The following letter was sent to John Kerry's supporters yesterday. Let's not hear any more about how John Kerry and George Bush are the same on the Iraq issue. There IS nuance to this issue, no matter how much people use the term to dismiss the differences.
quote:Dear Nathan,
This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.
Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.
In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.
To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror.
That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.
Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.
In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march."
But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.
According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people.
So do the facts on the ground.
Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.
42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September.
And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion.
We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase.
Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise.
Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.
Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.
Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.
But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.
That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people.
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.
The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.
He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.
His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.
He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.
And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.
At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.
Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today?
This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.
The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.
That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.
This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.
This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.
The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.
They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.
They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.
They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.
In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.
General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?
By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.
Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.
We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.
Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.
Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.
The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.
We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.
The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.
Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.
Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.
The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.
A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."
Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?
I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.
In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.
All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.
Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.
Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.
We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.
First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late.
That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief.
Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter.
And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.
The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.
Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.
Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.
But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?
The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.
Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.
Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.
One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.
Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.
Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.
Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.
Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.
The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.
If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.
This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.
The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.
In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.
At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.
The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.
George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.
George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.
I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.
Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.
If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.
I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I got that too. He sounds sensible to me... But, perhaps he should have condensed it and simplified the language a bit.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Complicated issues - complicated answers. Oversimplification is precisely the reason Bush is in trouble. I must say, if there is one really good thing about Kerry, it's the fact that it'd be nice to have a president who grasps the complexity of the situation, even if it does lead to accusations of waffling.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
Kerry doesn't understand the whole long term goal of the war on terror. His short sightedness is evident here.
There is no democracy in the Arab Middle East. What Bush's intention in going into Iraq was go Give the Iraqi's democracy.
Why?
Because when fundamentalists run the whole area, you aren't going to have any future generations raised that AREN'T terrorists.
As Kerry so obviously forgot, there was a War in Afghanistan as well. A very, very successful war.
In fact, both wars have set a bar so high in terms of military dominance that it is amazing.
Not only that, but as weak as our Economy is (which is HIGHLY debatable). It kicks @ss if one is smart enough to realize that it is an economy of a country involved in THREE WARS. Two abroad and One at home. Compare that to the economies of any other country involved in THREE WARS at the same time.
I CRINGE to see what would happen if Kerry takes over. It is a very uncertain proposition to say the least.
Also, as for casualties both OURS and THEIRS (civillians) there has never been a WAR in history with as few casualties for a war of this length in the history of the world.
President Clinton's foray's into the Serbia/Croatia ended with more civillian casualties than presently had in Iraq.
quote:He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
If he lied, then President Clinton lied to the American people by launching 75 cruise missles at a Pill Factory in Sudan, which is an unprovoked attack and an Act of War?
Did Clinton LIE in his act of war?
He should have taken Osama bin Laden when he was OFFERED to him.
And let's be honest here.
Kerry served in Vietnam for 4 months. He is to be commended for that service, even though he admits to committing war crimes.
Would we elect the Abu Ghraib prison guards to be president of the United States? EVER?
Why would a self professed Vietnam War Criminal be fit to lead our country as Commander in Chief, and yet we decry the humiliation at Abu Ghraib at the hands of our Prison Guards?
Also he fought for our military for 4 months, then he came home and fought AGAINST our military for HOW LONG?
Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. He did. He should bear the consequences of that voice.
He attacks the President's Vietnam Era service, while the President hails his and recognizes it as greater than his own.
Then he DENIES the requests to have his complete military record revealed.
What is he hiding?
And NO don't expect CBS to even have that thought occur to them to sue to have it released under the freedom of information act.
Liberal Media indeed.
quote: His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
Actually the Operation is called "Iraqi Freedom" not "X-WMD's" or "Sept. 11th Reprisal".
The first issue always announced as the reason to go into Iraq was the Liberation of the Iraqi People from the Sadaam Hussein regime.
That has always been the #1 reason. The other reasons were all secondary, but vitally important as well.
quote:The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.
He doesn't know ANYTHING about Iraq than what he sees on the Evening News. Ignorance in a President is NOT what I look for.
Speak to the troops on the Ground. Speak to the Children going to their new schools.
The Majority of the Population want us there until their country is in a shape to inherit.
You are not there Mr. Kerry. My Family Members ARE.
And they say YOU are a liar.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, is a fool. And Kerry is their king.
quote: They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
Again, there is a growing police force in Iraq and a growing Military force.
Kerry, you are ignorant and wrong.
quote: They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
And WHERE did the administration say that? Hint Mr. Kerry, they did not.
quote: We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
And where is the Time Machine to go back in time Mr. Kerry to act on what we NOW know?
Perhaps that's Mr. Gore's next new invention to come after the internet.
quote:Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.
So are we to assume that Mr. Kerry advocates the Invasion of SouthWestern Pakistan? Please be clear about this point to us. All indications are that Osama is hiding in the Wahabbist districts of Southern Pakistan?
Tell us Mr. Kerry, after you are elected, when do we invade?
I could go ON and ON.
But the Topic is "Kerry's Position on Iraq".
There is no POSITION HERE? All this is is Kerry talking about the past!
It's a Michael Moore bash bush film without the fat guy.
What are his plans?
We STILL don't know.
Maybe HE doesn't know what the hell he's going to do.
I don't think he does.
Or that if he does, he's afraid to tell, because he'll lose the election.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Must not feed the troll.
Must not feed the troll.
Its hard, but must not feed the troll.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
So difficult.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Don't feel like you have to reply to him, guys. Chad's currently so bilious that he even makes the cogent arguments of people who agree with him sound more ridiculous by association.
When he figures this out, though, he might at the very least be able to aspire to Lambertness. I await that day eagerly.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually I think he's doing more for Liberalism and Senator Kerry than anyone else on this board.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm struggling with competing emotions.
Part of me is so very grateful the troll is arguing a position other than mine.
The other, probably better part of me, feels bad for the thoughtful people who share his (the troll's) position, but are probably banging their heads over the content.
[ September 21, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:As Kerry so obviously forgot, there was a War in Afghanistan as well. A very, very successful war.
Hahahahahaha. Try getting your news from somebody other than Fox.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Because when fundamentalists run the whole area, you aren't going to have any future generations raised that AREN'T terrorists.
The Baath regime was secular. Iraq was the LEAST fundamentalist of the major nations in the area.
quote:Not only that, but as weak as our Economy is (which is HIGHLY debatable). It kicks @ss if one is smart enough to realize that it is an economy of a country involved in THREE WARS. Two abroad and One at home. Compare that to the economies of any other country involved in THREE WARS at the same time.
In the 1940's this was the case in the U.S., and it caused our economy to boom.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If only his "facts" were accurate... Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I like Kerry's letter.... very good.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Very intelligent and it doesn't have.... This... tone that Bush's things tend to take. Don't ask me what it is, because I can't describe it, it just drives me up a tree.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I was very surprised by this letter. I've recieved nothing but crap from Cahill and Kerry since I signed up for their newsletter. All of a sudden I get a bold, clear, fact based policy statement that includes not only an indictment of President Bush, but also an explanation of his votes on the issue and a plan for the future. Of course the sentences that begin "I would have" will always seem disingenuous coming from anybody, since hindsight is 20/20, but in a campaign such as this one, they are a necessary evil.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think Kerry is attempting to change his campaign strategy to be more substance and more aggressive after his declines last month.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I found it interesting that Kerry is giving Bush specific advice. What happens if Bush takes this advice? Some of it seems like what Bush would do anyway (the UN summit meeting bit, e.g.). Will Bush now deliberately avoid doing what Kerry said he should?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
To which I say:
ABOUT DAMN TIME!
I have been watching as his campaign, the best chance this country has to get rid of George W. Bush and reform the Health care system, regain at least some of our foreign policy position we once enjoyed, and bring the defecits down, wastes all its airtime and political capital arguing about what happened 30 years ago. When you know for SURE that the news networks are talking about Vietnam via the swiftvets ads, you HAVE to know that the sound bite they are going to pick from your speech, though it be full of policy decisions and erudite thoughtful plans for the nation's future, will be the thirty second rebuttal of the ads. You then LOSE any chance for your real message to be heard.
BTW, the bush camp released a response to this calling it yet another Kerry flip flop. You would think they would get tired of that phrase, especially when it's not true.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I doubt Bush will get anywhere even if he does take Kerry's advice. He has already spent all the political capital he has. The interesting thing is that Kerry is also advocating offering those nations a carrot, namely a share of the rebuilding contracts, if they assist in the security effort. This would have the advantage of taking the American face off of the occupation, thus reducing the resentment of the Iraqis, and also giving the rest of the world an indication that we value them. However, and this is a big one, it would also really piss off Halliburton, who had the exclusive contract to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. I somehow doubt Bush will go down that road.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Like McCain! I actually like McCain for some reason. Still... How on earth did the republicans pick George over John McCain!
Alas....
Still, I would definitely not place myself in the "anybody but Bush" camp, though I liked Dean better than Kerry. Still, when you can only pick one of two to actually be elected (sorry Nader, but that's just not the way our system works, buddy!) then one candidate being a bad choice IS an important reason to vote for the other, no matter how much people don't want to admit it. Now, if the other is not ideal, but is better, then the vote is still important. Fortunately, we aren't in that severe a situation right now, as Kerry is not a "slightly better than awful candidate running against an awful one," he is a good candidate who has run a mediocre campaign. This letter, I hope, spells the beginning of his actual fight. I look forward to the debates in a week.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Actually the Operation is called "Iraqi Freedom" not "X-WMD's" or "Sept. 11th Reprisal".
The first issue always announced as the reason to go into Iraq was the Liberation of the Iraqi People from the Sadaam Hussein regime.
That has always been the #1 reason. The other reasons were all secondary, but vitally important as well.
Wow.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
We have always been at war with Oceania.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Icarus, Eastasia, man, Eastasia.
-Bok
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Sure, but what's the point of winning (from the party's perspective) if the candidate doesn't stand for what it wants? Better to lose and let the other party ruin the country for four years.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Are you referring to the democrats' supposed support for pulling troops out of Iraq now? I seriously doubt that Kerry could be said to "not support what the party wants" in that regard. All of the primary candidates, even Kucinich the most notoriously "anti-war" were against leaving a power vaccuum in Iraq. The position has been that since the Iraqi insurgency is fighting against American occupation, the occupation should be internationalized. I'm sure if you go around asking Democrats "Do you want our troops out of Iraq" of course you would get tons of people saying "yes of course." But if you qualify the question with "do you want our troops out of Iraq even if that means leaving a power vacuum or hostile regime in power" I'm sure the answer would reluctantly be changed. The rest of Kerry's positions are fairly traditional Democratic values like pro-union, health care reform, tax reform, etc.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
how does McCain not stand for what the republican party wants?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I hope when you are calling people TROLLS you are referring to the original poster.
I haven't called anyone on this thread any names.
Shame on you. Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I would sure love it if this didn't turn into just another general bash Bush/bash Kerry back and forth.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I hate to say it, but I don't remember. It's been long enough that I couldn't recall McCain's platform, except that he seemed at the time to be well to the left of the party. I'm currently reading up at a site called "On The Issues" and unless there is something I haven't gotten to yet, I retract the comment--I was wrong.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i seem to remember him being pretty middle-of-the-road republican; lower taxes, smaller government, individual rights, pro-life, etc etc.
and on top of that he's intelligent, trustworthy, prinicpled, and interested in representative democracy.
i'd vote for him, even though i don't really agree with him on most points.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Oh cool! I'm a troll, now! Okay Chad, fine. I haven't really go the time to go through your post line by line, but perhaps the line that offended my sense of reality the most was the one about how the primary reason for the war was humanitarian solely because the operation was named "Iraqi Freedom." Surely you jest. In every speech Bush gave pre-war, the conditions of the people in Iraq were little more than footnotes to the supposed weapons of mass destruction Saddam possessed, and even now he justifies the war based on his then-belief in those weapons. Many people, including myself, believed that Saddam possessed WMDs at that time. However, that does not excuse the fact that Bush failed to use the threat of force Congress had allowed him to pressure Saddam into letting the weapons inspectors to do their job. They had unprecedented access at the time we pulled them out so we could invade. Had they been allowed to complete their work, perhaps we would have realized there were no weapons to be found. Either way, though, your assertion that we really went in for humanitarian reasons is patently absurd.
Furthermore, even if that were the case, it would still be a disaster, as rather than liberating the people of Iraq, we have created in their land a state of anarchy. In those cities where we haven't the strength to impose martial law, insurgents rule the streets and our military dares not enter. What Kerry says so eloquently in the above letter is that these problems were not unforseen consequences, but predictable and, in fact, predicted.
I also remember a poll not too long ago that Time did showing Iraqi support for the Americans. At the start of the war it was about 70% if I remember correctly. In March of this year, it had fallen to about 30% confidence. Those that actively opposed American involvement had shot up as well.
The reason nobody wants to respond to your attacks is that, however well intentioned they are, they show a complete disconnect with reality. Furthermore, they reflect quite admirably all the spin that the right wing pundits have been spouting.
When no weapons were forthcoming, the administration stopped talking about weapons and starting talking about the humanitarian situation. So have you.
When John Kerry bounced in the polls after a convention focusing on his military service, a group mysteriously surfaced to denounce that very service, against all documentation and evidence. So have you.
I understand that your post doesn't fall under the traditional definition of trolling, but it contained so many varied and eclectic statements that were so far from being supported even by most of those who support President Bush, that I think most of us are at a loss as to how to respond other than to write you off as a troll. If you have any basis for your attacks, or can address Kerry's letter without silly ad hominem, then I'm all ears.
Trollfully yours, "The original poster"
(or were you referring to Kerry himself as the original poster?)
[ September 21, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: IdemosthenesI ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Adam, from what I've seen the only ways in which Dubya expanded government have to do with the Patriot act and other anti-terrorism laws. We can argue about the details and effectiveness of those laws, but I can't imagine anyone short of a libertarian saying we don't need some kind of regulation in that area.
In regards to fiscal responsibility, Republicans generally believe it should be achieved by spending less, not by taxing more. The trouble is that it is very hard to get Congress to shut down programs of any kind, because everybody's got a lobby pleading with their congresspeople to keep those programs. So the Republicans have tried to "starve out" programs by cutting taxes; unfortunately the Democrats (and some Republicans with pet projects) have stuck to their guns, with the result being increasing deficits. If Congress would get the picture and tailor its spending to available revenue, cutting taxes might work.
Lastly, while Bush hasn't reinstated the draft or anything, I'm not sure why you'd think he's not favoring the military.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I would like to retract my statement that anyone who thinks Kerry is NOT a fool, is a fool. Sorry.
To paraphrase someone elses verbige. I know that some think he's the greatest thing since Jesus Christ. Please don't feel bad to have me screw up and say Kerry supporters are fools.
Just like no one here has ever made that assumption or assertation about Bush supporters.
[ September 21, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Macc, what is the worst thing one can do for the military. I would posit that cutting spending is probably not it. The absolute worst thing a government can do to its soldiers is send them off to die for a reason that was either not truthful or not verified. Similarly, you can bet that John Kerry would not be anti-military (spn on his 87 billion dollar gaffe notwithstanding.) His top priority in Iraq is getting international reinforcement for them so that some of them can come home! I would think that would count for something in the public sphere.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: So the Republicans have tried to "starve out" programs by cutting taxes; unfortunately the Democrats (and some Republicans with pet projects) have stuck to their guns, with the result being increasing deficits. If Congress would get the picture and tailor its spending to available revenue, cutting taxes might work.
There are Republicans who are uncomfortable with both the extent of the tax cuts and the rate of spending.
They can't be heard over their President right now, though. He's mostly talking increases in budgets for education, defense and a heck of a lot of other areas - at least until he gets re-elected.
I recall that the draft budget from the White House for 2005 leaked out and there were substantial cuts in programs that the Bush administration is currently supporting. Conveniently, the very bad news will come after this coming election.
[ September 21, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The worst thing you can do for any program is to try to starve it closed.
You cut money from project A, those siphoning thier own funds have no insentive to cut their graft and greed. They just cut the services provided. This causes the unserved public to demand that the funds be reallocated.
What it does do is give the politicians a chance to look like hero's without doing anything difficult. "We cut their budget to get rid of the overhead." It did not get rid of the overhead, just fed it.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
So, Dan, what's the best way to get rid of a program? (Assume that the money hogs aren't willing to let it be directly voted out.) I'm not a politician or a bureaucrat, nor do I know anyone who might tell me how to get around the hurdles you mentioned.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote:Four words: Department of Homeland Security.
Exactly what I said--measures intended to fight terrorism (with admitted questions about their utility).
quote:"If Congress would get the picture"? That statement itself is a bit irresponsible. Can you imagine the blowup that would have occured if the $87 billion for the Iraq war didn't pass in Congress? Or the Every Child Left Behind Act?
If Congress believed those programs shouldn't have existed, they had every right to say "We're not gonna fund these, so you'd better not send them through." And then do exactly what they said they would.
quote:We'd probably still have a deficit without the tax decreases, which is why I consider the tax decreases to be so ridiculous. This isn't even a case of a Republican administration trying to cut taxes and a Democratic Congress refusing to cut programs, since the Republicans control both chambers of Congress.
Um...what would have happened to that surplus everyone keeps saying Dubya squandered? It'd still have been eaten up? Are you saying you're in favor of having still more of your money taxed away by inefficient, greedy bureaucrats, just so long as it's not for a war?
And, as I said, there are certain Republicans with pet projects who won't give them up. Along with these fat cats, there are enough Democrats to block program cuts.
quote:Bottom line is that in order to have fiscal responsibility, there needed to be money to pay for the tax cuts BEFORE the tax cuts were proposed. Not only was there not money, but there were planned spending increases.
*cough* surplus *cough*
quote:Sending troops to Iraq with no clear plan for what to do once we overthrew the standing Iraqi government was guaranteed to result in the needless deaths of American troops.
Granted. I misunderstood you.
quote: Going to Iraq alone in the first place put an undue burden on our military, which is now dangerously overtaxed. This is definitely not favoring our military.
Granted again. Though it is a shame the UN can't be bothered to follow through on its resolutions and leaves us to do the work alone.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Though it is a shame the UN can't be bothered to follow through on its resolutions and leaves us to do the work alone.
Sorry, I had to copy and paste that to make sure it said what I thought. What?!?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The U.N. follows through on it's resolutions in the way it deems best.
In this case, the U.N.'s judgement was better than ours: we've discovered Iraq had no WMDs, and thus that the U.N. successfully disarmed Iraq without the need for an invasion.
Thus, to blame the U.N. for the costs of a war that we CHOSE to take on ourselves, against the advice of the U.N., makes little sense.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Chris, we've been over this. The UN passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq--then decided the best course of action was to sit on its collective behind. So the US (unwisely, I now realize) chose to act on its behalf, and the UN and most of the assorted member nations told us to stay out of it. Finally, when we realized we were in over our heads, Bush started asking for help and the UN responded, "Nuh-uh, you made the mess, you clean it up"--notwithstanding the cost in human lives. (To clarify--they were willing to help, but only if we let them run the place. Perhaps we should have let them, but it didn't seem smart at the time.)
We aren't smelling like roses on this thing, but the UN should bear its share of the blame.
[ September 21, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Now hold on, Macc. I wish that the United Nations would just up and say "sure we'll come in and help you out of this mess you got yourselves into" out of the goodness of their hearts, but I don't think that's realistic considering we've basically told them to go Cheney themselves on more than one occasion. About the time we declared victory, Bush announced that the only incentive for helping out, by which I mean the lucrative rebuilding contracts, would go to nations that had been in the "coalition" from the beginning. To put it another way, the U.S. and a whole bunch of tiny nations that couldn't take the contracts if they wanted them. That's what Kerry refers to above when he suggests that the huge UN meeting this week would be a good opportunity to offer that incentive to the world community. We can't expect the U.N. to help us if we still refuse to let them help us.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Agreed, Demosthenes. It is clear that things are not working out (and maybe I should have known this from the beginning, but unlike Dubya I am not expected to know all about the strength of our military), and we should give anything non-ludicrous for assistance. (By nonludicrous, I mean that we shouldn't hand over Oklahoma or something.)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Actually every speech I have read of Dubya (as some people call him) before the War has him listing the FREEDOM of the Iraqi people.
Perhaps if you could provide me with the complete texts of speeches dealing with ALL the reasons we went to war PRE-Invasion, I would be more apt to change my view.
Just because you say that WMD's was the #1 reason, I don't remember it ever being presented as such by Dubya, but do specifically remember the freedom of the Iraqi people being principal? Why? Because for me the WMD's wasn't reason enough for ME to justify going to war at that time.
But the name of the whole ongoing operation "Iraqi Freedom" lends creedence to the notion that we went in there primarily to establish a Middle Eastern democracy.
quote: Furthermore, even if that were the case, it would still be a disaster, as rather than liberating the people of Iraq, we have created in their land a state of anarchy. In those cities where we haven't the strength to impose martial law, insurgents rule the streets and our military dares not enter. What Kerry says so eloquently in the above letter is that these problems were not unforseen consequences, but predictable and, in fact, predicted.
Have WE created a state of Anarcy or have the Insurgents? If you remove the Insurgents there is no Anarchy.
There WAS a fragile stability in those areas you mentioned. It was the Insurgency that caused the instability to worsen.
I place blame where it lies, with those chopping off the heads, bombing the police stations and churches. Those willing to do ANYTHING to force Wahabbist Shariah on the populace.
THEY have created the state of Anarchy and instability.
Was it forseen. It was a probable a scenario as any number of THOUSANDS of other possible scenarios. From a Shia vs. Suni Uprising, to Iran invading to the Kurds withdrawing from Iraq to being invaded from the North.
There are as many possible scenarios for the outcome of Iraq as there are possible ways for terrorists to attack this country.
Can we predict all of them? If we learn from 9/11, then no we can't unless you want to put the whole population in Jail. And that is precisely what we are NOT trying to do.
Was it short sighted? I am sure on some fronts it was. I guarantee you that replacing Bush with someone else would have not have made for a perfect war either.
Kerry claims he would have done everything different. How do we know that it wouldn't have actually turned out worse or better? We don't. It's all speculation. Hind sight is 20/20.
You can't use information we know now to judge the past where that information was not known.
But people attempt to do that every day.
quote: I also remember a poll not too long ago that Time did showing Iraqi support for the Americans. At the start of the war it was about 70% if I remember correctly. In March of this year, it had fallen to about 30% confidence. Those that actively opposed American involvement had shot up as well.
So your poll shows Kerry Lied because he says Americans were NOT greeted as liberators. You just posted a poll that said at the beginning of the war 70% of Iraqis supported the Americans.
That means he is misleading people with his statement.
Kerry himself says (but it changes daily) that he would have still gone to war, but differently. That still leaves Abu Ghraib, which in turn fuels the insurgency.
quote: The reason nobody wants to respond to your attacks is that, however well intentioned they are, they show a complete disconnect with reality. Furthermore, they reflect quite admirably all the spin that the right wing pundits have been spouting.
Your whole original post is an "Ode du Kerry" and because I see him for something else is not acceptable.
I apologized for my "Fool" remark.
But I will say this.
Kerry did admit to committing War Crimes. It's a matter of Public Record. It's documented on FILM.
He participated in actions that were against the Geneva Conventions regarding Warfare.
I don't think anyone can dispute that fact.
I think what happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong. I think what Kerry did was wrong. I am not going to vote any of the Abu Ghraib prison guards EVER for Commander in Chief.
I will not vote an untried Vietnam War Criminal to be commander in chief either.
If you are denying that Kerry participated in acts against the Geneva Convention or that he admitted such under oath (and on Dick Caveat) then that is another issue.
The Swift Boat vets is another issue I didn't reference, but they have as much right to voice their version of what happened as Liberals have the right to invent stories about Dubya's Service.
But at least they didn't invent phony documents to try and prove their point. They based it off of their experiences and memories, which they have a right to do.
I do take issue with Kerry attempting to CENSOR them by asking the FCC to remove their ads and actual DNC members attempting to have "Unfit for Command" removed from Booksellers shelves.
What did you expect people who think Kerry is a Horrible choice for Commander in Chief to respond to your post?
Why did you post it? Were you trolling? No more so than I.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
That is the difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush on Iraq as it stands now. George W. Bush today asked te UN for help with Iraq, but so far has shown no willingness to sacrifice Halliburton's exclusivity to get it. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground in Iraq gets worse. Kerry has proposed that perhaps diplomacy consists of not just take, but also give. The end of Halliburton's exclusivity would be the beginning of the much maligned "more sensitive" war on terror, and I doubt we'll see it from Bush.
Oklahoma? Hmmm...
*thinks about making a snide comment on how Oklahoma reminds me of another President who showed utter disregard for friendly nations by kicking them off of their treaty-protected land and forcing them to trek across the country with tremendous loss of human life onto a worthless patch of arid scrubland.... but decides against it*
[ September 21, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: IdemosthenesI ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You can't give them Oklahoma. That's the piece of craptastic land we sent the Indians to years ago. (forgiveness if I offended any Okies)
Trust me, they've been screwed over enough. I say give them....Florida. Saves the cost of having to rebuild it.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
That's why I intend (albeit reluctantly) to vote for Kerry, Demosthenes. I'm not happy about it, as he doesn't share most of my views, but on those other things I suspect a competent leader for the other side may actually be better than an incompetent leader for mine.
quote: Oklahoma? Hmmm...
*thinks about making a snide comment on how Oklahoma reminds me of another President who showed utter disregard for friendly nations by kicking off of their treaty-protected land and forcing them to trek across the country with tremendous human life onto a worthless patch of arid scrubland.... but decides against it*
Why do you think I brought it up, Demosthenes? I'd agree with any such comment (started to say "without reservation" before I realized that could be taken as a pun). I was thinking of an analogy I made a couple of years ago, comparing the reaction of the Palestineans to Israel with how Americans might react if the UN were to declare Tennessee a Cherokee State. Though I did finally change my mind as the suicide bombing casualties piled higher.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
It is true that one cannot plan for every possible outcome. for example, had aliens swooped in from Mars and opened up a second front in downtown Cleveland, I would not blame George Bush and his administration for not having forseen it. However, if one is going to invade a country and topple a government, it is the most basic of sociological principles that you can not simply topple said government without something else to immediately replace it. Otherwise you end up with insurgency. period. And frankly, I DO consider Bush and co. responsible for the situation on the ground because it was their action that led to the insurgency! They are the government of Iraq right now, and they are doing a pretty crappy job of things like providing basic services and being fair to the people. If our government did the things in America that they are doing in Iraq, we would probably have insurgency here, too. And yes, I'm referring to things like Abu Ghraib and the fact that electricity is less reliable now than it was under Hussein. And I would be interested to see, given Hussein's history, how many years it would take him to kill as many civilians as we have during this whole mess. The humanitarian card is not one Bush can truthfully play here. How would it have been different under Kerry? Under Kerry, we would never have invaded because we would have waited for the confirmation on the WMDs.
And before you say anything else, if Bush cares so deeply about humanitarian issues, where are our ground forces in Sudan??
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Scratch that. Where WERE our ground forces in Sudan. Just saw the good news from today.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The UN passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq--then decided the best course of action was to sit on its collective behind.
And again, the UN did not sit on its collective behind. It put the pressure on Iraq and SUCCEEDED in getting it to disarm all its WMDs without any war. Thus, the UN was right.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Open up your eyes.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Who? What are we opening our eyes to? You are for Nader, right Thor?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I think Bush is a lousy leader.
My vote is going to Kerry.
Kerry may not be great, but compared to Bush he's a triple crown winner.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Iraq did not completely comply with UN demands. One of the demands was to prove that the weapons that Iraq possessed had been destroyed. To date, there is no proof that they have been destroyed, that I know of. Where did these weapons go?
A kid brings a three bombs to school. Everyone sees that he has the bombs, he even blows up two people to show that he is 1337. The kid then hides out in the lunchroom, is caught by the police-- but there is no third bomb. He refuses to produce the bomb, demanding that the authorities believe he's doesn't have any more, even though EVERYONE in school saw that he had three.
What do you expect the authorities to do?
Do you think that John Kerry is going to disrupt current operations in a fragile economy and country simply for the sake of pluralism? Perhaps new contracts will go to new, international contractors under Kerry's administration, but you can bet that he's not going to take away from Halliburton's presence.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Well considering his position on the issue, it appears to go like this. Very little of the money that was appropriated in the infamous 87 billion dollars has actually been spent, presumably because Halliburton is working at capacity in Iraq and obviously can't do everything at once. Also, Iraqis have seen no significant improvement in basic services like electricity. As far as I can tell, Kerry wants to bring in additional contractors from nations on the fence to give them an incentive to contribute their military support, and to speed the process of showing the Iraqi people we are serious about rebuilding.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:What do you expect the authorities to do?
Agree on a course of action - as opposed to agreeing on a course of action, and then having one individual authority ignore that agreement and go out on his own to kill that kid if he doesn't talk.
[ September 22, 2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
A course of action was agreed on. From one point of view, the UN reneged on its obligations to secure Iraq militarily, after Iraq repeatedly broke the treaty made after the Gulf War.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Have WE created a state of Anarcy or have the Insurgents? If you remove the Insurgents there is no Anarchy."
*giggle* I like this reasoning. It's both straightforward and clueless.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No course of action agreed upon ever agreed to invasion.
The U.N. only has an obligation to do what is agreed upon as best. It did exactly that. It decided war would be unnecessary and counterproductive, and given all the destruction it has caused and the fact that there were no WMDs, I would say their judgment on that matter was fine.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
^ what adam said.
I saw on a news program where, as much as some people don't like Haliburton, it was truly the only company that had the expertise and resources to do what they are doing over there.
Farmgirl
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xap-- at the time, most of the people in the UN took it for granted that there WERE WMD in Iraq.
Do they have your support because they waffled, and came out on top?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
They didn't waffle. They understood the merits of innocent until proven guilty, and that some punishments were too extreme to undergo without following proper proceedures and ensuring that they are absolutely necessary first.
To call measured responses to complex situations waffling is just asking for foolish decision making, and thus disaster.
[ September 22, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I see the UN's (and the US') failure to act militariliy on Iraq's violation of the Gulf War treaty as a form of appeasement, or at worse, indulgence.
If WMD's had been found, would you be singing praises to Bush for making the right call, and denigrating the UN for their indecision and cowardice?
[ September 22, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I keep hearing about how Haliburton is EXCLUSIVELY the only contractor in Iraq.
I ask the question...
Of all the innocent contractors beheaded in Iraq...
How many worked for Haliburton OR a company employed by Haliburton?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The proof remains in the pudding, though. Until WMDs are found in Iraq, any claims that the U.N. was not following through on disarming Iraq simply contradict the evidence.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's only if the weapons inspectors goal ONLY including the discovery and disarmament of WMDs.
Their responsabilities also including finding documentation that the WMD's Saddaam had at the end of the gulf war had been destoryed.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Are you suggesting the U.N. has a duty to invade nations, overthrow governments, and kill thousands of innocents over incomplete documentation? Don't you think there's a possibility the world, collectively, might decide that is not worth it - that lighter sanctions might be more approriate?
Is the U.S. government waffling on it's duty to protect Americans when it doesn't execute businessmen who fail to have complete accounting practices? Do I have the right to decide to take it upon myself to execute them whenever I feel thet government isn't doing its job as quickly or as completely enough as I would want it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:over incomplete documentation?
Incomplete why? Why are the WMD's missing? Where did they go?
Were they sold to terrorists? Were they destroyed? If they were destroyed, please present evidence. If they were sold to terrorists, please provide credit card numbers. . .
We're not talking about Buxley forgetting to turn in March's sales numbers, Xap. These are weapons that take financing and skill. Weapons that have been used to wipe out cultures.
quote:lighter sanctions might be more approriate?
You do realize that Iraq had already been under heavy sanctions for 10+ years before the Iraqi invasion, correct? Sanctions rarely touch policy-makers. See Cuba and Iraq for examples.
quote:Is the U.S. government waffling on it's duty to protect Americans when it doesn't execute businessmen who fail to have complete accounting practices?
YES. I don't know about execution, but the corporate scandals hurt the economy and American confidence far more than 9/11. Shame on the government for not using the Great Big Paddle of Justice sooner on the Big Fat Behinds of corporate sleaze bags.
quote:Do I have the right to decide to take it upon myself to execute them whenever I feel thet government isn't doing its job as quickly or as completely enough as I would want it?
Xap, this argument is invalid. Your relationship to the government is not the same as the U.S. relationship to the U.N.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:We're not talking about Buxley forgetting to turn in March's sales numbers, Xap. These are weapons that take financing and skill.
So you DO think we should invade nations and kill thousands over missing paperwork then, assuming those papers concern things of importance?
It seems to me the appropriate thing to do is send in auditors - a.k.a. weapons inspectors - and then let them find out what the papers would have said. And accept their conclusions, rather than ignore their conclusions and invade anyway.
quote:You do realize that Iraq had already been under heavy sanctions for 10+ years before the Iraqi invasion, correct? Sanctions rarely touch policy-makers.
And yet those sanctions succeeded in eliminating the WMDs, did they not?
quote:YES. I don't know about execution, but the corporate scandals hurt the economy and American confidence far more than 9/11.
You "don't know about" execution? The U.N. didn't know about invasion of Iraq (favoring lesser punishments) and then you blamed them for doing nothing. Isn't by the same logic the U.S. doing nothing if they don't apply the harshest possible punishment to all conceivable crimes?
quote:Your relationship to the government is not the same as the U.S. relationship to the U.N.
Why not? The U.S. government makes rules for citizens to follow within our nation, based on our joint consent to be governed by them. The U.N. makes rules for nations to follow in the international arena, based on our joint consent to allow them to. Why would individual nations get to overrule the U.N. and do whatever they want while individual citizens do not get to overrule the U.S. government and do whatever they want? It seems to me that when you consent to a rule-making body and expect others to be bound by that body's decisions, you must also expect to be bound by those same decisions - whether you are a citizen, state, or nation.
[ September 22, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think aliens took the WMD's. That or the genie from the lamp made them disappear.
But there still is the very, very real possibility that he did have WMD's and that they were buried, or smuggled through the fluid border of Syria.
We really don't know.
All we do know is that there have been no WMD's found (parephenalia is a different story) and that it's probable that there were none. It's also just as probable that he did have some (since he had used them in the past) and that we can't find them due to any number of reasons.
The facts are to me at least that no WMD's have been found thus far and it's probable that they may never be found.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: So you DO think we should invade nations and kill thousands over missing paperwork then, assuming those papers concern things of importance?
I'll just say that it's not "missing paperwork". It's we threaten you with force for 10 years and you still don't cooperate but our commander in chief has no balls to do anything about it (to busy inventing new uses for cigars).
Someone comes to power who reacts when we are attacked, etc. etc.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So you DO think we should invade nations and kill thousands over missing paperwork then, assuming those papers concern things of importance?
I believe that the United Nations showed its efficacy in International Hemming and Hawing with the way that it dealt with Iraq's treaty-breaking.
I believe that the majority of UN members thought Iraq had both the desire to use WMD and the capability to do so, and made a conscious decision to not do anything to change the status quo.
I believe that most UN members understood that sanctions would never prove effective in dealing with Sadaam's recalcitrance.
quote:It seems to me the appropriate thing to do is send in auditors - a.k.a. weapons inspectors - and then let them find out what the papers would have said. And accept their conclusions, rather than ignore their conclusions and invade anyway.
We tried. For years, we tried. We got a good count of the weapons back after the Gulf War, and then UN inspectors got tossed out. When they were let back in, all the weapons they'd documented had disappeared, and there was no trace of where they had gone. And no one in Sadaam's regime could provide any details as to where the weapons went off to.
quote:And yet those sanctions succeeded in eliminating the WMDs, did they not?
No, that's not the conclusion I reached at all.
Do you have evidence that Sadaam had the WMD destroyed because of the sanctions? Because if you do, Kofi Anan wants to talk to you.
quote: Isn't by the same logic the U.S. doing nothing if they don't apply the harshest possible punishment to all conceivable crimes?
There's a difference between hiding your accountant in Colorado, and hiding serin gas in Nevada, wouldn't you say?
quote: The U.N. makes rules for nations to follow in the international arena, based on our joint consent to allow them to.
But the UN does not have consent to make international law at all, because it lacks the confidence and trust of the member nations. It is ineffective, toothless, and fairly worthless. Much like the first Continental Congress. It could become great, and perhaps should become great-- but you're doing no one any favors by thinking that it is the be-all-end-all of international law right now.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I believe that the majority of UN members thought Iraq had both the desire to use WMD and the capability to do so, and made a conscious decision to not do anything to change the status quo.
I believe that most UN members understood that sanctions would never prove effective in dealing with Sadaam's recalcitrance.
Is there any evidence for these beliefs, though?
I have evidence against them. For one thing, these two beliefs seem contradictory - why would UN members consciously want to not do anything against Iraq if they simultaneously thought the status quo would never prove effective? And for another thing, statements made repeatedly from UN members against the Iraq War directly contradict you claims - stating that (1)they wanted to change the status quo, and (2)they felt further sanctions would work. Now you are asking me to believe they were deliberately lying in those statements, and to instead believe their actual opinions are something that makes little sense - why?
quote:Do you have evidence that Sadaam had the WMD destroyed because of the sanctions?
Why else would he? For one thing, the U.S. WMD search team just recently concluded Saddam likely discontinued the weapons programs because of international pressure, and was waiting for the pressure to end before he looked into restarting them. I believe I linked to that in my recent Iraq War thread.
quote:There's a difference between hiding your accountant in Colorado, and hiding serin gas in Nevada, wouldn't you say?
Yes, but I also said there was a difference between having serin gas and not having the papers that prove you don't. You didn't accept that difference as critical, so why accept this one?
quote:But the UN does not have consent to make international law at all, because it lacks the confidence and trust of the member nations. It is ineffective, toothless, and fairly worthless.
If that were true, why are we still a member of it?
Heck, most Americans lack confidence in the U.S. government. That doesn't mean they can ignore laws and dispense justice themselves.
[ September 22, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
This latest piece by Richard Wolffe sums up my feelings on Iraq pretty well:
quote:
In the U.S., the biggest question remains: when will American troops come home from Iraq? Speaking at the United Nations on Tuesday, Bush made it clear again that his goal was a permanent, stable democracy in a terrorist-free Iraq. “Today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled,” he told the world’s leaders. Given the state of the insurgency in Iraq, and the number of coalition troops there, that’s going to be a very long-term deployment. The coalition’s track record in Afghanistan gives little ground to be optimistic about withdrawing troops any time soon. And the fact that Iraq has served as a recruitment zone for new terrorists suggests it will take decades to rid the country of violent groups.
In contrast, Kerry predicted a day earlier that if everything went according to his plans, U.S. troops could start to be withdrawn as early as next summer. Kerry even forecast that all the troops could “realistically” come home within four years, if all goes well in Iraq. That kind of prediction is as unrealistic as the idea that the United States is going to stay in Iraq until the nation is stable and democratic.
If both candidates are true to their commitment to Iraqi democracy, there’s no chance of troops coming home for a decade or more. In the meantime, the number of troops (American, international or Iraqi) will have to climb sharply, in line with Sen. John McCain’s long-standing call for more boots on the ground. Are the candidates willing to discuss that option, or are they going to talk vaguely about winning the war and the unthinkable prospect of failure? That’s the kind of detail that voters need before Nov. 2.
quote: All we do know is that there have been no WMD's found (parephenalia is a different story) and that it's probable that there were none. It's also just as probable that he did have some (since he had used them in the past) and that we can't find them due to any number of reasons.
The facts are to me at least that no WMD's have been found thus far and it's probable that they may never be found.
I'm not a mathematician, so I have to ask. Is it possible for two opposite things to be equally probable?
quote: I'll just say that it's not "missing paperwork". It's we threaten you with force for 10 years and you still don't cooperate but our commander in chief has no balls to do anything about it (to busy inventing new uses for cigars).
Someone comes to power who reacts when we are attacked, etc. etc.
And by etc., etc... you mean of course, "reacts by invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack, based on the suspicion that this country might hypothetically attack us at some point in the future with weapons that as it turn out are hypothetical as well."
[ September 22, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:And by etc., etc... you mean of course, "reacts by invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack, based on the suspicion that this country might hypothetically attack us at some point in the future with weapons that as it turn out are hypothetical as well."
Actually that suspicion might be PART of the reason.
I'm more of the Democratic Foothold towards long term democratization of the Middle East. The establishing of a VIABLE POWERFUL democracy which has never existed in that part of the world and which every attempt at diplomacy since the British left has failed miserably.
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Weren't you strongly declaring earlier in this thread that the sole reason for the war in Iraq was humanitarian in narure? Where did this viable democracy come from. Never mind the fact that the only kind of democracy the U.S. has any success setting up is the puppet variety. If that's your justification for the war in Iraq, fine. But don't tie it to the statement, "we were attacked." Iraq did not attack us. It had neither the means, nor the intention of attacking us. The war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror / terrorists. If anything, it hinders the war on terror.
Edit: I apologize for misrepresenting your earlier statement. You said that the "main" reason for the war in Iraq was humanitarian in nature.
[ September 22, 2004, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: Never mind the fact that the only kind of democracy the U.S. has any success setting up is the puppet variety.
You know, this is true...and interesting. I wonder why this is so?
Is it just the nature of trying to establish a government for someone else--you're always trying to make sure the country doesn't bite the hand that fed it? Or is it something about us? Or is it something about the kind of country that doesn't already have democracy itself, that somehow it's not a suitable match?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote: Weren't you strongly declaring earlier in this thread that the sole reason for the war in Iraq was humanitarian in narure? Where did this viable democracy come from. Never mind the fact that the only kind of democracy the U.S. has any success setting up is the puppet variety. If that's your justification for the war in Iraq, fine. But don't tie it to the statement, "we were attacked." Iraq did not attack us. It had neither the means, nor the intention of attacking us. The war in Iraq is NOT the war on terror / terrorists. If anything, it hinders the war on terror.
I never claimed anything Humanitarian about it unless you are saying that bringing Democracy to the Iraqi people, supporting it, and helping it thrive is "Humanitarian". I didn't use that verbige although it could be assumed that that is "humane" (although that is subjective depending on the person). The War in Iraq is one step in Establishing Democracy in a region of the world where ALL diplomatic efforts have failed.
Other than ISRAEL (is that a "puppet" democracy?) there isn't anything near a democracy.
As to your puppet quip. It's factually wrong. Japan, Phillipines, Germany and South Korea (and MORE) are all democratic countries and their current governments were all founded by the United States.
quote: But don't tie it to the statement, "we were attacked."
I'm not tying to attacks to Iraq. I'm tying the attacks to the beginning of the war on terror of which Iraq is a fundamental step of.
9/11 brought the fight to OUR SOIL over the Military Islamization of the world.
The most radical and harmful branch of Islamic Fundamentalism is Wahabbism (which was the foundation for the Taliban Government and of which tenets can be found in Shiite Iran as well). Think of the KKK add more violence, more radicalism, and the teaching that the spread of your doctrine by ANY and ALL means available is an absolute necessity to please God.
I'm getting off topic so I'll bring it back. If you have more questions about this then please ask.
9/11 (and every other Islamic Terrorist attack in the world) brought to the forefront the need for intervention. ALL diplomatic attempts at change in that part of the country have failed. EVERY ONE. In fact the only successful democracy in the Middle East is a "puppet" Israel.
But WHO are you going to take action against? Iran? No there were pending UN resolutions backed up by Military threats against Iran. Saudi Arabia? No country in their right mind would invade Saudi Arabia because EVERY Muslim on the planet would retalliate. And I mean ALL 1 Billion of them. All of the other smaller Arabian Peninsula Countries were already cooperating with the US. You can't invade ANY country around Israel because Israel has a history of Past Aggression that if the US acts on is Immediately viewed as acting on behalf of Israel.
The only country you can take action against is Iraq. (or you can continue to do the diplomatic alley and continue failing). From an International standpoint Iraq is the perfect candidate because they are the only country on EVERYONE's wrong side of the fence. They have a leader that the whole world wants to see gone, AND the Majority of their own country! Plus they already have a government that is LESS Islamic than any other, so the People aren't going from Shariah to having a voice and freedoms.
If you are going to go in and Militarily remove a government and install a democracy...
Which country in Arabia do you do that to?
The Middle East has been a Festering Cancer which we really didn't have to worry about too much.
But now it's spreading and affecting EVERYONE.
Containment gets you 9/11, Bali, Spain Trains, Phillipine Hostages, Thai Terrorist, Indonesian Civil War, Taliban, Black September, John Mohammed, etc. etc. etc.
You can clip the branches of the tree, but they'll keep comming back unless you root it out.
The fundamentalist are willing to do ANYTHING (and I mean anything) to ensure that Islam is the Law of the World and it's governments. That your children are taught it in your schools. That your women are at least Hijabed and even better Burka'ed, and that Homosexuals are stoned or have walls knocked over on them. And that Alcohol is completely made illegal.
Once their indoctrinated with that, how are you going to change it?
You have to not allow that to be taught and accepted as the law.
That's what the current war is about.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Who do you take Action against?
Why take action AGAINST anyone?
If we must build a stable democratic government in the Mid East (like Turkey for example), why don't we start--and finish--with Afghanistan. After all, they did harbor the people who fought against us.
The answer--we did take action against Afghanistan. It was easy and the victory cheap. However, building that democracy there was not easy and far from cheap. Instead of doing the work to build a thriving democracy where even the Soviet Union failed, we invade Iraq.
Iraq, who under Sadaam Hussein, attacked the same Shiite fanatics you claim we are at war with now.
President Bush's answer to the War on Terrorism is to treat it like his father's war--big armies, big tanks, big victories.
But terrorists are like ants. They nip at you and cause pain and occasionally poison your system. You can stomp on them all day with your boots, but you wind up killing a lot of other things besides the ants, and the ants keep on coming.
The only way to kill the ants, to defeat the terrorists, is to poison them. Poison their food supply, their money and thier recruiting base.
Unfortunately that is not as impressive looking or sounding or emotionally appealing as bombing a city.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Adam, That's exactly my point.
But it is interesting to note.
The Palestinians signed the "Land for Peace" treaty.
Have the Palestinians received any land?
Has Israel received any Peace?
So if Israel has given land BACK and has received NO peace (actually received MORE attacks) should they take the land BACK?
[ September 23, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What it seems you are sayings is that the US has the right, created by its arsenal, to overthrow a government it believes is bad, in order to defend itself, even if the government we are overthrowing is not part of what we are defending ourselves against.
The ouster of Hussein is supposed to be a lesson to the Radical Muslim world? What lesson? That Democracy can work? The lesson I am hearing them reach is that the US is an agressive bully that needs to be stopped before it forces everyone to do be like them.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Who do you take Action against?
Why take action AGAINST anyone?
Because us NOT taking action isn't going to stop them from taking action against us anyways. As the beheadings have shown. It doesn't matter if you are an unarmed civillian, they'll cut off your head anyways.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But, could that be a response to the US attacking them in the first place? And, also not doing enough to protect those civilians. They shouldn't even BE in Iraq until Iraq is really stable!
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:If we must build a stable democratic government in the Mid East (like Turkey for example), why don't we start--and finish--with Afghanistan. After all, they did harbor the people who fought against us.
Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Also Afghanistan is not the ROOT of Wahabbism, it's the RESULT of Wahabbism. The Taliban were ARAB fighters and Students and their Afghan converts.
Again, you are talking about a BRANCH, not the ROOT.
It's akin to suggesting making Chechnya a democracy will turn the Middle East into a democracy.
quote:The answer--we did take action against Afghanistan. It was easy and the victory cheap. However, building that democracy there was not easy and far from cheap. Instead of doing the work to build a thriving democracy where even the Soviet Union failed, we invade Iraq.
We are doing both I assure you. Talk to soldiers who are serving in Afghanistan or who have returned. My Brother-in-Law just returned after serving a year there. The work towards a democracy is progressing.
quote:Iraq, who under Sadaam Hussein, attacked the same Shiite fanatics you claim we are at war with now.
No we are at war with the Wahabbist Ideal. Shiite Islam is a different sect entirely, although having the same basis of faith, they have alot of the same ideals.
And Sadaam attacked Iran because our DIPLOMATIC solution in Iran FAILED.
quote:President Bush's answer to the War on Terrorism is to treat it like his father's war--big armies, big tanks, big victories.
No President Bush Sr's position was CONTAINMENT. So was President Clinton's. That's why Sadaam was still in Power. Well Containment got us 9/11.
quote:But terrorists are like ants. They nip at you and cause pain and occasionally poison your system. You can stomp on them all day with your boots, but you wind up killing a lot of other things besides the ants, and the ants keep on coming.
Not if you kill the queen (Buggers anyone?). An idiot tries to "contain" the ants and play nice with them thinking they won't come into your house if you leave them alone. Doesn't happen. They'll come into your house regardless.
A smart person kills the source of the ants.
quote:The only way to kill the ants, to defeat the terrorists, is to poison them. Poison their food supply, their money and thier recruiting base.
Exactly. In this case it's the mentallity. It's the schools. It's their media, it's the blanket of hatred that surrounds them from their birth that you have to strip away.
quote:Unfortunately that is not as impressive looking or sounding or emotionally appealing as bombing a city.
Or how about BUILDING THOUSANDS of schools, which is what is happening in Iraq as a FACT. Schools where although Islam is still taught to be supreme, you are not going to have children being taught that Jews are Dogs whom God created out of Pigs and Apes. Or that women are property. Or that the testimony of one woman is only worth 1/4 of a mans, etc.
We are in Iraq to create a generation of Muslims who realize that Islam is NOT the ONLY WAY. A generation which is SENSITIVE to secular ideals.
If you want to continue being diplomatic with the Ants, then that's fine.
But containment with Ants only "looks" effective.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They shouldn't even BE in Iraq until Iraq is really stable!
I'm skeptical we can stabilize Iraq without civillians, because civil works are probably essential to achieving stability.
As long as they know the risks and security measures are taken, I think it's OK.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: What it seems you are sayings is that the US has the right, created by its arsenal, to overthrow a government it believes is bad, in order to defend itself, even if the government we are overthrowing is not part of what we are defending ourselves against.
Using the "Ant" analogy, we are placing the poison to kill the queen as close as we can to the source. We can't place it IN the source because every ant in the anthill (1 billion muslim world) would attack us for it.
We're placing the poison in the only country that we feasibly could over there.
Containment has given us a failed Diplomatic Solution in Iran and an Iran that now has Nukes.
You think it's hard to "Not deal with terrorists" when their beheading one or two Americans.
Give him a nuke and Manhattan Island and tell me we don't "Deal with Terrorists".
You're dealing with an enemy who doesn't give a flying "f" if you are armed or not. Whether you are building Schools or not. Whether you are a clothes washer or not. Whether you are an Iraqi Policeman or not.
If you aren't for the Complete Islamization of the world according to the Wahabbist belief.
You're his enemy and your head will roll.
The reason WHY he is that way is because he was TAUGHT to be that way.
That's the reason we are building schools so freakin' fast.
We want the children in Iraq to grow up learning that the people chopping off heads aren't Hero's but Murderers. We want the children who look at the Mural of the twin towers being struck in Iraq (if it exists anymore) to look at it with HORROR instead of PRIDE.
You do that through education and government.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: But, could that be a response to the US attacking them in the first place?
Zarqawi isn't an Iraqi. He's Syrian. We haven't attacked Syria.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
But Terrorism has no queen. There is no source. Wahabbism has no one leader, but thousands of cells of followers, each sharing an idea. To kill the "Queen Bee" of this ideal you need to kill the ideal. A Western invasion of an Arab country feeds that ideal, not kills it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Correct, Dan. That is why I think that the US should pull out when the infrastructure and police are built back up to 'reasonable' levels. I don't believe the the situation will ever stabilize in Iraq as long as the various Islamicists and Baathists, their ideal of an Islamic, or fascist, state, is left alive in Iraq.
Of course, no one knows how many of these people there are, really. Are there enough of them to make enough of a critical mass such that those who want democracy won't be able to fend them off? In the end, it's beside the point to us. We can't kill them all if they are militant, and we can't erase their ideology if they take the sensible course and just vote their views into power.
At some point, the people of Iraq have to take responsibility for their country. While we can hope they will choose democracy peacefully, we can't make that happen, no matter how long we stay, imho.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That's where EDUCATION comes in. As the US proves. If you teach Religion in the Schools, then the people turn out religious. Even more so if all other opinions are SILENCED/OUTLAWED.
You remove RELIGION from the Schools so that the only place they get it is at Home or Church, you get a society that moves MORE and MORE away from Religion.
I would be willing to wager that alot of people on this forum were raised Religious or Quasi religious, but that exposure to NON-Religious opinions AND lifestyles allowed them to consider for themselves and they either no longer Practice or they no longer believe in it.
You have to give them an open window to see the world outside. And I guarantee they aren't getting it through Al Jazeera. It's like CBN.
So, How SHOULD the mentallity be changed over there if people who oppose the current plan, had their way.
Keep in mind that every diplomatic solution in the area has failed in the past. Every one.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote:Because us NOT taking action isn't going to stop them from taking action against us anyways. As the beheadings have shown. It doesn't matter if you are an unarmed civillian, they'll cut off your head anyways.
And exactly HOW many of unarmed civilians were beheaded BEFORE we invaded Iraq?
[ September 23, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: BookWyrm ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
How far are you willing to go back? This beheading of civillians is not a new practice in Iraq or the Muslim World.
There's alot of historicity in why they behead and the Black Banner on the wall behind them.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, this Chad guy is a real character.
Every time I leave Hatrack for a while, some strange new force transforms it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Howdy howdy! Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)