quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't have a problem with most of what you posted, other than to assert that I'd like to see data on it. Six stories from commanders in Iraq isn't data; recruitment and retaining numbers from the Pentagon is.
1600 waivers were given to felons last year. And thousands more were given for various "moral" considerations, such as the kind of misdemenors that gang members get caught at.
"Law enforcement officials report that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos," the Chicago Sun-Times reports, "because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up." They also note that "gang activity maybe rising among soldiers." The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities."
...
"Another type of gang member has also begun to proliferate within the military, evidently thanks to lowered recruitment standards and an increasing tendency of recruiters to look the other way. In July, a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, found that because of pressing manpower concerns, "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" are now serving in the military. "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members," said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator quoted in the report.
The New York Times noted that the neo-Nazi magazine Resistance is actually recruiting for the U.S. military, urging "skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units."
...
Apparently, the recruiting push has worked. Barfield reported that he and other investigators have identified a network of neo-Nazi active-duty Army and Marine personnel spread across five military installations in five states. "They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said.
Little wonder that Aryan Nation graffiti is now apparently competing for space with American inner-city gang graffiti in Iraq."
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
On AQ, well, I couldn't tell. You seem to be defending the Iraq war in general, and were talking about how AQ was a threat, so, you can see perhaps why I'd make the connection. Thanks for the clarification.
On Palestine - Look at the recruitment literature. It's two things getting people to join up: 1. Iraq. 2. Palestine. If the Palestinians were no longer an opporessed stateless group living in open air prison camps, that takes away a HUGE recruitment tool that Osama could use. Yeah he'd still get people who want to get rid of Israel, but a lot of his support would dry up. It'd also dry up some of the money heading to terrorist groups in the area. And I think it would have earned us personally a LOT of good will, and shown that we aren't just there to help oppress Palestinians.
And I don't necessarily think that the war CAUSED the flailing economy, at least not by itself, but I think if we have an extra couple trillion dollars on hand to fix it, we'd be a lot, lot better off. That trillion dollars could have helped fix our energy problem, created a million jobs and gotten us off Middle East oil. That fixes the economy AND the problem of shipping money to our enemies.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snowspot: How could you say war isn't the prominent reason? That's where most of the money has gone.
What money?
quote:1600 waivers were given to felons last year. And thousands more were given for various "moral" considerations, such as the kind of misdemenors that gang members get caught at.
This was covered in the article I posted. The phrase "misdemenors that gang members get caught at" is misleading. You don't have to be a gang member to get busted for drunk driving.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The taxpayers money... the only reason we aren't bankrupt is because we are getting loans from foreign nations everyday.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The experience gained by soldiers in tours of Afghanistan/Iraq would, I think, make them stronger and more capable in dealing with situations of similar types.
The ones who are in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't available to deal with other situations.
Especially those that are severly wounded or dead.
Or even the ones that are less than severely wounded. Or the ones that suffer from PTSD. My own limited and admittedly anecdotal experience with those who have served in Iraq is that there are a couple of people in the two most desperately needed fields in Iraq- explosives disarmament and mental health- who were pushed well beyond their ability to cope and have absolutely no interest in spending another second in Iraq if they can possibly avoid it.
It should also be considered that our time in Iraq lends credibility to the idea that a small terror group can stymie a superpower. And that our presence provides a battle lab in which our enemies are learning the tactics by which they can effectively do the same.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It should also be considered that our time in Iraq lends credibility to the idea that a small terror group can stymie a superpower.
In reality, there are a number of terrorist organizations in Iraq that are vying for control of certain regions. Baathists, Sunnis, and Al-Queda fighters have different goals in mind; but their first goal seems to be to keep the rest of Iraq fearful and silent.
quote: And that our presence provides a battle lab in which our enemies are learning the tactics by which they can effectively do the same.
This isn't an argument for leaving. It's an argument for strengthening our forces on the ground so that the enemy doesn't have time to adapt.
quote:The taxpayers money... the only reason we aren't bankrupt is because we are getting loans from foreign nations everyday.
In fact, the Iraqi campaign has been largely funded by loans from other nations. But none of today's taxpayers are seeing that burden; it will fall on us later to pay off the debts.
Thus, your initial statement ("that's where all the money has gone") is a tad misleading.
It's still not a good situation; the assumption of debt for the Iraqi campaign is one of the worst moves the Administration has undertaken. By not allowing the American people to feel the effects of war; by denying us the right to sacrifice in the ways that citizens are supposed to sacrifice; the Administration has pushed the debate of the war into an intellectual argument for most of America.
At the state of the union address given shortly after 9/11, Bush had the opportunity to ask the nation for anything. Instead, he squandered the moment and did not seize on the enormous opportunity to involve the citizenry. If he had, I believe the war with Iraq may never had occurred (because the public would have been much more aware of the conflict, due to a personal connection to it). There would have been a much stronger public push toward international cooperation.
We SHOULD be paying more taxes now to help fund our troops in Iraq. We SHOULD be watching our spending, and conserving gas, and...well, doing all those things that they did in World War II in order to strengthen the effort.
I believe that the invasion of Iraq was misguided. I'm not sure about blatantly unconstitutional; I think that if the Democrats had truly been able to stick that to Bush, they'd have done it already. Whether or not the invasion was correct, keeping our troops there now IS good policy. The Iraqi government is in no position to govern.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
"The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated."
What I don't understand is how bush can be considered a conservative.... he's spent more than all of our presidents combined.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Well, for the Iraqis who aren't willing (or able) to fight against the people willing to kill them in order to gain political power over their country.
Tactically speaking, it's in America's interest to install a Western-friendly government in Iraq in order to secure a vital resource.
Also, it's a good idea to make a friend in a rough neighborhood.
I don't think that investing in Iraq's future means we must rely wholly on a military solution; I think there should be a surge of managers, trainers, and civilian politicians sent over there to help them make a cultural shift.
quote:And what if they are never able to?
Hm. I guess it depends on what's occurring that is keeping them from governing themselves.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
"The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated."
What I don't understand is how bush can be considered a conservative.... he's spent more than all of our presidents combined.
Snow:
That cost isn't being paid right now by the American taxpayer. That was the point of my last post-- it's GOING to be paid; but the average family of four isn't feeling the pinch from the trillions of dollars the Administration has spent/will spend on the war.
The cost of oil HAS gone up due to the war; but that's not the only thing driving the price up.
Again, the economic situation is a lot more complex than just whether or not we're in the middle of a war. It's a factor; it is not necessarily the preeminent one, especially since the current taxpayer is not affected by the amount spent on it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snow...they are loans, which mean they will be paid over time rather than right now. That's the entire point of a loan.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snow, Scott's right about both the price oil and the loans. The war is being financed almost entirely by deficit spending, which comes from loans from foreign nations.
And the price of oil I think has a lot more to do with drastically increased demand from India, China, and other booming economies, and with new finds and production not being able to keep pace. Even if Iraq got back up to prewar levels of production, the price of oil would continue to rise at a relatively fast rate.
quote:Tactically speaking, it's in America's interest to install a Western-friendly government in Iraq in order to secure a vital resource.
Also, it's a good idea to make a friend in a rough neighborhood.
I don't think that investing in Iraq's future means we must rely wholly on a military solution; I think there should be a surge of managers, trainers, and civilian politicians sent over there to help them make a cultural shift.
No offense but, that's crazy. Sending them help to do it themselves, sure, but more or less forcing a "cultural shift" on them? I'm not even sure what that means. What happens if they don't WANT a western friendly government? We're risking a repeat of Palestine where we said "you need democracy!" so they said, "okay" and elected Hamas into power. Then we said "we're cutting off your funding until you elect someone WE like!"
You're not just proposing nation building, you want to revamp their culture too? That's the worst sin of Empire. I think you could make the argument it's just as bad as the slaughter taking place there. Kill them and then remove their identity. I hope that isn't what you're suggesting, but it's kind of vague, so I'll await your explanation.
quote:Hm. I guess it depends on what's occurring that is keeping them from governing themselves.
That's not an answer, it's a dodge. Whatever the reason is, what if they aren't able to govern? What if they ARE able to govern but not with a Pro-West government? What if we create a Saudi Arabia where the government is Pro-West but the people hate us?
This isn't good policy, it's not even policy, it's wishful thinking.
I should add that, I am not against making friends in the Middle East, the problem is that we have "allies" there. We install unpopular governments and make decisions for people who have no voice, and only give them more reason to hate us. There are better ways to do it. We should oppose oppressive governments and support people, but we can't do that while we're beholden to oil holders. Our money is being misspent, as is our people, our materiel, and our reputation. At the end of this, we'll still be the supporter of tyrants, and we'll still be the one who oppresses people in the Middle East. Good policy would be to stop doing that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're not just proposing nation building, you want to revamp their culture too? That's the worst sin of Empire. I think you could make the argument it's just as bad as the slaughter taking place there. Kill them and then remove their identity. I hope that isn't what you're suggesting, but it's kind of vague, so I'll await your explanation.
That IS what I'm suggesting. Well, not the 'kill them' bit. But their culture does need to be modified.
I'm not proposing brainwashing anyone. I'm not proposing anything more than showing them a new way of thinking about the world, and rewarding them when that way is successfully and practically applied.
Also, if you don't know what something means, the best thing to do is ask questions until you understand it well enough to feel comfortable in calling it crazy.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not an answer, it's a dodge. Whatever the reason is, what if they aren't able to govern? What if they ARE able to govern but not with a Pro-West government? What if we create a Saudi Arabia where the government is Pro-West but the people hate us?
This isn't good policy, it's not even policy, it's wishful thinking.
What isn't good policy? What is wishful thinking?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're not just proposing nation building, you want to revamp their culture too? That's the worst sin of Empire. I think you could make the argument it's just as bad as the slaughter taking place there. Kill them and then remove their identity. I hope that isn't what you're suggesting, but it's kind of vague, so I'll await your explanation.
That IS what I'm suggesting. Well, not the 'kill them' bit. But their culture does need to be modified.
I'm not proposing brainwashing anyone. I'm not proposing anything more than showing them a new way of thinking about the world, and rewarding them when that way is successfully and practically applied.
Also, if you don't know what something means, the best thing to do is ask questions until you understand it well enough to feel comfortable in calling it crazy.
Well, even if I was wrong about that part specifically, I still think your idea is a bit crazy But unfortunately I was right.
But let me ask you something: How after all these years have we not already introduced this new way of thinking to them? And what reward are we going to give them when they successfully adopt it? Seems to me, once they get it right, we leave, that's really more of a reward for us. They have NO impetus to speed up here. Rewards for making progress would be staying. If they aren't willing to make progress, then we leave. Do you agree?
Regardless, there's something monstrous in removing their culture and supplanting it with our own. It has a white man's burden feel to it, because THAT turned out so well for us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How after all these years have we not already introduced this new way of thinking to them?
It's been 5 years. That's not a long time. We occupied Japan for 7 (1945-1952), and that was without having to battle for territory every day, or train a police force, or do any number of things that we're doing now.
quote: there's something monstrous in removing their culture and supplanting it with our own.
I agree. Was someone suggesting this? I missed it-- I hate it when people delete posts...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not an answer, it's a dodge. Whatever the reason is, what if they aren't able to govern? What if they ARE able to govern but not with a Pro-West government? What if we create a Saudi Arabia where the government is Pro-West but the people hate us?
This isn't good policy, it's not even policy, it's wishful thinking.
What isn't good policy? What is wishful thinking?
You still haven't answered the original question. What do we do if the Iraqi government is never in a position to govern?
It's not good policy to blunder into a conflict with no understanding of the nation we're invading. But that part is over, and we move on to the here and now. You've dodged twice when I asked you what we do if they can't govern themselves. So should I assume that, like McCain, you think we should stay for 100 years?
Republicans say it is bad policy to tell "the enemy" that we're giving a "surrender date." I think it's horrible policy to tell the Iraqi government that they can take 100 years to get their house in order. They don't have a hundred years, and we don't have two trillion dollars every five years to fund their temper tantrums. It's good policy to tell them that they'd better get their house in order, and that our patience isn't limitless. We're there to help them, and we will help them, with a massive level of resources, but now that help is tied to progress. When Palestine voted Hamas into power we boycotted them. Unless Iraq makes decisions we like, we do the same. That's pretty much your position anyway, just in a different order.
But from the looks of things, these are groups with centuries old conflicts that were ONLY nice to each other being there was an iron fisted leader in place to keep them in line. Without that lynch pin, it all falls apart. We pulled the pin, and it did fall apart. Your wishful thinking comes from the fact that right now, Iraq controls our future, not the other way around. We're sitting back, not applying any meaningful pressure, hoping that they'll just figure this stuff out all by themselves, but you go a step further, by assuming that when they DO figure it all out, we'll like whatever they come up with. And if we don't like it then...what? Then we tell them the same thing we told Palestine, that we're not REALLY offering them Democracy, we're offering them the opportunity to do it our way or die. And of course WE won't kill them, except, you know, whoever resists us. Instead we'll let them kill each other, for however long it takes to see things our way.
I'll amend what I said before to say that it is bad policy based on wishful thinking. And I just explained why.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do we do if the Iraqi government is never in a position to govern?
I don't know. It depends on what is keeping them from governing.
quote:you go a step further, by assuming that when they DO figure it all out, we'll like whatever they come up with. And if we don't like it then...what? Then we tell them the same thing we told Palestine, that we're not REALLY offering them Democracy, we're offering them the opportunity to do it our way or die. And of course WE won't kill them, except, you know, whoever resists us. Instead we'll let them kill each other, for however long it takes to see things our way.
You came up with this on your own.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's been 5 years. That's not a long time. We occupied Japan for 7 (1945-1952), and that was without having to battle for territory every day, or train a police force, or do any number of things that we're doing now.
Well this is totally subjective, but I think five years IS a long time. And apparently what constitutes showing them a new way to look at the world is subjective too. We've shown them what we want them to do. They don't seem to be taking kindly to it do they? And maybe we should have thought of all that stuff before we attacked them with no plan for all the crap we're having to deal with now. It was supposed to be an in and out mission, now it's the Gilligan's Island of wars.
The difference you're looking for between Japan and Iraq that's relevent is that after they surrendered they accepted our help, everyone there, and they were a unified people. Of course it was simpler. Iraq however hasn't accepted the idea that we've been shoving down their throats for all these years. It's not working.
quote:I agree. Was someone suggesting this? I missed it-- I hate it when people delete posts...
Sassy. I like it.
You want to modify their culture to reflect Pro-West positions and instill in them Western values. Above where I said "kill them and remove their identity" you said "that IS what I'm suggesting" but without the killing part, leaving the remove their identity part. You want to remove their identity apparently, you want to modify their culture. If I'm wrong, explain it. I have a five letter word awaiting your explanation .
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know. It depends on what is keeping them from governing.
*shakes head* Currently it's a dozen different things. They can't agree on a power sharing measure, the government is rife with corruption, several ministries are wholly controlled by Muqtada Al-Sadr, who wasn't elected for anything, and controls a 60,000 man militia. Add to that the fact that they are unable to agree on any of the things we've asked them to do. The bill they passed recently to allow Baathists back into government? Some analysts are saying it could actually make it HARDER for Baathists to get into those positions. A large Sunni bloc walked out of Parliament in August. The Kurds refuse to give up Kirkuk, and they delayed a vote in November on where the city will end up because they knew the vote would likely result in armed conflict.
I'll let you take them one by one.
quote:You came up with this on your own.
Yes I did. Take away the part where I answer my own question and answer it for me. What if they elect a government we don't like and can't work with?
And I'd add that, that's what we did in Palestine, and, that's what we're doing right now. Al-Maliki has no power to force through the changes we want. The government there isn't one that's working for us. So we'll subsidize the status quo, doing nothing to force political change we can get on board with while they kill each other, and the ones we don't like we go kill ourselves. So technically I didn't come up with it. The US government did.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to change their culture to allow them to stop killing each other. I want to change their culture so they can govern with equity. I want to change them in ways that will NOT violate their whole ethnic identity, but will allow them to recognize that equality in the public voice and moderation in defense of their identity allows their culture to expand and thrive.
I'm a monster. It's true. The world needs more of me.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn isn't criticizing your ideals. The problem is with how we are implementing them. You say that you want to change their culture so that they can govern with equity. How do you do that? Our current "strategy" for implementing that in Iraq amounts to waiting around until the Iraqi government gets their act together. What are we doing that teaches them equality? What are we doing that will teach them religious tolerance? We have to pay insurgent groups not to attack each other. That doesn't teach them anything.
EDIT: Removed a statement that could only cause trouble.
quote:Lyrhawn isn't criticizing your ideals. The problem is with how we are implementing them.
I want to emphasize this.
Your endgame is my endgame. I would love for a free, stable, prosperous, democratically pro-Western Iraq. I'd love it if the whole world was that way, and I'd love to find that Iraq end the way the both of us want it to.
However, I feel that the way we're going about it is not getting us ANY closer to that goal, and we're wasting lives, time, and materiel in the process. I think it's even getting us further from the goal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
"WASHINGTON -- The White House said Wednesday that the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding is legal and that President Bush could authorize the CIA to resume using the simulated-drowning method under extraordinary circumstances.
The surprise assertion from the Bush administration reopened a debate that many in Washington had considered closed. Two laws passed by Congress in recent years -- as well as a Supreme Court ruling on the treatment of detainees -- were widely interpreted to have banned the CIA's use of the extreme interrogation method."
I don't know what this country is going to do, it's really out of control. Bush does WHATEVER he wants ...
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I guess you really don't expect much from your country anymore... can't blame you. -----
"Discovery Channel Drops Plans To Air ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ Because It Is Too ‘Controversial"
Transcript:
GIBNEY: We know that “24″ is a very popular show, and, you know, week after week after week, Jack Bauer would brutally torture people. In fact, we have a couple of clips from “24″ in the film “Taxi to the Dark Side.” Some people seem to get off on that. It’s kind of natural, I suppose, feeling of revenge and retribution for what happened to us on 9/11. Jack Bauer in our names can go and really brutalize the enemies of America.
But I think it is true that some Americans are uncomfortable with the reality of torture, or perhaps, it’d be fair to say, too comfortable with torture without really understanding what it means. I think everyone was horrified by the pictures at Abu Gharib. But there is for some people, I think, a willingness to say, look, let them do what has to be done, so long as it protects us. But as Alberto Mora, former General Counsel for the Navy says in the film, we fight not only to defend our lives, we fight to defend our principles. So it remains to be seen.
I do think that mood is changing, and I do think there are a lot of people who are just furious at what’s been done in our name, and also when they realize how deeply ineffective it is. That’s one thing that people don’t really get. Torture, even though the Bush administration never uses that word, they say “We don’t do torture,” because they define it out of existence. But what you learn about torture — and this administration has authorized torture, there’s no question about it — is torture is deeply ineffective and unreliable.
It seemed necessary. Your argument appeared to assert its illegality based on its obvious immorality.
I happen to believe that it is also illegal, but not because they're doing it to human beings with families.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, you've never seen me assert that something is illegal because it's immoral. You've seen me assert that certain things are unconstitutional without being illegal, which I believe caused you physical pain, but that's not quite the same thing. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've seen me assert that certain things are unconstitutional without being illegal
Since unconstitutionality is simply a kind of illegality, this is literally impossible.
Nor did I say it was the same thing. Specifically, having someone question your morality for recognizing nuance in a situation is quite simply amusing to me.
It's even more so when it's based on the questioner's clear lack of understanding of what you've been saying.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...You've seen me assert that certain things are unconstitutional without being illegal.
I have to admit, this is a baffling statement to me too, Tom. Examples?
And you have to admit, Snowspot ranting at you for noticing a difference between immorality and illegality is pretty amusing, at least when compared to the discussions you and Dagonee have had. I'm not saying you rant, but I am saying you have often taken Dagonee to task for not looking beyond legal nuance, and here you are criticizing Snowspot for not looking at legal nuance at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
This reminds me: I am not intending to draw any other comparisons between Tom's posts to me that I alluded to and Snowspot's posts in this thread. The worst I could possibly say about Tom's posts in this regard would be dishonest flattery of Snowspot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In reality, there are a number of terrorist organizations in Iraq that are vying for control of certain regions. Baathists, Sunnis, and Al-Queda fighters have different goals in mind; but their first goal seems to be to keep the rest of Iraq fearful and silent.
True, sort of. Our current efforts hinge, to a significant extent, on our ability to turn the Sunni groups into an asset, a tactic which may well come back to bite us. The inability to bring the Baathists back into the fold remains a major problem. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda is the group one hears mentioned most frequently, in part because admitting that groups that originate from Iraq are a non-trivial part of the problem is a point of embarassment.
That said, none of these groups individually would be a match for the U.S. military in a conventional fight; indeed, if all three worked together in complete accord, they still wouldn't be a match for the U.S. military in a conventional conflict. That they have succeeded in changing the battleground into one where they can frequently bring down expensive military hardware and highly-trained soldiers with militiamen and improvised explosives is inspiring to those who see America as a real or potential enemy and demoralizing to both American forces and American civilians.
quote:This isn't an argument for leaving. It's an argument for strengthening our forces on the ground so that the enemy doesn't have time to adapt.
It's not remotely that simple. An influx of manpower- notably a temporary, unsustainable influx of manpower- is only a portion of the equation. Extremely gifted people are spending a lot of money coming up with countermeasures for some of the basic tools and tactics used by guerilla groups, and they still encounter enormous problems; the devices used to jam signals for setting off explosives interfering with communications being one example. A conventional military overseas is simply not adaptive in the same way as an insurgent group fighting on familiar territory.
Time and manpower are something the geurilla groups in Iraq appear to have in spades. If a dozen men die finding a tactic that successfully takes out an armored vehicle, that's a large victory for them, and other groups on the ground will be trying variants of that tactic the next day. News of that same tactic has to go up the military chain of command and be analyzed before it can be addressed on an institution-wide level. Arguably, this is a large part of why we're now looking at five years of this business.
The only way that the Iraq operation can be a success- and this is widely acknowledged by the highest ranks- is for the established government to become an independent, self-sustaining body that effectively shares power between the vying factions and is viewed nationally and internationally as a legitimate authority. The government has continued to drag its feet on the steps necessary to make that a reality.
We are punching and kicking incoming waves, hoping that eventually the sand castle behind us will be strong enough to withstand the tide. If the government does not progress, eventually, we will lose.
To my mind, the one real question is: Does the Iraqi government really have the will and wherewithal to achieve a self-sustaining state in the time the U.S. military can buy it?
I think, from either side, that is a completely reasonable question. But after this extended campaign, it's also reasonable to wonder if the answer is 'no', and if so, mightn't the U.S. be better off withdrawing?
quote:I have to admit, this is a baffling statement to me too, Tom. Examples?
The specific example that springs to mind is the argument that Dag and I had about the whole NSA wiretap thing. I argued that while it might have been technically legal, and while none of the individuals who implemented the wiretaps were necessarily targets of prosecution, Bush's backhanded use of signing statements and his own dismissal of Constitutional intent was best addressed through impeachment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be inclined to disagree. But, then, I don't consider "unconstitutional" to necessarily be the same thing as "illegal," so that's probably the problem. I think something can be contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution without being found illegal; that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional, though. That the term "unconstitutional" is something that only the courts get to determine is a claim I explicitly reject. At the end of the day, it boils down to this: I don't regard the Constitution as a legal document, but rather as a set of meta-laws to be used in the creation of legal documents. (I know how idiosyncratic this is, BTW.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with our government doing whatever is necessary to achieve our goals. Government policy should be (and seems TO be) completely objective. Morality should never come in to the equation. The only reason it IS involved is because so many people are completely brainwashed by those two completely subjective words "Right" and "Wrong" (and their synonyms).
My definition of Morality aside though, there are plenty of reasons why this matter is nothing even CLOSE to Black and White. First off, the people mostly playing the moral card seem to be implying that we're just taking random civilians off the street and torturing them. Somehow I doubt it.
I don't KNOW for sure, but I would wager that the people being subject to torture are people who we would otherwise kill where they stand. After all, that's what you do with your enemy when you're at War. Personally, if I was the enemy and I had a choice between being killed on the spot, or being captured, questioned, and tortured, and MAYBE have a chance to live through it, I certainly wouldn't choose Death. This is doubly the case considering the specific methods being discussed. Comparatively speaking, Waterboarding seems a whole lot better than losing limbs or being burned or cut on etc.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That the term "unconstitutional" is something that only the courts get to determine is a claim I explicitly reject.
Nobody that has a more than superficial knowledge of the Constitution clais that courts are the only determiners of constitutionality.
Moreover, you seemed quite hostile to the idea of other branches making that determination.
quote:I don't regard the Constitution as a legal document, but rather as a set of meta-laws to be used in the creation of legal documents.
Well, the "meta-document" specifically claims to be law:
quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Or, in shorter form:
quote:This Constitution . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land
The illegality of unconstitutional acts is the basis for judicial review - something that is perfectly compatible with courts not being the only arbiters of constitutionality.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, you seemed quite hostile to the idea of other branches making that determination.
Not quite. I'm hostile to the recent Executive Branch assertions that certain things are constitutional and thus legal despite specific laws to the contrary. Remember that I'm not a fan of equating constitutionality with legality. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not quite. I'm hostile to the recent Executive Branch assertions that certain things are constitutional and thus legal despite specific laws to the contrary. Remember that I'm not a fan of equating constitutionality with legality
The executive branch has not made that assertion. Tom. It's a quite different assertion being made, and one with qualitative differences.
Moreover, your past posts in this area have gone far beyond the limited statement you make here. You have specifically advocated the idea that the president should enforce an unconstitutional law until it is repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts.
You have, in fact, spoken out against the doctrine that the executive consider the constitutionality of particular interpretations of specific laws in deciding which interpretation is correct.
****
I'm actually interested in this discussion, and if you intend to actually participate I'd like to have it.
If, however, you intend to avoid the substance of the discussion - such as the constitution's explicit claim to be law or the methods of interpreting laws so that they can be enforced - I'll simply abandon it now. Please let me know one way or the other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The executive branch has not made that assertion. Tom. It's a quite different assertion being made, and one with qualitative differences.
In practice, what's the difference?
quote:Moreover, your past posts in this area have gone far beyond the limited statement you make here. You have specifically advocated the idea that the president should enforce an unconstitutional law until it is repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts.
Well, more accurately, I said the president should obey a law that he smirkingly called "unconstitutional" until someone other than his hand-picked legal staff offered an opinion. But I recognize that may be too much nuance.
------
Believe it or not, I'm interested in this conversation, too. The problem with having it (broadly), though, is that I am completely convinced of poor faith on the part of the existing executive branch; that absolutely taints any power that I might otherwise concede to it. *grin* Given a) that Congress has no intention of checking the executive and b) the current Supreme Court is sympathetic to broader executive power and c) the existing executive branch is a steaming pile, I'm more than a bit cynical about any interpretation that, in practice, means we should be trusting the president and his people to do their jobs correctly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think they know what they are doing...but why fix the problem on the cheap, in a couple of years, when you can simultaneously enrich your buddies in the oil industry, the military/industrial complex, and then actually probably fix it just in time to leave office?
The alternative, that they really are incompetent, scares me more. I'd rather have malicious profiteering followed by the shoring up of legacy, than incompetence.
The real tragedy is how much money went to tanks, guns, and bombs that could have been spent on alternative energy research.
The whole Middle Eastern terrorism thing is much more solvable by teaching tens of thousands of soldiers to speak Arabic and gather good intel, as well as using profiling and psychological techniques to understand the extremists. Nipping 9/11 in the bud would have been easier than dealing with the aftermath, and learning their language and mindset is the far better way to nip the thing in the bud. Also, diplomacy is pretty darn useful.
See, this is why I believe they are malicious profiteers, or at least Cheney is. He knows all this stuff, but has chosen to enrich the military/industrial complex instead of actually fix the problem as quickly and cheaply as possible. Oh well. We elected him, and haven't had the balls to impeach him yet. Thank God for term limits.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances."
>>More if you click the link
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But unfortunately I was right. 
