quote:You know, I absolutely *hate* it when I see two people arguing, and one of them leaps on something that the other has said, pretends to misunderstand the other's point, and gives them a drubbing for it, when all along both parties know full well what was actually meant.
That is exactly how I feel Noemon. I'm sure Edwards knew perfectly well that Bush did not "declare defeat."
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:“In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table,” Bush said. “But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.”
Those statements differed from Bush’s earlier comment to NBC News that “I don’t think you can win” the war on terror. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”
Look, it's pretty clear what Bush is getting at here. He's saying that we will win the war on terror, but that because it is a different kind of war, the victory conditions are different. We don't "win" by sitting down at a peace table and negotiating a permanent end to all hostilities, as we would in a conventional war. That event will never happen. Instead, we win (in his estimation) by making the consequences of terrorism clear and devastating, and by destroying the major networks of terrorists that are directly threatening us today.
There is no way to permanently destroy "terrorism" because "terrorism" is just a strategy. It's an idea. Ideas are impossible to destroy. But we can destroy the current breed of well-financed and organized terrorists that threaten our way of life.
So, in summary, the War on Terror is not winnable by the definitions used in conventional war. But it is winnable by the standards of victory the US has set.
That's what Bush is clearly, obviously saying in both of the recent quotes, and I'm really surprised at the deliberate feigned stupidity that people are using to criticize him over this issue. I expect that crap from the media and from political opponents. I expect better from Hatrack.
[ August 31, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, what happened to all the criticism Bush was getting a couple of years ago from Democrats who claimed that he was trying to create an eternal, unwinnable Orwellian war that he could use to keep his party in power indefinitely? Back THEN, Democrats were absolutely convinced that Bush was promising a long, difficult, and potentially victoryless conflict. Now, suddenly, they've rewritten their memories to believe that Bush has always promised a quick and easy victory? This is so clearly retarded, I'm offended that anyone would expect me to buy it.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Back THEN, Democrats were absolutely convinced that Bush was promising a long, difficult, and potentially victoryless conflict."
If you'll examine my posts from the time, I was absolutely convinced that Bush was leading us into just such a conflict, but PROMISING something altogether different. And since many Republicans on this board kept insisting that I was wrong, and that this conflict would be nothing of the sort, I feel rather vindicated by the thought of Bush finally coming out and saying that's what he was doing.
I accused him nearly three years ago of looking for a way to get us into a long-term conflict in the Middle East. At that time, most of the conservatives on this board called me insanely paranoid and/or cynical.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like the difference between you and the conservatives on this issue was the interpretation of motives. You thought we were getting into a long-term war for certain nefarious purposes, and they thought we were getting into a long-term war for certain noble purposes, and therein lay your disagreement. When you said, "Bush is trying to get us into a long-term Orwellian war just to keep his party in power, etc, etc!" the answer from the conservatives was, "No he's not, he's selflessly doing the right thing for his country!" not "No he's not, the War on Terror will be over in a year and a half!"
It was Bush's motives and goals you were fighting over, not the duration of the conflict. If I remember correctly. Feel free to show me I'm wrong.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You thought we were getting into a long-term war for certain nefarious purposes, and they thought we were getting into a long-term war for certain noble purposes..."
Nope. In fact, at the time, I distinctly remember being told by Ron Lambert that it was outrageous to think that we'd invade any country other than Afghanistan.
posted
So, again, where do you lot think the "war on terror" is actually going to go? More invasions? A concentration on local rebuilding?
Let me humbly suggest that it is a gross failure of Bush's administration that we don't seem to be able to answer this question.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD -- I don't think ANY Administration, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, could answer that question. We don't know the future because we don't know what those who follow terrorist philosophies might do...
posted
So this is a completely reactive war on terror, then? We wait for someone to attack us, then invade their country and an adjacent one?
I doubt it. I suspect -- quite strongly -- that Bush has a plan for further invasion of the Middle East, and is manipulating the public to go along with it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't about recognizing that Bush has faith in God, this is believing in something for which you have no proof--namely, a person's motivations and intentions. That is a textbook example of faith.
posted
Can you ever be certain of somebody else's motivation?
Tom seems extremely certain that he knows why Bush has done many things. He doesn't seem to take pause by the fact that many, many people thing he's wrong.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure there are answers to that question - the question is, are they the right answers?
And if we attempt to evaluate and respond to each of the voiced complaints, ultimately I don't believe we can "solve" terror because people will always be motivated to strike in a manner that draws attention and inflicts casualties.
It would be like trying to "solve" murder - as long as humans have free will and the ability to make choices, it will never go away.
If we revoked all support from Israel tomorrow, would that end terrorism? Probably not.
If we all bent knee and swore faith to Islam, would that end terrorism? Probably not.
If we butchered every last man, woman and child of countries that seem to be a breeding ground for terrorists, would that end terrorism? Probably not.
quote: If we all bent knee and swore faith to Islam, would that end terrorism? Probably not.
Actually, I think this would be the most effective way to stop terrorism from Islamic countries. This is what I believe the terrorists want from us. I know I ain't givin' it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, do we really, really want to go down that road again?
Tom may lack a religious faith in a Supreme Being as codified by any particular religion, but this does not prohibit him from deciding what he believes to be a person's motivations.
posted
Well, as Tom is agnostic about God, I am agnostic about Bush's motivations. I cannot know what they are. So I am *not* going to be quick to judge.
My comment may have been out of line, but Tom D constantly tries to tear down the faith of others in little comments and jabs. Then he expresses such confidence in something that cannot be known. I don't get it. It is a major double-standard, and I hate double-standards.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I highly doubt it - there was a small riot over the ME equivelant of "American Idol".
The rioters were upset one of the local favorites lost and took to the streets chanting something to the effect of, "I spill my blood for thee."
In an attempt to hold a beauty contest in a Muslim country, a local announcer speculated "even Allah himself might have chosen one of these women as a bride."
Guess what happened next.
If it's not religion, people will find a cause to protest and to act violently over.
posted
I simply cannot have faith in Bush's methods... To me it seems like it would lead to more terrorism, especially with the events of Abu Grahib (sp) coming to light each day... I just don't believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If it's not religion, people will find a cause to protest and to act violently over.
You know, I have to agree with you on this--which is why I am puzzled at the blame religion gets for the violence in the world. But then, we don't need to go down that road again either. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who are so adamently opposed to the current policy on this war on terrorism, I'm still all ears to whatever your ideas for the "perfect" policy for this war on terror.
So let's hear it -- if YOU were president, what would you do differently? Turn it all over to the United Nations? Be more agressive? Less agressive? What's your plan?
quote: I just don't believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
I'm not sure I believe it was the right thing to do either, Syn. I hate war. I think that when no WMD were found we should have respectfully bowed out. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tom is Agnostic - meaning he doesn't know if a God exists or not. He is, however, confident in his knowing another person's intentions and motivations.
You are undecided regarding Bush's motivations and ulterior motives, if any. However, you are religious and believe firmly in the existence of God.
Insofar as I am aware, there isn't a proper term for not having an opinion regarding a political stance or a person's motivations. Except possibly "cynic."
posted
Main Entry: cyn·ic Pronunciation: 'si-nik Function: noun Etymology: Middle French or Latin, Middle French cynique, from Latin cynicus, from Greek kynikos, literally, like a dog, from kyn-, kyOn dog -- more at HOUND 1 capitalized : an adherent of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who held the view that virtue is the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence 2 : a faultfinding captious critic; especially : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest - cynic adjective
Cynic seems to better describe someone who feels as Tom does.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The instant we had de facto control over Baghdad and the UN started yelping that "we needed their presence to validate any government," I would have pulled US forces out and let the UN take over.
It would have resolved most of the "the US is trying to take of the Mid-East" and significantly reduced our body count in the process.
Instead, Bush overestimated the reaction of Iraq and the terrorists in the neighborhood and now we have...this.
posted
Eh, don't worry about it. I really did want to see what the dictionary definition of cynic was.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And since I've decided to arm-chair quarterback, I would not have tied the whole intent of the Iraqi invasion to the existence of WMD.
A better, more flexible approach would have been, "if Saddam will not permit the unfettered access of weapons inspectors to Iraq so that the world can be assured, we will assist in the opening of Iraq to the weapons inspectors."
The subtle difference being, we are not confirming nor denying the existence of weapons and weapons systems, but rather making the issue Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors to confirm the lack of any meaningful weapons or weapons programs.
posted
In all fairness, I do not believe that all human conduct is motivated by self-interest. In fact, this is my definition of evil, and I certainly don't believe that all humans are evil.
I do, however, believe that almost everything this administration does is motivated by self-interest. This is why I'll freely admit to being cynical about this administration's motives.
That said, I believe this administration does sincerely believe that their plan is the best one for the world, which is why they so aggressively work in their own self-interest; after all, their reasoning goes, they're the only ones who can be counted upon to enact this plan, so allowing themselves to be removed from power in fact endangers everyone else. (Note: I think most politicians, all corporations, and almost all countries think this way, too.)
posted
That reminds me of those groups that believe that humans are a plague on the earth, and that as a race, we should voluntarily kill ourselves.
But do these guys kill themselves? No -- they have to stick around to make sure that everybody else does it first.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The instant we had de facto control over Baghdad and the UN started yelping that "we needed their presence to validate any government," I would have pulled US forces out and let the UN take over.
It would have resolved most of the "the US is trying to take of the Mid-East" and significantly reduced our body count in the process.
Trevor -- I can see some benefit to what you are saying.
However, I'm not as familiar as I should be with the status of U.N. forces -- do you think they would have been strong enough/ in enough numbers/ to hold Iraq once the dictatorship was toppled?
posted
I am guilty of thinking Clinton had alterior motives every time he attacked Iraq. It *seemed* that whenever the nation's attention turned to a Clinton scandal, the answer was to attack Iraq to get the attention focused elsewhere. If that is not a selfish motive, I don't know what is.
I think that the Bush administration is at least trying to do what they believe is best for our nation--which is their job. They may be misguided, and they may have evil motives. But I am far from confident that they do.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theoretically, as the US is a part of the UN, it couldn't "abandon" Iraq to the UN. The US would stay in conjunction with international forces. Or do Americans keep forgetting that they're still a member of the UN?
Edit: I did not just pluralize a word with an apostraphe. You saw wrong.
[ August 31, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, as Tom is agnostic about God, I am agnostic about Bush's motivations. I cannot know what they are. So I am *not* going to be quick to judge.
It's not so much a matter of judging as it is of being concerned. It's possible that President Bush or Clinton or Bush, etc. had the purest motives for every single thing they did. It's also possible (And I would argue more likely) that they both made mistakes and at time put their own self-interest over the good of the country. As you said, it's really impossible to accurately judge what percentage of this were in play.
THe thing is, at least for me, the president must be held to a higher standard than "We can't be sure that he is untrustworthy." I don't believe that being elected to office somehow confers trust in someone. The president, or heck any politician, should have to earn this trust. The standard should at least be "We're pretty sure he's trying to do the right thing as he has clearly shown that he has tried to do the right thing before."
When companies are unwilling to regulate themselves with some degree of transparency, it becomes necessary to have somebody else act as a watchdog. If not, you get things like the whole Enron scandal. The same is true for politicians.
Geroge Bush and his administration doesn't have my trust because they have never tried to earn it. I complained about this from the very bgginnig of the 2000 election, when many of George Bush's records of his time as governor, more specifically those dealing with his relationship with energy companies, were shipped to his father's Presidential library, effectively burying them. No laws were broken and he had every right to take this action, but I have every right to not trust someone who is not going to be upfront about things if he has a way of hiding them.
It gets worse in that not only have they not tried to earn it, on many occasions when they relied on being trusted, they have later been shown to have abused that trust. When people lie to me about their motives, when they conceal evidence or claim to have evidence that they don't have, when they say that they are going to do one thing and then do another, I consider them untrustworthy. And, it seems like unlike a majority of the rest of the country, for me this tendency get stronger when we're talking about people who are invested with immense amounts of power in the expectation that they'll use that power for my good. A rule of thumb that I think if applied would radically alter America's political landscape is that "If you wouldn't accept this from a 10 year old, you shouldn't accept it from a politican."
It bothers me even more that the idea of "We can't be sure that he is untrustworthy" rarely means what is actually said. If you apply it to one side and apply "We can't be sure that he is trustworthy" to the other side, what you're doing is obviously not being fair.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The state of UN forces would be a fraction of ours at present and probably even more under-equipped.
Could they have done a good job of holding the country together? No. Could they have enforced enough of a peace to locate Saddam, his sons and see the rudimentary beginning of a government form? Probably not.
But I'm not arguing for the betterment of the Iraqi people. My favorite analogy is: "Giving a people freedom is like giving a dog your car keys. He'll look grateful, wag his tail and probably bury them. What he won't do is drive himself to the market, buy dinner and bring you back a six-pack."
However, we would have minimized the American body count in trying to maintain a stabilizing presence, we would have headed off the current round of complaints from various corners decrying or alledging American empire building and still managed to establish our pointed military presence to countries that have otherwise told themselves America is a sleeping, toothless tiger afraid of battle.
It would have been a major mistake to let the UN assume military responsibility for Iraq. However, it has been my experience that people would rather make a mistake rather than admit to being wrong.
Instead of admitting the US presence has been beneficial, provided you accept a Western-style democracy as beneficial, critics will and do charge the US presence is unwarranted and simply serving as an occupying force. The Iraqi coach at the Olympics, for example.
However, if we followed my model of action, we would still be left picking up the pieces after the UN dropped the ball and critics could still claim we were responsible for making the mess.
But I believe we would have come out better in the longer view - we could have consolidated our efforts in Afghanistan before turning back to Iraq and not be stuck trying to keep a lid on a boiling pot.
I just spent several minutes at the United Nations web site and found it extremely hard to browse for the information that I want. Lots of new releases and such, but no real good information about their forces, etc.
I think the one thing that we Americans (and the current Administration) really didn't mentally figure on when this operation began was the mentality of the people of Iraq and the terrorists. The terrorists really love war -- something that I think it is hard for us to wrap our minds around.
posted
Let's be clear, Edwards was just playing the game that this election has become. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry are keeping away from substantive issues, in part because actually being a serious candidate gets you many fewer votes than relying on labeling, fear-mongering, and demogougery and in part because neither of them have much to recommend them as serious candidates.
The main issue in this election is a boogeyman. Relying on the automatic democratic associations, the Bush campaign tried to label John Kerry as a wimp. The Kerry campaign responded to this move by emphasizing John Kerry's heroic behavior in Vietnam, and making the implicit and explicit comparision to George Bush's less than heroic service record. The Bush campaign...or wait, I emant people in no way connected to the Bush campaign (and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you) responded by trying to smear John Kerry's Vietnam record.
The whole thing is, if you think that either John Kerry or George Bush are not going to respond to the best of their ability to terrorist threats because of some character flaw, you're a freaking moron. As with nearly every poltical character debate, there is almost no substance actually happening in this one. The character debate serves to play to play to people's baser instincts and to distract the public away from any serious investigations into what ways these two candidates will act differently.
I've got the great priviledge of being a swing voter in a battleground state, or, to put it another way, one of the 1,750,000 or so people whose vote actually matters in the next election. So, I'm getting innudated with campaign commericals. And you know what, you can be sure that some of the first words following "I'm George Bush and I approved this add." are going to be "John Kerry". Equally sure is that a John Kerry commerical is going to be more of the rosy fluff they served up at the convention. Sprinkled in there are "independent" adds that attack whichever candidates, often for things or in ways that actually make me more sympathetic to the candidate that's being attacked. Conspicuously absent in this media barrage are any attempts to make me feel that a candidate is worthy of my trust or a serious statement about what a candidate is going to do (of course, giving the President's track record of making empty promises, I'd hardly believe him anyway).
Complaining that Edwards is twisting what was said or that the Republicans did the same thing is missing the point. You're criticizing a specific move when it's the whole frigging game that they're playing that is bad for the country. Right now, it's whoever plays this game better than the other who is going to win the election. If the Kerry/Edwards campaign can twist some statement or capitalize on some media images that really put the Bush/Cheney campaign in a bad light, they're likely to win, and vice versa. If Edwards refused to play this game, it would hurt his ticket's chances, so arguing or wheter or not he should have done so is silly, if you're not going to talk about the whole environment that this is taking place in.
I don't really have any idea how either candidate is going to act if they get elected. Now, continuing my post from above, perhaps I should just assume that since they haven't said anything of significance, that they're going to do all the rights things, but, for me it works differently. The very fact that they've given me no reason to trust them and are playing this game of not saying anything of importance leads me to believe that they are going to do a bad job. So, whoever gets elected, it's going to be another four years of being a critic, because it would be too dangerous to give trust and a free reign to a President who hasn't done a thing to earn it.
posted
Wow! That was pretty powerful writing, Squicky!
quote: The very fact that they've given me no reason to trust them and are playing this game of not saying anything of importance leads me to believe that they are going to do a bad job. So, whoever gets elected, it's going to be another four years of being a critic, because it would be too dangerous to give trust and a free reign to a President who hasn't done a thing to earn it.
So how do you know who to vote for, as a swing voter?
quote:The state of UN forces would be a fraction of ours at present and probably even more under-equipped.
There's no question that the US has the most advanced military on the planet. But as for the number of troops they have I believe it’s one or two hundred thousand. I like to think that the rest of the world could come close to that. This is, of course, assuming the other countries in the coalition aren't so childish as to leave as well.
Further, leaving at that point would have been far worse than staying has been or staying under the UN would have been. Running in, bombing a country and then not cleaning up the mess wouldn't win America many friends.
quote:Could they have done a good job of holding the country together? No. Could they have enforced enough of a peace to locate Saddam, his sons and see the rudimentary beginning of a government form? Probably not.
Well, we'll never know. It's quite possible that the UN could have had some sort of realistic exit strategy. On the other hand, you're probably right. There wouldn't be enough time to stabilize things and draw up plans on the zero notice that States would have given in the plan you outline. Again, making America look even worse.
quote:But I'm not arguing for the betterment of the Iraqi people. My favorite analogy is: "Giving a people freedom is like giving a dog your car keys. He'll look grateful, wag his tail and probably bury them. What he won't do is drive himself to the market, buy dinner and bring you back a six-pack."
I agree with you here. You cannot force freedom or democracy on a population, they have to come to it on their own. I happen to think this was an excellent reason to not liberate Iraq in the first place (granting you that liberation was the primary goal from the start. A position I don't happen to agree with).
quote:However, we would have minimized the American body count in trying to maintain a stabilizing presence, we would have headed off the current round of complaints from various corners decrying or alledging American empire building and still managed to establish our pointed military presence to countries that have otherwise told themselves America is a sleeping, toothless tiger afraid of battle.
And confirmed your status as an unthinking, war mongering, unpredictable, dangerous country and utterly destroyed any shred of international credibility.
quote:It would have been a major mistake to let the UN assume military responsibility for Iraq. However, it has been my experience that people would rather make a mistake rather than admit to being wrong.
This, I believe, is why the UN isn't there right now. The US cannot admit that they were wrong and need help and most of the other countries are secretly (and perhaps guiltily) enjoying the chaos too much to offer aid. I'm very disappointed in the world right now.
quote:Instead of admitting the US presence has been beneficial, provided you accept a Western-style democracy as beneficial, critics will and do charge the US presence is unwarranted and simply serving as an occupying force. The Iraqi coach at the Olympics, for example.
I see this style of argument a lot and it bothers me. That being "I feel this way." "But you shouldn't. You should feel this other way. And you're stupid not to." The problem here is that you've denied that there is (or even may be) a problem and so have no hope of fixing it (should there be one). It's possible that the Iraqi soccer coach was just a ranting, whining loonie. But I've heard that opinion expressed by Iraqis on the news before and nobody seems to be asking why they feel this nor what could be done to help. Ok, sometimes they ask what could be done and the response is that America has to leave so clearly the other side isn't being helpful either. But that doesn't excuse the casual dismissal that seems to be going on between America and, well, every other country in the world.
quote:However, if we followed my model of action, we would still be left picking up the pieces after the UN dropped the ball and critics could still claim we were responsible for making the mess.
Because you did make the mess and it would have been impossible for the UN to draw up any sort of plan in time to save Iraq. In short, you would have been responsible and, I believe, downright evil to be so negligent.
quote:But I believe we would have come out better in the longer view - we could have consolidated our efforts in Afghanistan before turning back to Iraq and not be stuck trying to keep a lid on a boiling pot.
If you're implying you never should have gone into Iraq and stayed in Afghanistan then we're on the same page and much of this post can be ignored. Certainly the Afghanistan people deserve much more than they've received from the world.
quote:However, leaving American forces in Iraq under the command of the UN would still be seen as the American occupation.
I don't actually think this is the case, although I do agree that America probably wouldn't have been able to be in control of the operation. Is this a situation that America is willing to accept? Clearly not.
quote:Although I have to admit, I am a little tired of the US being the backbone of any UN peacekeeping operation.
You have the most to give. There is no way any other country can possibly equal the money and troops that America commits. And, while I *do* love you for it, I can't help but think that all the bitterness and anger the US has toward the UN is doing a greater disservice than the aid you're currently giving (which you could and most likely would give independent of the UN). If you're consistently undermining the UN you have no business complaining when you shoulder an ever-increasing load. I'm not saying that the UN is perfect, I'm saying that by standing around and bitching on the field no progress can possibly be made. Work to make the UN better or leave and let the remaining countries try to put something together that doesn't include you (a la the ICC). Being stymied in its ineffectual state does no one any favors.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, It comes down to tactics. I'm waiting to vote until the evening to see what the voting situation in PA is. In my opinion, President Bush has done a very bad job and at the very least needs to be fired, even if I think that John Kerry isn't going to do a much better one. However, I consider the idea that what I've seen of either candidate should make me want to vote for them as absurd. So, looking past this election to future ones, I have to think that the only way to effect the system is to support a third-party candidate, most likely Cobb of the Greens.
I've been somewhat active in the campaign to get people to vote Cobb if Kerry is far ahead and if the race is close, to at least consider other options before automatically voting against Bush. The idea is to vote against Bush (and Kerry) in 2008, 2012, 2016, etc., as the quality of candidates isn't going to change if the system isn't seriously shaken up.
What I'd love to see is a third party receive at least 5% of the vote (securing federal status and funding), Kerry win the electoral vote, and Bush win the popular vote.
As it is, I can only try to do what I can do, which isn't really all that much. I'll put a lot of thought and consideration into my vote, follow the political issues, and whatever I vote, it will be cancelled out by someone who hasn't given any serious thought to the elecion at all.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok Bob, bear with me - this will be a long post.
quote: There's no question that the US has the most advanced military on the planet. But as for the number of troops they have I believe it’s one or two hundred thousand. I like to think that the rest of the world could come close to that. This is, of course, assuming the other countries in the coalition aren't so childish as to leave as well.
Further, leaving at that point would have been far worse than staying has been or staying under the UN would have been. Running in, bombing a country and then not cleaning up the mess wouldn't win America many friends.
Truth be told, there wasn't much we could do to win friends. I'm not even concerned with winning friends and influencing people - I am, however, advocating the best possible course of action to further American interests.
As to the effectiveness of the UN - my impression has always been a conflicting command structure run by committee that may or may not receive clear instructions as to what to and not to do.
However, it wouldn't be American bodies being sent home for incompetence of command and beaucratic interference in military operations.
quote: Well, we'll never know. It's quite possible that the UN could have had some sort of realistic exit strategy. On the other hand, you're probably right. There wouldn't be enough time to stabilize things and draw up plans on the zero notice that States would have given in the plan you outline. Again, making America look even worse.
There is a first time for everything. It's entirely possible the UN would have a clear, concise exit strategy. I doubt it, but it's in the realm of hypothetical.
As to making America look worse - any action we take will be taken negatively by someone, somewhere. Making the US look worse. In the face of "we're going to look bad no matter what, I'll opt for the choice that makes the most strategic sense for us."
quote: I agree with you here. You cannot force freedom or democracy on a population, they have to come to it on their own. I happen to think this was an excellent reason to not liberate Iraq in the first place (granting you that liberation was the primary goal from the start. A position I don't happen to agree with).
If Saddam had half a brain in his head, he'd still be in charge of his country. But he didn't, so he's not.
I have intention of dictating how Iraq should be run if its people have desire to embrace that way of life. Right now, we get to see first hand how difficult it is to impose a government the people aren't willing to fight for, but others are willing to fight to oppose.
I regret that Bush decided to try to use the "liberate Iraq" imagery in his speeches, but announcing "well, if the Iraqi people want a brutal dictator in charge, who are we to argue?" doesn't go over as well.
quote: And confirmed your status as an unthinking, war mongering, unpredictable, dangerous country and utterly destroyed any shred of international credibility.
Schoolyard rules. And while the rest of the world may thumb their collective noses at the US, the countries who do use force as a means of government will sit up and take notice of the suddenly bigger stick in their back yard.
It's a wasted effort to negotiate with people who don't believe in negotiation. Talk all you want - let's hope, however, he's not planning on more direct action.
quote: This, I believe, is why the UN isn't there right now. The US cannot admit that they were wrong and need help and most of the other countries are secretly (and perhaps guiltily) enjoying the chaos too much to offer aid. I'm very disappointed in the world right now.
The US ask for help? Perish the thought. Although the US has approached the UN council asking for a more international presence, not that we actually need help, mind you. </sarcasm>
As I have noted before, the idea of rebuilding a country was bigger than the plate provided and is proving to be un-calculated drain.
However, foreign governments have committed troops and resources to the rebuilding efforts and the process is moving along better than I would have expected.
quote: I see this style of argument a lot and it bothers me. That being "I feel this way." "But you shouldn't. You should feel this other way. And you're stupid not to." The problem here is that you've denied that there is (or even may be) a problem and so have no hope of fixing it (should there be one). It's possible that the Iraqi soccer coach was just a ranting, whining loonie. But I've heard that opinion expressed by Iraqis on the news before and nobody seems to be asking why they feel this nor what could be done to help. Ok, sometimes they ask what could be done and the response is that America has to leave so clearly the other side isn't being helpful either. But that doesn't excuse the casual dismissal that seems to be going on between America and, well, every other country in the world.
Why do they feel this way? That's a good question - because they honestly do? Because they feel pressure to join in the "let's hate America on general principles" bandwagon?
I don't know and truthfully, I don't care. I made the mistake of talking to a Palestinian about the use of suicide bombers and he kept re-phrasing the same arguments. Apparently, if I heard them enough, I'd change my mind about blowing up pizza parlors.
However, I am quite happy to pull American forces out of Iraq and let the Iraqis establish a government they are happy with or are willing to tolerate. Whether it's a western democracy or another popular religious cleric, at least they will have the opportunity to establish the issue themselves and not rail against an occupying force.
quote: Because you did make the mess and it would have been impossible for the UN to draw up any sort of plan in time to save Iraq. In short, you would have been responsible and, I believe, downright evil to be so negligent.
And? Your point being? My only interest is allowing UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to Iraq. If Saddam decided to allow them, I wouldn't be concerned with deposing him. Since he wouldn't, he paid the price for that.
I think you're overly optimistic that a plan could have been drawn up to save Iraq.
As I mentioned in my dog analogy, I don't much care what happens to the people of Iraq. It's not my job nor my obligation to determine whether or not they have freedom or the lifestyle they might prefer.
quote: If you're implying you never should have gone into Iraq and stayed in Afghanistan then we're on the same page and much of this post can be ignored. Certainly the Afghanistan people deserve much more than they've received from the world.
No, I was unclear. After breaking the back of Iraq's military, US forces could have withdrawn and focused on Afghanistan without trying to maintain a presence in Iraq proper.
Which you have pointed out would have been evil and negligent. But I'm rather indifferent to the idea.
quote: I don't actually think this is the case, although I do agree that America probably wouldn't have been able to be in control of the operation. Is this a situation that America is willing to accept? Clearly not.
If I had a better opinion of the UN military capability, I might be more inclined to accept non-American control of the operation.
Not that I think America is capable of doing the better job, but if we're going to sacrifice lives, I'd rather it be due to lack of planning and short-sightedness on the part of American commanders and not an amalgamation of international forces.
quote: You have the most to give. There is no way any other country can possibly equal the money and troops that America commits. And, while I *do* love you for it, I can't help but think that all the bitterness and anger the US has toward the UN is doing a greater disservice than the aid you're currently giving (which you could and most likely would give independent of the UN). If you're consistently undermining the UN you have no business complaining when you shoulder an ever-increasing load. I'm not saying that the UN is perfect, I'm saying that by standing around and bitching on the field no progress can possibly be made. Work to make the UN better or leave and let the remaining countries try to put something together that doesn't include you (a la the ICC). Being stymied in its ineffectual state does no one any favors.
I agree completely. Which is why I would cheerfully pull US forces out of Iraq and let the multi-national force sans US troops play to their hearts' content.
I don't know if I believe there is anger and bitterness towards the UN or not, but I do believe the use of American military forces as a backbone to UN operations is too often perceived as "Pax Americana" and not the mandate of the UN.
And regardless of how much we have to give or waste, as the case may be, a cooperative effort must come from every country shouldering the effort.
Turning over US military resources to the UN to do with as it pleases does not sit well with me.
quote: Complaining that Edwards is twisting what was said or that the Republicans did the same thing is missing the point. You're criticizing a specific move when it's the whole frigging game that they're playing that is bad for the country. Right now, it's whoever plays this game better than the other who is going to win the election.
I hate the game myself. The more someone plays it, the lower my opinion of them. Can you imagine if everyone in the country felt that way? Then whoever did the most mud-slinging would always lose! Then maybe the candidates would get it through their thick heads that America is not willing to play along with their little games.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Truth be told, there wasn't much we could do to win friends. I'm not even concerned with winning friends and influencing people - I am, however, advocating the best possible course of action to further American interests.
The problem here is that you and I have different ideas as to what's in America's best interest. Seeing the rift that has formed between Canada and the US over political name-calling, ideological differences and tariffs leads me to believe that the goodwill of your neighbours is a very valuable thing. You think countries will continue to trade with you and grudgingly behave as if nothing had ever happened. I think countries will do their best to distance themselves from you and work around having to deal with you. Something I also think would have negative reprocussions for the US. (If I'm wrong on your position, do let me know. It'll give you an excuse to write even more next time ) There's really no way to test this theory though, so it's probably just going to be both of us saying the same thing over and over again if we keep this bullet alive. You'll pardon me for glossing over points that brush against this theme that crop up later in your post. If you think I've neglected something just chime in and I'll address it.
I think I should be clearer as to why I think your plan would have been a bad one for Iraq – regardless of how effective the UN could have been. By going in and breaking Iraq's military back and then announcing "That's it! We're out!" You'd be setting everyone up for failure. It's completely outside the realm of possibility that anyone would be able to come up with a strategy for a power transfer between the US (or the whole coalition, we still haven't resolved that) and any UN forces. Especially considering the chaotic quagmire that Iraq was in following the "end of major military action." I'm quite confident when I say that something would have been overlooked and the volatile situation would have absolutely exploded. Which is also why I think it would have been an evil action. Quite simply the States owed Iraq more than that.
Not only that, but I think the prevailing attitude isn't that the US is willing to wantonly roll over whoever stands in its way without a pause to wonder about who or what they destroy (however much there may be grumblings to that regard). If you went in, blew everything up and left there wouldn't be a doubt in most minds that you are, in fact, evil and without conscience. Right now that opinion is left to a radical few. I don't think it would make any "Saddamesque" nations fear you more than you already do. But now we're coming back to that "is international fear and distrust really an issue?" question that we don't seem to agree on.
quote:It's a wasted effort to negotiate with people who don't believe in negotiation. Talk all you want - let's hope, however, he's not planning on more direct action.
Hey, it's the Canadian way
quote:The US ask for help? Perish the thought. Although the US has approached the UN council asking for a more international presence, not that we actually need help, mind you. </sarcasm>
The US has asked for aid to be sent and then spent as it sees fit and troops that would serve under the US. It did not ask for it to be a UN sanctioned activity. This clearly grates on countries who didn't think the war should have happened in the first place. While Bush asked for help he did it in as stinging a manner as possible. By making America run the whole show it smacks of countries condoning their actions which I don't think their populations would've supported. Again, I think they *should* be there. But there's a difference between asking and demanding. In my all-knowing-yet-oh-so-humble eyes both sides are at fault.
quote:However, foreign governments have committed troops and resources to the rebuilding efforts and the process is moving along better than I would have expected.
Not, however, as well as they *could*
quote:Why do they feel this way? That's a good question - because they honestly do? Because they feel pressure to join in the "let's hate America on general principles" bandwagon?
I expect it's more along the lines of still not being safe in their streets, a feeling of no control, foreign armed forces rolling through their streets and a heavily damaged infrastructure that hasn't been fixed yet (things like clean water and electricity). Not that I think these things won't happen, but they haven't yet and it's easy to be bitter when you're the one who's suffering.
quote:I don't know and truthfully, I don't care. I made the mistake of talking to a Palestinian about the use of suicide bombers and he kept re-phrasing the same arguments. Apparently, if I heard them enough, I'd change my mind about blowing up pizza parlors.
Are you implying I support terrorism? I really hope I haven’t given that impression!
quote:However, I am quite happy to pull American forces out of Iraq and let the Iraqis establish a government they are happy with or are willing to tolerate. Whether it's a western democracy or another popular religious cleric, at least they will have the opportunity to establish the issue themselves and not rail against an occupying force.
We agree here, although I think that America should pull out after the Iraqi people have chosen their new government. The trick is whether America will allow a popular cleric to hold that position. I happen to think they won't (and feel free to remind me that I was wrong if they do. I'll quite happily chow down some crow).
quote:Turning over US military resources to the UN to do with as it pleases does not sit well with me
I will completely agree that the UN is not all it could be and there are flaws I would like to see changed (although I haven't come up with said changes yet. I keep waiting and hoping for someone smarter to do it for me ) But I think this touches on why America, as it currently stands, will never be a part of an international government or, really, any international organisation with "teeth." Part and parcel with these types of organisations is a sacrifice of sovereignty, something I never see the US public accepting. Again, I understand the reasons for the fear and that the States has the most to lose, but rightly or wrongly, that’s why it'll never work.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
As long as money is to be made, countries will continue to trade. While goodwill is a nice thing, it doesn't turn the fate of nations. Accountants do that.
My barb about the US never asking for help was more a dig directed at my government than yourself or the UN - I saw the request as a half-hearted cap-in-hand approach rather than a serious effort to make a multi-national agency work.
As to the foreign powers and infrastructure - yep. And how dare those ungrateful Iraqis not appreciate the freedom we've given them! My god, how can they bury those car keys? </sarcasm>
Your point is well made and another reason why I didn't think we should be involved in trying to topple Saddam and rebuild Iraq from the ground up.
As to the Palestinian comment, I was addressing the futility of talking to people who aren't interested in talking. Do some terrorists have legitimate grievances? Sure. Do some people support terrorism as a cat's-paw to their own personal power and ambition? Equally true.
When trying to discuss the issue of Palestinian suicide bombers, this fellow kept talking in circles, revisiting the same arguments hoping that re-phrasing or painting them in a different light would somehow make the practice and target selection more palpatable to me. I think it illustrates, for me, the futility of talking to someone who doesn't want to talk. Which is fine, unless they happen to be holding a knife to your throat.
I don't know - I certainly hope so. By trying to force a western democracy in a country that may or may not want it, we will alienate the countries nearby that are quite happy without challengers to their government choices. But by pulling out earlier, we acknowledge that we cannot force a government in Iraq, nor can we hope to support an upopular choice.
Very true and I cannot dispute that. Although I submit that given the larger numbers of troops we are called upon to support, we have a more vested interest in the effective and effecient capabilities of commanders in the field. If another country was to deploy larger numbers of troops, I suspect they would also share some concerns as to the effectiveness of the operation.
Although "Blackhawk Down" is an example of American mistakes committed by REMFs and beauracrats.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) There's really no way to test this theory though, so it's probably just going to be both of us saying the same thing over and over again if we keep this bullet alive. You'll pardon me for glossing over points that brush against this theme that crop up later in your post. If you think I've neglected something just chime in and I'll address it.
