's only a good and a bad way of acting, and since the good one was chosen everything is fine.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the US has several thousand options for doing good, saving lives and freeing people. And every action must be judged not according to whether it was good in principle (there's few government actions for which it is impossible to argue they're good in some way), but rather whether they were an effective use of resources. It may have been right to go into Iraq 'til we're all blue in the face, if tying down the forces there permits North-Korea to build a nice arsenal of nukes and wipe South Korea off the planet. And all the joy at the liberation of the Iraqi people won't matter anything when the relationship between government and intelligence services is damaged so badly in the process that the next terrorist attack can not be prevented because people are not talking to each other. The freedom of the Iraqi people will mean little to the next victims of genocide somewhere around the globe, which aren't getting help and protection because the US and its allies are still estranged.
So yes, great, absolutely fabulous thing that Saddam 's gone. No doubt at all. But there's some solid reasons why the decision was bad nonetheless.

I guess if you believe the ends justify the means, Ralph, then I could see how you could say the situation in Iraq is okay. (Although the current situation is anything but stable, & it looks as if things are just going to get messier.)

I, however, do not believe the ends justify the means. If the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq to invade Iraq to test new weaponry, that's the case they needed to present to the American government & the UN. If they wanted to invade Iraq to "test out their allies"...well, I personally wouldn't put up with chickenshit behavior like that in my personal relationships & I don't think it's any better at the global-political level. If they wanted to invade Iraq to "send a message to other countries" (& the message is..."Don't mess with Texas"?), I'm sure the dead Iraqis & dead US soldiers (& dead soldiers from other "Coalition" nations) would be thrilled to know that they died so we could send a message.

But essentially, if any of those reasons were the real reason for invading Iraq, that's what the Bush Administration should have said all along. Otherwise, they lied to the US people & to the world. And you know what? The President doesn't get to decide if we invade a country. The President doesn't get to decide if we go to war. The President doesn't get to try out his new toys whenever he feels like it. The US doesn't get to invade countries whenever it feels like it, to try out new toys or send a message to other countries. Those are lame-ass reasons for committing soldiers to a military action. Those are lame-ass reasons for dead soldiers (Iraqi, American, British, etc).

I know I'm being naive, but I don't believe the ends justify the means. I don't believe winning justifies whatever you did to win. I don't agree with Dick Cheney, who said, "Principles are fine, but principles don't do you any good if you don't win." If your reasons are the reasons we went to into Iraq, then we did a bad thing.

Am I glad Hussein is out of power? Sure. He was a bad man. (Not any worse than Kim Jong Il. Not any worse than any number of dictators the US has & continues to support.) Are things better now? Not that I've seen. Are they getting better? Not that I've seen. Have we stabilized the region? Doesn't look like it.

Not only do I not think Bush & Co got this right, I think it's just one of the many mistakes & nefarious actions this secretive, controlling, power-hungry, intolerant-of-dissent administration has done.

Quote from: ValamirThird, you want to send a message to the world.  No the message isn't the one that people like to promote about.  The message isn't to those people.  The message is to the people who will understand it.  It is the simplest message of all.  Fuck with us and we have the power to crush you and dismantle your government.

Well, I see a problem with that message. Because that is not the message the Attack on Iraq is sending out to the world.

Look at yor own qoute here:

Quote from: Valamir2) Those people who believe in handing the riegns of world government over to the UN (including many Americans) who are furious that we dared finally give up on their ineffectiveness and do it ourselves.

So what is the message? It simply is:

Might makes right. Democracy (=UN) sucks.

Great. That is not the message I want all the dictatorial governements out there to hear. Especially since it translates to:
Well, we´ll be tied up here for a few years now, so you better be fast in developing nuclear weapons, because if you don´t we´ll come for you! So hurry up there!

So Saddam may be gone, but we are going to pay dearly for the damage do to the system of international rights and for the developement initiated by the attack in the future.

Quote from: ValamirThe fact that Saddam is gone, there is a prototype constitution in place, and elections will be held is 100% proof positive that going in was the absolute right thing to do.

And will certainly result in a country whose people deeply hate us, instead of a country with a sick leader who hates us.  Wonderful.

QuoteA tyrant has been removed, a people freed who will soon be in a position to choose their own course, and its been done with an astonishingly limited loss of life.  That's right regardless.

If you believe in this as a good thing, I'm hoping someone will calmly go and assassinate our president and vice president.  Two down (small loss of life -- if you can call it life anyway) and a real possibility of positive change (it could hardly be worse).

QuoteIts the way governments, American or European, have always operated.  It represents the right way for them to operate.  Anyone who is aghast or horrified at that notion is simply now seeing being the curtain of statecraft for the first time thanks to modern news coverage, and Bush's awkward inability to handle the business of state invisibly.

Deceiving the populace has indeed always been a tool of statecraft, but I don't think it needs to be defended on that basis.  But invading other countries because you happen to feel like it and then lying about the reasons has not.  Hitler used to do that, and we can all think of others, but not "normal statecraft" by any means.

In essence, this government decided it wanted to invade Iraq because they thought it would be popular and get a bunch of oil, as well as some fat contracts for Halliburton.  They then lied in order to get the Congress and Senate to allow the invasion.  If it's so important to take out vicious, dangerous leaders, we should of course start by shooting Bush and Cheney.  But after that, aren't we supposed to take out a bunch of the other governments in the world?  I mean, why aren't we invading the Sudan?  They actually do support Al Qaeda, which would add to the justification.  Why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?  And what about chunks of the old Soviet Union?  Those guys might even have nukes, you know, and they really are dangerous and threatening.

Frankly, all this "It's okay to lie about everything and kill anyone you like because that's what governments always do" is more than a little disturbing.  Remember Watergate?  Nobody said, "Hey, it's okay that they lied and cheated and stole, and erased tapes and records, because that's what governments always do."  Nobody said, "Hey, if they think it's important for America that the Republicans stay in office, any means are justified."  No, they impeached Nixon and threw him out.  Here we've got, "Well, we lied about 9/11, we lied about Al Qaeda, we lied about WMD's, Iraq is now a seething hotbed of Shi'ite discontent, and we cut in Halliburton for as much money as possible.  But isn't that okay with you?"  And dittoheads all over America say, "Goddamn, it's just unpatriotic not to agree with that."

QuoteThey are merely ammunition for people who were going to snipe at Bush anyway.

Cynically, I think it's probably true that far too many people are unwilling to be convinced by the grossest evidence that Bush is not a good thing.  More positively, however, I do think that the tide of public opinion may finally be changing.  With luck, maybe we'll have learned enough that the pendulum will start swinging away from the right wing for a while.  God knows I'm tired of my country's being the laughingstock of the civilized world -- only we're not, because it's too sad and scary to laugh about.

Incidentally, speaking of the lies of the right, has anyone noticed the thing about the Founding Fathers being big on America the religious?  I can almost-quote John Adams for you:

Quote"It is my hope that in this new country, Christianity will be quietly euthanized."

Let's hope the rich right wing gets to breathe that euthanizing gas as well.

Quote from: ValamirThe fact that Saddam is gone, there is a prototype constitution in place, and elections will be held is 100% proof positive that going in was the absolute right thing to do.

And if the rapidly rising civil unrest continues to rise, and develops into at least a three-way civil war, a war that would almost certainly kill an appalling number of people, and almost certainly spill over the border of our NATO ally, Turkey, would you revise your opinion?

Ok, Saddam was a bad man who did bad things to Iraqis. Now he's gone, thanks to America.

Why aren't the American forces being greeted as liberators? Because the Iraqi people haven't forgotten that it was America which was instrumental in the Baathis rise to power. They haven't forgotten that the butcher who brualized them was America's special friend.

Most American's may not realize that the Secretary of Defence in the current administration server an earlier Bush administration as Special Envoy to Iraq, and that he was aware of Saddam's butchery. He knew, for example, that Saddam gassed about 10,000 civillians (chemical weapons built, by the way, with components supplied by America). Rumsfeld "expressed concern" over this. Then America gave Saddam more money. Most American's may not be aware of all this, but the Iraqi citizens are.

Now, the counter-argument often goes along the lines of "That was then, this is now." First, I doubt that impresses most Iraqis, especially since now America is still doing the same things it did then. For example, cozying up to yet another brutal tyrant, President Karimov of Uzbekistan. Uzebekistan is geographically very close to Iraq; this is going on right in their neighbourhood, and they are aware of it.

And perhaps you'll simply call this all "statecraft", business as usual for governments. The administration needs to cozy up to a brutal tyrant in its war on terror. Well, the fruits of similar "statecraft" were harvested on September 11, 2001, and it wouldn't surprise me to see this continuance of that "statecraft" bear similar fruit. Karimov is ramping up the brutality. Yes, he was brutal before, but now his brutality is associated with the country that is giving him hundreds of millions of dollars, America. Now, he's being brutal in the name of America's war on terror. How long before before some Uzbek who's loved one was boiled alive by Karimov steps onto a subway in New York carrying a rather bulky backpack?

Woa Chris (Lehrich, just to show you i can spell it right ;).
There I was thinking you're some mild mannered, bespectacled gentleman humming away quietly to himself behind the gates of horn and ivory, oblivious to the world, and only occasionally throwing some ritualistic bread-crumbs to the masses.
Boy was I wrong.
Frankly, I find your expressed desire to see bodily harm inflicted on people you disagree with a bit disturbing. Sorry, but while we may think them guilty as hell, I believe the minimum they deserve is a fair trial ... and I don't think the available evidence actually calls for that. IMHO this is a case of confusing ones own speculations about other's intentions with actual facts.
And please leave Hitler out of this, ok?



And since this is off-topic already, I'd like to use the opportunity to assure Ralph that the harshness which I now perceive to have crept into my next-to-last post/response to him was directed at the arguments he referred, not at him personally. Shouldn't be necessary to state such stuff, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. ;)

Markus, 100% in agreement with everything you just said.  The ends DON'T always justify the means.  But sometimes they do.  Government does not and cannot have the luxury of catering either to the basest instincts of man nor to the noblest.  Either road, too base, or too noble, will end in disastor.

On opportunity costs.  Absolutely.  That is exactly the level of evaluation that the action of states needs to be measured in.  So we're in agreement there also.  The only question between us then is where the balance winds up in the final analysis.  Was the end worth the cost?  Or was the cost more expensive than the end?  I'm gathering from your posts thus far that you feel the costs are too expensive.  For my part, I don't think that will necessarily be the case when looked back on through the lens of history (which is ultimately how all of these efforts must be measured).  So I would say our disagreement is mainly one of degree rather than fundamental principal.

edited to note:  On cynicism, perhaps, its not so much that I mistrust our politicians.  Rather I trust them implicitly to be exactly what they are...politicians.  I actually find the fact that the behavior of politicians is so predictably self serving to be rather conforting.  Its the revolutionary loonies that I worry about.  I prefer pragmatism myself.

Oh, and no worry about the "harshness" of your response.  I'm operating on the hopefully reliable assumption, that "what happens in the Birthday Forum, stays in the Birthday Forum"



Joshua, "The ends justify the means" is really an over simplification.  Sometimes they do.  Sometimes they don't.  I wouldn't put up with that behavior in my personal relationship either.  But there are different rules for governments; and quite frankly, that's a good thing, even when it makes us cringe.


Nicolas:  I find your equating "democracy" with the "UN" to pretty unfathomable.  The UN is not and should not be used as a form of "world government".  They excell as a forum for keeping the channels of communications open between nations.  That's what they do, that's what they are good at.  Their track record at expanding beyond that role is highly questionable.  It was the UN who was in charge of managing the Oil for Food program.  They did a pretty abysmal job at that.   It's the UN who on paper is supposed to take a leading roll in promoting humanitarian issues.  I don't see a whole lot of successes from them on that front either.  The UN is a forum for communication.  Leadership will never come out of the UN because it is far too divided a body (as it should be).


Chris, I won't engage with you on issues of assassinating our own President.  That's pretty ludicrous even for his harshest critics.  But I am infinitely amused by your hope that the pendulum will swing to the left...as if the left doesn't engage in exactly the same kind of behavior.  Kerry's principals are no better than Bush's...he's just more adept at lieing and schmoozing.  In fact, that's been Bush's biggest weakness all along.  If he had Slick Willy's skill at being slick...there'd be hardly any of this outrage going on.

Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans.  There is absolutely zero difference between them except who gets paid in the back room.  Neither has any sort of "moral high ground" nor have they ever.  They both engage fully, completely, and willingingly in exactly the sort of behavior that folks are claiming to find so reprehesible (and so do the principal political parties of every other nation in the developed world).

The only questions are 1) whether or not you will continue to find the behavior reprehensible when its being used to support a cause you agree with and 2) whether you will find it easier to look the other way when the reprehensible behavior is contained within a nice slick Media Savvy package.

Quote from: ValamirJoshua, "The ends justify the means" is really an over simplification.  Sometimes they do.  Sometimes they don't.  I wouldn't put up with that behavior in my personal relationship either.  But there are different rules for governments; and quite frankly, that's a good thing, even when it makes us cringe.

If pressed on the issue, I would probably agree that giving governments leeway when you wouldn't for individuals is...necessary.

However, I still think the reasons you listed for invading Iraq are horrible reasons for committing troops & killing people. Invading a country to send a message to other countries is...idiotic & horrible. Invading a country to test out weaponry is juvenile. Invading a country to see who your real friends are is pathetic.

And considering what a mess Iraq has become, even if the ends do justify the means, the ends are looking pretty damn shoddy right now.

Nope, I still see no justification for the invasion of Iraq, especially since the Bush administration outright lied about why they wanted to invade Iraq, & especially since we've bungled it so badly. This was a bad thing done for bad reasons.

I wanted to grab on to this bit because I disagree so strongly with everything else Ralph has said in this thread.  I like having found something with which to agree.

Quote from: ValamirLeft and Right, Democrats and Republicans.  There is absolutely zero difference between them except who gets paid in the back room.  Neither has any sort of "moral high ground" nor have they ever.  They both engage fully, completely, and willingingly in exactly the sort of behavior that folks are claiming to find so reprehesible (and so do the principal political parties of every other nation in the developed world).

Yes.  Yes!  A thousand times yes!  The Republicans and the Democrats are very nearly identical.  Mainstream American politics makes huge deals out of tiny little differences.  I find this endlessly frustrating as a true radical.  If Lehrich is put off by these "conservatives" and Ralph (though I may be assuming too much) is put off by Clintonian "liberalism" then you all ought to be scared to death of the real extremists.  I have wildly more conservative and liberal (both!) views than these clowns do.

Quote from: ValamirThe only questions are 1) whether or not you will continue to find the behavior reprehensible when its being used to support a cause you agree with and 2) whether you will find it easier to look the other way when the reprehensible behavior is contained within a nice slick Media Savvy package.

I find these behaviors reprehensible because they are conducted at all.  By anyone.  In any name.  I think, for instance, that the US Constitution (particularly as extended by my understanding of the thinkers of the times) is a beautiful thing.  But even self-preservation is inadequate to justify trampling or suspending the very thing you're trying to save.  I was more worried at one time than I am today about Bush and Ashcroft attempting to limit our civil liberties in the name of homeland security.  I would prefer to sacrifice security to ensure our liberty than vice versa.

Also, I've heard a bunch of Bush supporters assert that I and others dislike him because he's less charismatic than Clinton (the antichrist!).  Well, I guess I agree that he's less charismatic but I'm offended by the claim that I would go along with immorality in a slick package.  (Not that you'd know this, but these yahoos at work should remember, I thought Clinton sucked too!)

Chris

No, I wasn't actually saying that assassinating our current leading politicians would be a good thing.  What I meant was that from the perspective of a lot of other places, this would be a rather cleaner version of what Ralph's defending in Iraq.  I simply don't see why it's perfectly okay to invade a country, kill its leaders, and stir up what appears to be heading for civil war, but it's not okay for someone to consider that sort of activity grounds for a reprisal of the same act.

I mean, by that logic, you could read 9/11 as a failed attempt to oust a vicious, criminal government.  I'm sure that's at least part of Osama's justification, after all.  And don't tell me that the difference is that our government was democratically elected, because it wasn't.  Is Osama's action horrible and terrorist simply because he doesn't have the letters USA attached to him?  If we go and commit unilateral violence on another country, without any real reasons except that we don't like the leadership, why can't they do this to us?

I do believe that in effect, Bush and Cheney are working hard to justify terrorist actions.  And when you go and say, "It's okay, because the end effect is going to be a good thing some day," you really do end up saying that terrorism against states you don't like is okay.  But what I think is supposed to divide it is that we're Americans and they're not.  And I think that's worthless crap.  Hell, doesn't it seem relevant here that the Bushies are against the war crimes court because they don't think Americans should ever be prosecuted by it?  In effect, they're saying that Americans cannot, by definition, ever commit war crimes.  Isn't that convenient.

As to liberalism and the left and right, a couple points.

1. You're right that electing Kerry isn't going to produce peaceful ideals or anything like it.  But at least we have no reason to think that he's in favor of the US perpetrating world terrorism.

2. I have to say that I think Kerry and Clinton are pretty right-wing; they are emblematic of the pendulum shift to the right.  If you define the poles of current "acceptable" public debate by the Democrats and the Republicans, then the center is pretty damn far right; the far left is considered obviously crazy and doesn't have to be dealt with at all.  What I'd like to see is a pendulum swing back towards the left, where the "acceptable" range of discourse is centered to the left of Kerry and Clinton; this would put Bush and Cheney and Rove outside of what's considered reasonable, which sounds about right to me.

It's just amazing to me that we have shifted in 35 years from "criminal behavior by US governments is totally unacceptable" to "criminal behavior by US governments is ordinary and not a big deal."  And in that time, we've also had a strong shift to the right in mainstream politics and discourse.  Do I think the right wing inherently criminal?  Well, yes, but regardless I think that the right is now so powerful that they really think they can get away with anything, and I think the argument that invading a country because its leader is currently annoying (where before he was our great pal) is acceptable politics shows that the right is indeed getting away with murder.  Literally.  

How come they don't think the Geneva Convention applies to the treatment of Saddam?  Remember how livid Fox News and everyone was when the Iraqis showed some really not terribly disturbing photos of captured American troops -- arguably contrary to the Geneva Conventions -- but everyone thought it was just great when we showed Saddam getting oral probes?

You know, Eisenhower refused to wear a military uniform while in office as president.  Presidents dressing up as generals is something we see a lot in creepy leaders we generally pretend not to like -- like Saddam, for example.  And Bush, who sleazed his way out of reserve service, dresses up in uniform to announce "mission accomplished" on a carrier deck, and people think that shows how tough he is.  When did everyone get so stupid?

P.S. As to the "imminent threat" thing, check this out (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo).

The problem with the "ends justifies the means...sometimes...for governments" is--who decides? Who decides the ends are "good" & the means are "justified"? I mean, you can say all you want that what we did in Iraq is a good thing, but good for who? Good for me? Not as far as I can see--it's done nothing to change my life personally. It's certainly made travelling to the Middle East a whole hell of a lot more problematic for me. Has it made life better for George W Bush & Dick Cheney? Certainly. Halliburton has gotten all kinds of contracts out of this. Cheney's definitely profitting from this, if not directly, then indirectly. Have the Iraqi people benefitted from this? A lot of them don't seem to think so.

In a democratic republic, it's up to the people to decide if an action taken by the government is justified or not. I don't think Bush & Co's actions are justified, regardless of the result. And so, I will continue to make noise & do my best to take them to task for it. Because they serve in their positions at the discretion of the American people. Bush's position as President, & Cheney's as Vice-President, is not a *right*, it's a *privilege*, & one that can be taken away from them at any time. Bush & Cheney serve *me*, not the other way around.

The problem with a democracy is that anyone who actually wants to run for a position of power probably shouldn't be in that position because of the nature of obtaining that position of power.  

I think determining our government by random lottery would be a much better method.

I actually think the vote keeps anyone particularly good or bad out of the office.  I mean, it's sure that Pat Buchanan and David Duke will never win, but the price is that we're saddled with crud like Bush and Clinton.

I guess I'd be willing to give the lottery idea a playtest.

Chris

Absolutely right Josh.  The only thing I'd add is that there is far too much government going on publically these days.  On the surface that sounds like a good thing, greater transparency leads to a voting public better able to make sound decisions on who to vote for.

Unfortuneately the reality of it is that its a horrible way to run a country.  Politicians spend way too much time worrying about image and spin control and not enough time being willing to actually attend to the business of government.

The country would be far better off with much more of the daily operations of government occuring behind closed doors where decisions can be made that need to be made.

In this way politicians can be judged on the net outcome of those decisions rather than being prejudged on the presumed outcome by people ripping into the process to serve their own agendas.

I mean look at how many people believe that Iraq is a mess.  That's nonsense.  My cousin just got back from a tour over there with the engineers.  He reports no shots fired by him or at him.  An all around completely boring tour.  In his words, the only notable difference being stationed in Iraq from his usual base in Germany was worse food, and worse weather.  He found the whole thing rather anti climactic.  He also reports that this was the pretty much the same for most everyone over there he met with save those units specifically stationed in known hot spots.

The stories the media puts out about Iraq are completely biased.  "5 soldiers come under attack by rocket grenades" is an interesting headline.  "109,995 soldiers report 'all is well, nothing of note going on" is not.

Iraq is NOT a chaotic nightmarish mess.  It's not entirely smooth sailing, but its not utter chaos on the brink of civil war.  The fact that people can actually say things like that and believe it just demonstrates how in control of public opinion the popular media outlets are.  And that's exactly why I say there is too much government going on publically then is good for us.

I just think there's too much government going on.

Quote from: ValamirAbsolutely right Josh.  The only thing I'd add is that there is far too much government going on publically these days.

Well, John Dean (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index_np.html) would disagree with you there.

I agree that politicians worry too much about spin & public image. They should, however, worry about public opinion, because it is the public that owns the country. We elect politicians to handle the day-to-day stuff. But they are ultimately accountable to us. It is our duty & our responsibility to be informed, educated, & to hold them accountable for their actions.

But I still stand by my belief that a preemptive strike against a country that hasn't declared war on us, or even hinted that they were planning to declare war on us, is a pretty shitty thing to do, & it's something I cannot get behind.

Quote from: Christopher WeeksI just think there's too much government going on.

"That government is best which governs least."

Quote from: Christopher WeeksI just think there's too much government going on.

Well, see there.  That makes 3 things we agree on now.  

1) the parties are all intrinsically self serving
2) the same electoral process that prevents the worst sorts from gaining office also prevents the best
3) and our government is too big.


That last one is often times, the primary thing keeping me from voting Democrat.  I've never met a Democratic candidate who didn't plan on making government even bigger.

For the record, my personal political platform is about 1/3 Right, 1/3 Left, and 1/3 Libertarian.

I piss everyone off.

Quote from: ValamirNicolas:  I find your equating "democracy" with the "UN" to pretty unfathomable.

Well, forget about the UN, then. So what remains of the message is this:

Might makes Right. To you dictators out there: better start building up a nuclear arsenal, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. If you don´t have The Bomb, we will come for you sooner or later (in the name of "Democracy").

Well, I don´t find this very reassuring in the least, because the lesson to be learned here for dictators around the world is pretty clear: Build The Bomb or we invade you... Great, Thanks Mr. Bush!

Quote from: ValamirI mean look at how many people believe that Iraq is a mess.  That's nonsense.  My cousin just got back from a tour over there with the engineers.  He reports no shots fired by him or at him.  An all around completely boring tour.  In his words, the only notable difference being stationed in Iraq from his usual base in Germany was worse food, and worse weather.  He found the whole thing rather anti climactic.  He also reports that this was the pretty much the same for most everyone over there he met with save those units specifically stationed in known hot spots.

Alright, I'm jumping in now. I admit I don't feel like reading all 4 pages of the thread, so hopefully I won't repeat what already have been said.

Ralph, I'm sorry, the above statement is just not true in regard to Iraq as a whole. Things are pretty bad over there. My father-in-law who's a coloniel doing public health type stuff (I guess this is an example of me pulling rank...) just got back after almost a year in Iraq. He was one of the guys keeping records on causalities.

You're right that some spots are hotter than others. But fire fights are a daily occurrance across the country. While the media does report the 1 or 2 people that die each day, they do not report the number of injuries. Dozens of people get injured on a daily basis. Maybe "only" 600 or so soldiers have died, but thousands of soldiers have been injured or wounded.

In some ways the situation is better than the media portrays it. But in many others it's much, much worse. Ralph, you should be thankful your cousin was lucky enough to have a quiet tour.

QuoteMaybe "only" 600 or so soldiers have died, but thousands of soldiers have been injured or wounded.

FYI, the latest count I could find is 3,490. That's just Americans.

Attempting an end run around the "ends and means" stuff . . .  the way in which we went can matter.  It doesn't have to, and/or it it doesn't have to matter as MUCH as the fact that we went and acheived whatever result we did - but it CAN.  In this case, I believe very strongly that it did.  I believe that it is POSSIBLE (not inevitable, and not even likely - but all-too possible) that what history will show is that the overthrow of Saddam was the begining of the end of American leadership in world affairs.  It'll take a long time, if it does play out that way.

But the risk that that - or a number of other negative outcomes - will occur as a result of the overthrow is far too great to support the possible positive results.  The chance of anything as rosy as the PNAC-envisioned "true middle-eastern democracy" flourishing in Iraq and spreading are far too slim to place our nation's resources and reputation on the line over.

What bothers me is not that real politik is behind the Iraq war.  What bothers me is that foolish idealism of the PNAC-stripe is behind it.

Gordon

That's 3% folks...in over a year.  That's just counting the 110,000 number of total deployed.  Include the total number of people who've served over there (not just serving currently. i.e. went in, came home) and the %age is even lower.

In a YEAR.  These are NOT significant numbers (except of course to the people who suffered them and their families.  Its always hard to not sound callous when discussing casualty figures).  

But starting last July, units are being rotated in an out for 1 year tours.  That means, the total number of servicemen/women who've served any time in Iraq is much higher than the number stationed there at any given time.  If you figure that after 1 year 75% of the troops have turned over, that's less than 2% casualties.

I'm not saying that's nothing.  But I am saying:  let's keep some perspective.    3490 troops who are wounded means 180,000+ who are not.

Gordon, 100% in agreement.  That is certainly a possibility.  As you say, only time will tell.

What I take umbrage at is the broohaha that basically paints disastor today based on very overblown media coverage which, given that this is an election year, is very carefully designed to cast things in the worst possible light for the incumbant.

Every single bad piece of news that comes out of Iraq through a major media outlet should carry with it the following notice:

"Warning: Entering Full Spin Zone.  This news is being presented in an election year by people who plan to vote against Bush. "

Quote from: ValamirThese are NOT significant numbers (except of course to the people who suffered them and their families.  Its always hard to not sound callous when discussing casualty figures).

It's funny that we both realize this and we take very different messages away from it.  The very fact that it's hard not to sound callous should tell you something.  

If every one of the 600 dead had signed up for a cause that they believed in (rather than the implicit obligation that they took when joining the service, while believing that they'd never see action) things would be very different on this side of the equation.  The Iraqi deaths would remain tragic, of course, but at least our boys who were wasted wanted it that way.

I think our military policy should be to protect our holdings with the normal standing army (which should be radically downsized) and when we, as a nation, decide that a cause is worth projecting force across the globe, a seperate army of vollunteers should be assembled.  If we kept a large pool of reservists we would be ready to implement such projects on a reasonable time table.

Chris

We do keep a large pool of reservists. I was one of them (Wisconsin Army National Guard, actually). Many of them are over in Iraq right now. But the issue isn't one of reserves. You could just ask the members of the standing army to volunteer, and only send those members. But that ignores the reality of the fact that the military is organized in units, and that creating new units is not something done in short order. Even when the reserves are activated, they train up and go as units.

In any case, when you join the military, you do not join half-assedly. You take an oath to do what you're told. If you don't like the politics of a decision, then you can always exercise your right to vote for the other guy. If you don't like that idea, well, the military is voluntary...if you feel that way, don't join. If there are hyporcrites out there who joined the military expecting to benefit from the job, but not expecting to have to fight in wars, then they're seriously deluded, and wrong. Nobody tells you when you go in that you get to only fight in the wars that you think are "right."

The military cannot be allowed to have a political mind. This is why the commander in chief is a civilian in the US. The military must be a tool of the democracy. The president is the executive of the democracy, and, in theory, is acting on it's behalf.

If you don't like the executive having the powers that it does, then what you want to do it get the "War Powers" act repealed, which would then require again an act of congress to declare war. If you don't like that congress can just follow the president, then enact legislation that would handle it differently (I dunno, referendum?). But that aspect of the military cannot change. As soon as militaries become politicized is the moment that they seize control.

And we don't want that, do we?

Mike

Ralph,

Well, I'm not convinced that "the media" is carefully spinning things anti-Bush - but if folks DON'T take election-year politics into account when they look at what the various news outlets say, that would be a huge mistake.  Just like not taking the post-9/11 shock and "free pass for our guys" attitude into account would have been (and was, for many folks I know) a huge mistake when considering the coverage of the buildup to war.

It may be there's some over-correction happening here - that "the media" is attempting to compensate for an overly-generous previous coverage by being overly-negative now.  But the fact of the matter is (IMO) there ARE real negatives - and there are real positives.  I think the real negatives greatly outweigh the real positives, but pretending that either doesn't exist (which is what a simplistic, black & white campaign process would like to do) is, I'll agree, a mistake.

Gordon

QuoteWell, I'm not convinced that "the media" is carefully spinning things anti-Bush

There are a couple of news sources out there that spin to the right...most notably Rush and O'Reilly.  But the vast majority of major newspapers, and broadcast news outlets are spun permanently to the left.  Just reading how headlines are phrased "More Casualities in Bush's War" was a recent one I saw tells you volumes about the bent of the editor writing it.  Fox manages to have a modest right spin, but by and large it just relies on shock to get viewers and the most shocking things you can say on the news these days are coming down supporting the right.


Here's what ABC News.com political editor, Mark Halperin had to say on it.

Quote"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are 'conservative positions.'..."
"The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war....It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy....It remains fixated on the unemployment rate...."
"The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race....On the strength of all the negative coverage of the President and all his own positive coverage, Senator Kerry heads into today's twin primaries on a roll. "

Pretty par for the course from the media.  All the more egregious in an election year.  And this is FROM a news editor at ABC.

So, Ralph, as long as it happens behind closed doors, you're ok with it? That a government doesn't have to obey laws, standards, or act according to a set of principles, as long as it achieves what it "needs" to?

You're describing what I can only call a "democratic dictatorship" -- where the people have no real say in what their government does, except in electing figureheads they can try to push around at election time.

And guess what, that doesn't work because of the lack of accountability it creates, and the inability to try anyone in the government for their behavior while in office.

Don't even try to argue you are not seriously suggesting "no accountability" for the government, because your suggestion only works smoothly when the accountability government officials have is removed, and their actions are not open to public debate.

Sorry, that isn't democracy, and definitely isn't American democracy -- by which I mean the principles this country was founded on bonded to the democratic method.

Your biggest problem is treating the government as some sort of seperate, sovereign entity, when it isn't and shouldn't be. This isn't the middle ages, or China.

Frankly, that's the down-right scariest thing you've ever suggested: back-room, hidden government -- there's enough governmental abuse of power today without providing more room and shadows to move around in, to say nothing of legitimizing it.

In the end, it's just another riff on "the ends, by any means."

QuoteSo, Ralph, as long as it happens behind closed doors, you're ok with it? That a government doesn't have to obey laws, standards, or act according to a set of principles, as long as it achieves what it "needs" to?

You're describing what I can only call a "democratic dictatorship" -- where the people have no real say in what their government does, except in electing figureheads they can try to push around at election time.

Come on now Raven.  You know full well that's not remotely what I said.

Did FDR have to put up with the public second guessing his every decision because the reporters had it on the news 5 hours later?  Did Wilson? Did Kennedy?  

Yet those Presidents managed to lead the country through some pretty hectic and dangerous times didn't they?

And they did it largely behind closed doors didn't they?

And they didn't have to deal with news media nearly at the level or scope that presidents today have to did they? (hell, half of America didn't even know FDR was in a wheel chair for crying out loud)

And yet the job got done, America remained free, and democracy was preserved, wasn't it?

Because political correspondents back then were actual reporters and not poparazzi with fancy job titles.

That's what I'm talking about...

Come on man.  The level of absurd twisting in your last post is really not very appropriate...even for the birthday forum.

Ralph,

Well, now we're on a new topic (But no new thread!  Ain't birthdays grand?), and I'll just say that IMO liberal social agendas in the major news organizations are often more than compensated for by their essentially politically conservative corporate ownership.  

Which may not be a bad thing.  A "check and balance," of a kind.  Liberal-minded news organizations whoose very existence is controlled by a conservative-minded corporation - that (historically) needs the news organization to be seen as "credibly independent" in order to succede.

Your "liberal bias" claims strike me as over-reaching, but not entirely irrelevant.  IMO, the smart observer takes all this into account when digesting the news, and I'd only object to you attempting to make it a "simple" case of ant-Bush spin rather than a complex interplay that sometimes involves anti-Bush spin.

Gordon

Quite honestly, taking a stand to defend President Bush's innocence is like taking a stand to defend OJ Simpson's innocence.

QuoteThere are a couple of news sources out there that spin to the right...most notably Rush and O'Reilly. But the vast majority of major newspapers, and broadcast news outlets are spun permanently to the left.

Or maybe they're spun permanently just a bit to the right, and Bush is so extreme that they seem left in comparison.

Quote from: ValamirThat's 3% folks...in over a year.  That's just counting the 110,000 number of total deployed.  Include the total number of people who've served over there (not just serving currently. i.e. went in, came home) and the %age is even lower.

In a YEAR.  These are NOT significant numbers (except of course to the people who suffered them and their families.  Its always hard to not sound callous when discussing casualty figures).

Er, do you have any comparisons for that?  I briefly did some web searches for the Korean War and Vietnam.  For example, this page of Vietnam War statistics suggested "The national average death rate for males in 1970 was 58.9 per 100,000".  An early news report on the Iraq conflict offered for comparison:

QuoteIn World War I about one in 15 U.S. troops was killed or wounded; in World War II it was one in 14. The rate climbed to one in 12 in Korea and fell back to one in 16 during Vietnam.

The rates have been going down ever since, with only one soldier in 760 killed or wounded in the first Persian Gulf war. There were no U.S. combat fatalities in Bosnia or Kosovo and to date only 66 in Afghanistan, including two killed Saturday. The Defense Department has not released statistics on the numbers of wounded in those conflicts."

So while 3% is low compared to 6% (suggested here for Vietnam), I think that half of the Vietnam War rate is pretty damn significant.

I poop on 'the end sometimes justifies the means'.  I poop all over it.  The end does not justify the means, because the means are what you are actually willing to do.  Right and wrong are not 'ends', they are actions, they are means.

And as for the Clinton administration...  Poor, poor Bush administration, they aren't as good at spin.  You know what else they suck at in comparison?  Economics (Clinton said he would eliminate the deficit and he did.  Bush made sure to fix that though.); Diplomacy (The Israel situation was actually starting to improve.  Couldn't have that.); and military action (US Bosnia casualties were less than 300, mostly from land-mines.  That's half the Iraq casualties, and on a smaller military budget.).  You don't like that Clinton banged an internal, fine he's an awful letch.  But the Clinton administration kept the country and foreign affairs in better running order than any incarnation of the Reagan administration, especially this one, ever has.

Oh, and the government does not deserve more leeway than the individual.  The government exists to serve the people, that's the Social Contract.  It doesn't get to do what it wants because it doesn't have rights that aren't gifted to it by the people.

And...  Smaller government isn't exactly a good thing.  'Big Government' is what keeps the big guy from stepping on the little guy. Socialist programs, like I dunno, public schools, improve the lifestyle of everybody in the society by creating a middle class.

"The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities."
- Lord Acton

Those are the same numbers I've looked at John.  But in order to compare apples to apples you have to compare wounded to the total number of troops who served in Iraq.  I don't haven't seen numbers for that, but I'd estimate it to be around 170-200K based on initial deployment figures of about 110K and the planned rotation of men.

At that rate you're looking at 1 per 49 to 1 per 57, which isn't 1/2 of Viet Nam.  Its less than 1/3.

Plus, I don't know how levels of support troops stack up.  I know the people to ask if you really want to know.  But I suspect that there were more non combat personel per combat soldier in Viet Nam then there are in Iraq just based on how much leaner we run the military these days.  

It would skew the numbers considerably if the denomenator in Viet Nam's numbers consisted of a significantly higher ratio of rear area troops.

Quote from: ValamirAnd yet the job got done, America remained free, and democracy was preserved, wasn't it?

I disagree with this as written.  Put your qualifiers in when you mention "done", "free", and "democracy", and then maybe I can agree with you.

Quote from: ValamirDid FDR have to put up with the public second guessing his every decision because the reporters had it on the news 5 hours later?  Did Wilson? Did Kennedy?  

Yet those Presidents managed to lead the country through some pretty hectic and dangerous times didn't they?

And they did it largely behind closed doors didn't they?

And they didn't have to deal with news media nearly at the level or scope that presidents today have to did they? (hell, half of America didn't even know FDR was in a wheel chair for crying out loud)  

Actually, I agree with you that the media is too intrusive into the personal life of the President and politicians.  But taking our country to open war has always been and always should be a public act which is subject to intense scrutiny and criticism.  For example, President Polk was grilled by congressman Abraham Lincoln for his behavior in the Mexican War.  You will see similar dissent in most other wars.  

So I completely support the removal of stupid stunts like the Clinton "scandal" and so forth.  For that matter, intelligence gathering should in general be behind closed doors.  But when that intelligence is publically used as justification for going to open war, then it passes into the realm of public scrutiny.  

Moreover, it is biased to only point to the examples of good behavior to justify keeping administration affairs private.  For example, our aid given to Saddam Hussein and to Osama bin Laden was done behind closed doors.  If that had been subject to public debate, things might have turned out better.  Overall, I think our post-Nixon, more public foreign policy hasn't been so bad.  The first Gulf War was excellently handled, I thought, and it stood up to public scrutiny.

Quote from: crucielSocialist programs, like I dunno, public schools, improve the lifestyle of everybody in the society by creating a middle class.

The idea of public schools is valid, but I think that our implementation is so horribly astray that we would be better off without them.  That's my primary motivation for supporting educational privatisation.

Chris

Quote from: Christopher Weeks

Quote from: crucielSocialist programs, like I dunno, public schools, improve the lifestyle of everybody in the society by creating a middle class.

The idea of public schools is valid, but I think that our implementation is so horribly astray that we would be better off without them.  That's my primary motivation for supporting educational privatisation.

Well, I think it's got some major faults (so many that I dropped out of school), but if school costs money then poor people won't (or be prohibited by parents to) attend.  Then generations are stuck in lower class because they haven't even been given a chance.

I feel that poor pay for teachers and police leads to most of the problems in both institutions.

EDIT:  This might just be my personal experience, but the people I know (three) who have attended private (religious) schools for early schooling all say 'eck-specially' and 'eck-scape'.  They can't spell either, I mean can't.  Bad math too.  Even though they attended public school later in life.

Quote from: John KimThe first Gulf War was excellently handled, I thought, and it stood up to public scrutiny.

But the G.H.W.Bush administration kept the lead in to the war pretty secret.  There is evidence that after the '88 peace with Iran, the US, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait colluded to create economic hardship for Iraq, presumably in an attempt to destabilize the country.  One could claim this forced Hussein into aggressive behavior.  Worse yet, prior to the Kuwaiti invasion, the Hussein government sought approval from the US.  Secretary of State Baker directed  April Glaspie, the ambasador to Iraq, to tell Hussein "We have no opinion on ...your border dispute with Kuwait."  Ms. Glaspie was specific in underlining James Baker's direction to emphasize this instruction.

So after luring our sock puppet (Hussein) into the attack, we turned on him in the blink of an eye.  I'd hardly call that excellent handling.

Chris

Quote from: quozl

Quote from: ValamirAnd yet the job got done, America remained free, and democracy was preserved, wasn't it?

I disagree with this as written.  Put your qualifiers in when you mention "done", "free", and "democracy", and then maybe I can agree with you.

Done:  The war was won, Europe was freed from Hitler, and Kennedy's game of chicken with the Soviets made them blink.

Free:  Pretty self explanatory.  Unless you're really interested in hashing out all of the ways you feel we aren't free.

Democracy:  Again self explanatory.  You get to vote for public officials, or in some cases vote for electorates who will vote for public officials.

Is there some additional qualifiers you feel the need to make.  Did America suddenly slide into the grips of tyranny following FDR when no one was looking?

QuoteFor example, President Polk was grilled by congressman Abraham Lincoln for his behavior in the Mexican War.

Absolutely.  And as far as I can remember various senators on the intelligence committee have come forward and stated that they were privy to all of the intelligence the administration was, and came to the same conclusion about WMDs that the administration has.  The war was most certainly properly vetted through congress...where such discussions belong.  Not on the evening news among folks with no access to sensitive information pretending they have some clue what they're talking about.

QuoteBut when that intelligence is publically used as justification for going to open war, then it passes into the realm of public scrutiny.

I don't disagree with that.  But in my view the truely unfortuneate thing is not that intelligence was used to stir up public opinion, but that the political situation in this country has become such that such tactics are almost required.

There is a definite movement towards mob rule in America...mob rule in the same sense as ancient Rome where the patricians and the emperor competed with each other to manipulate public opinion.

Mark Antony's famous speach following Caesar's death in Shakespear's play to get the court of public sentiment riled up against Brutus without them ever realizing he was manipulating them is now business as usual in politics in this country.  And that's very sad, very wrong, and very dangerous.

QuoteFor example, our aid given to Saddam Hussein and to Osama bin Laden was done behind closed doors. If that had been subject to public debate, things might have turned out better.

Maybe.  Much of foreign policy in this country has been predicated on the theory of the lesser of two evils.  Its certainly true Saddam would not have gotten as powerful as he did without our support.  Who's to say, however, that a weaker Saddam wouldn't have resulted in a stronger Iran under Khomeini and whether or not that would have been worse.  Obviously policy makers at the time thought it would be much worse, that promoting a relatively stable secular regime in the midst of growing theological fundamentalism was a good thing, even if Saddam wasn't the ideal person for the job...he was the only person for the job.

I'm hesitant to second guess the decisions of prior administrations on subjects like that since we do not have anywhere near the information they did when they made the decision.

So if one accepts the likely hood that those decision makers were qualified to make the decisions they made (and one pretty much must accept that, because the alternative is to claim our system of government is incapable of effective leadership); then I at least would have to conclude that "If that had been subject to public debate" it most likely would have turned out far worse.

Open debate between people not qualified to discuss the subject they are debating seems pretty pointless to me.  Better to elect officials, have those officials make themselves qualified to discuss the subject, and let them debate it amongst themselves and report back their decisions.  That is how a representational democracy is supposed to work, after all.

I'm sorry if my vehemence in my last post touched a nerve, Ralph, but that's exactly how I view your statements about closed door government. I meant no insult, and did not twist anything...those are the fruits I see of what you suggest.

In fact, I do see right where you're coming from, and I agree about the problems, but I disagree that that is the solution. Your comments about "it worked before" strike me as stubborn insistence that just because "we never looked both ways crossing the street before and haven't been hit" means that it's safe and dandy to do so.

I think we're damn lucky to have come through as a country without the public oversight currently emerging in our culture. Gods only know what sorts of scandals and questionable behaviors went on in previous administrations, without public knowledge or consent.

The media plays an important role in keeping people honest, in bringing problems and behaviors to light.

Consider, before it was revealed for public awareness by the media, domestic violence was a quiet problem plaguing many women.

While certain individuals like to claim, for political reasons, it has been rising since it was first reported (you know, since this stuff never happened in "the good ol' days"), we know that it was happening far more frequently before it started being reported openly due to victim mentality and social pressures to simply stay quiet.

Now, women can feel safe(r) in reporting their husband or boyfriend for this behavior, because they know they aren't alone, it isn't their fault, and society tells them that, yes, it is wrong for their loved one to do this to them. We're better off as a society now that this piece of dirty laundry was aired by the media as a problem, and no longer happening quietly in good ol' Hometown USA.

I see the same benefits in media exposure of the inner workings of political offices. All things being equal, the dirty crap we are seeing now exposed by the media in our elected officials is likely less in amount than what used to occur before scrutiny was turned upon them.

Hence, I leave my statements standing as my opinion on such a policy, with the addendum: it isn't the press or media that needs to change, but the politicians -- they need to be less political, and start doing their jobs. Damn the "consequences."

There one huge crucial makes all the difference in the world difference between media and domestic violoence and media and international policy.

It is possible and desireable for the media to collect all possible data about domestic violence and report it to the public for their analysis.

It is neither possible nor desireable for the media to collect all possible data relative to sensitive intelligence information or international negotiations.  Therefor it is impossible for the public to analyse anything well enough to understand what they are talking about.  They don't have a complete picture, they have only the picture the media chooses to paint for them.

I agree. However, since I'm for more public oversight of government processes and information, the release of sensitive intelligence data to the public is ultimately a good thing in my opinion. You can disagree all you want, point out the dangers and etc. but I'm still for it.

Stop sending our teenagers--especially our poor, disadvantaged teenagers--off to die.

Todays Iraq body count:
Max: 10,677
Min: 8827

Some incidents:
k051 10 Mar PM Basra taxi carrying women laundry-workers gunfire 2 2 AP 11 Mar
CSM 24 Mar

k047 15 Mar - Kirkuk car carrying councillor and bodyguard gunfire 2 2 AP 16 Mar

k046 09 Mar 8:00 PM Abu Gharaq, near Karbala car carrying Americans and Iraqi translator gunfire 1 1 AFP 11 Mar
UPI 11 Mar
AP 12 Mar

k039 08 Mar - Kirkuk three hit by 'stray bullets' gunfire 3 3 Times 09 Mar
BBC 09 Mar

k044 09 Mar PM Nasiriyah police killed rescuing civilians held by militia gunfire 4 4 AP 10 Mar
NYT 11 Mar

k041 08 Mar - Ejba, near Mosul 'hostile forces', round fell short, killing one mortar round 1 1 AP 10 Mar
MEO 10 Mar

This is our allegedly 'stable' situation.  An anecdotal report by an individual stationed in a country as large as Iraq is hardly definitive.

Ralph wrote:

QuoteI don't disagree with that. But in my view the truely unfortuneate thing is not that intelligence was used to stir up public opinion, but that the political situation in this country has become such that such tactics are almost required.

Why?  Because you don't get the result you want?  Well, too bad.

QuoteI'm hesitant to second guess the decisions of prior administrations on subjects like that since we do not have anywhere near the information they did when they made the decision.

Except, thats not really a safe assumption at all.  Much of the argument advanced prior to the war was derived, as we know, from a 12-year old thesis found on the net.  You and I could easily have done as much.  In addition, the alleged firm knowledge that the US administration did have - about Iraqi WMD - turns out to have been wrong.

There is no reason to assume that any government has qualitatively superior information to any other person.  Certainly in this case we seem to have an example of undue trust in the governments alleged information leading to decisions made on a completely false premise.

And furthermore, I find it contradictory to argue that government is inherently corrupt, politicians self-serving, and that simultaneously we should trust the government implicitly and assume it knows what its doing.  These two sentiments are directly contradictory and to my mind demonstrate the philosophical bankruptcy of most conservative politics; they advocate smaller government but are perrenially keen to introduce yet more monitoring of citizens behaviour, arrogate more powers to government, and frequently consider criticism of that government to border on treason.  This is a doctrine of political opportunism, not a cogent position.

An underlying premise of the arguments of many apologists for government is that there is information that must be kept secret from the the people.

Why?

Chris

Quote from: ValamirDid America suddenly slide into the grips of tyranny following FDR when no one was looking?

You do know that lots of people point to FDR as to when the loss of personal freedom in America started dropping dramatically, right?