DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: domer on January 05, 2007, 04:44:27 PM
-
I don't know what the president's plans are to consult with the new Democratic leadership in Congress, including the appropriate committee chairs, but the timing of the politics on his decision about Iraq may submerge the substance. (One has to wonder whether either, or both, sides not only anticipated this but brought it about.)
What I mean is this: a crucial decision on our future in Iraq (and by implication, the wider conflict with violent, radical Islam) has been brewing at least since the announcement of the Baker-Hamilton Report. President Bush has taken that advice into account, putatively, and has almost completed a broad canvass of principals and aides in his administration to give his view a balanced and informed ring. During this period, public debate ensued in cafes and in the media. For a while, though interrupted by the holidays, the national discussion was very intense. Some Democrats spoke out, but many deferred. The convocation of the new Congress seems to be the trigger for open policy reaffirmation by the Democrats. The question is: Is it too late to have any substantive effect, and what, indeed, is the substantive effect the Democrats wish to have?
So far as I can see, and I'm limited in my vision, the Democrats don't have a program as much as they have a quest. Withdrawal of troops is not a strategy, I suggest, but only the first step of a strategy that simply has not been formed or articulated. To some extent, the Democrats are mirroring the president in this. He seems to think that if we "win" in Iraq (however that is defined today) everything will fall into place. The shadows this assumption casts are deeper than the Democrats' withdrawal shadows because success in Iraq by Bush's terms necessarily implies a sweeping change in Middle East politics, either causatively or resultingly. It is the very reality of that possibility which is Bush's bugaboo, and whether the effort will be a Pyrrhic victory, costing more than it yields. The Democrats seem to be saying that if we withdraw from Iraq, then everything will fall into place. Yet to the popular (and trained) mind the question automatically arises: what do we do next? How, exactly (or close enough for government work) do we position ourselves to prevail in what promises to be a long, difficult struggle with violent, radical Islam? What initiatives should we introduce, and so on?
Our "national faith" calls for a belief in the efficacy of our politics, the ability of opposing sides to talk and confer and reach a common understanding of the common good. But there seems to be no time left for that. Do we blame Bush for delaying his decision to gain not only perspective but political clout (the strong surge for the ISG conception of the problem has dramatically receded), or do we blame Democrats for waiting to join issue to a time when they have gained information on the president's thinking but also achieved ceremonial clout?
-
So far as I can see, and I'm limited in my vision, the Democrats don't have a program as much as they have a quest. Withdrawal of troops is not a strategy, I suggest, but only the first step of a strategy that simply has not been formed or articulated. To some extent, the Democrats are mirroring the president in this. He seems to think that if we "win" in Iraq (however that is defined today) everything will fall into place.
Honestly, this is one of the best charecterisations of the current political attitude towards Iraq that I've read, Domer.
Is it the nature of where we stand in the war right now that makes long-term planning impractical or are we too reliant on the notion that we can pragmatically plan our way through this predicament in general? By that I mean, perhaps we're asking too much of both sides. Perhaps there is no genuine solution or set of realistic solutions to achieve any of the political goals set by either President Bush or the Democrats (or the Iraqi factions). Would that not be the truest definition of a quagmire?
-
Thanks, JS. I do believe you've defined "quagmire" correctly. However, we can't avoid the fact that we're in it. There's been a lot of talk on the ethics front lately about "draining the swamp," which I suggest is an apt metaphor here. But that just re-forms the question: how do we drain the swamp?
-
I'd love to hear an objective, well-argued set of views on how we can achieve success in Iraq, either through withdrawal or continued fighting.
(And I say that with the knowledge that I have contributed to the demise of such discussions in the past :( ).
-
I'd love to hear an objective, well-argued set of views on how we can achieve success in Iraq, either through withdrawal or continued fighting.
Secure and hold Baghdad, normalize life and move outward.
-
I'd love to hear an objective, well-argued set of views on how we can achieve success in Iraq, either through withdrawal or continued fighting.
Secure and hold Baghdad, normalize life and move outward.
Works for me. You ever think about throwing in your hat, for Defense Secretary, Bt?
-
Is winning in Iraq harder to define than looseing in Iraq ?
If our effort in Iraq were an operation of Hezbollah we would be danceing in the street over the success , because success is anything short of anialation.
Or of course success can be a moving goalpost which we can get halfway twards but never reach because it has moved back again.
I think that all sides agree that at some point the fate of Iraq will be in the hands of Iriquis and American efforts will dwindle down to bare minimums of support or nothing at all.
At that point will we have done everything we could have done to acheve a good result?
And will this good result require an Obedient Iraq or merely an Iraq that takes care of itself?
-
<<So far as I can see, and I'm limited in my vision, the Democrats don't have a program as much as they have a quest. >>
Quest for what? How to sell the American people on a pull-out with no preconditions? Quest for "victory" in Iraq in the form of a complete incapacitation of all armed opposition to the current so-called "government?" Quest for a program, any program, so that they can finally say, see, we DO stand for something, we DO have a program?
I think as long as the administration does not come clean on the real reasons for the war the American people will not know why they are there. As long as they do not know why they are there, any discussion of "success" (in the form of outcomes or strategies) is fruitless, essentially because nobody can formulate success for a mission whose purpose is not known.
If the real purpose of the invasion was oil - - as I suspect it was - - then I think this would be a good time for this to come out frankly, and a discussion can then begin as to what the real consequences would be of a withdrawal. The discussion would include such elements as: the existing sources of oil and their rates of depletion; the relative significance of the Iraqi reserves; the forecast demands of the major players, USA, EU, Japan, India, China, Russia; the ability of the other players to project their power and influence into the Middle East and the ability of each of the players to compete with the others for oil in the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 or more years if the US maintains military bases and/or puppet regimes there and if they don't; the costs of hanging on; and other related matters. Will other countries (Iran) have to be subdued as well to make the whole thing work? And what is the total cost?
A decision ought to be made: stay the course or get out. Stay the course means slaughter the bastards - - kill as many as you need to kill to ensure that the government the U.S. puts into power stays in power. In Iraq if Iraq is the only country needed; in all the "target" countries if more will have to be subdued to make the oil grab work. This will either result in an economic benefit to the US (the savings on oil outweigh all the loss of life and treasure spent on the conquest of Iraq) or it won't.
If the government persists in its bullshit ("We came to find WMD but we stayed to bring the blessings of democracy to the Iraqi people") then the debate will never get off the ground because even if you could convince anyone that you have a right to occupy another sovereign state until you have forced it to accept the kind of government that you think is best for it, the administration would constantly be frustrating the goals set by the "bringin 'em democracy" policies every time the goal of democracy clashed with the real (but hidden) goals of U.S. oil hegemony.
-
I think as long as the administration does not come clean on the real reasons for the war the American people will not know why they are there. As long as they do not know why they are there, any discussion of "success" is fruitless, essentially because nobody can formulate success for a mission whose purpose is not known.
"purposes not known"... Priceless ;D It can't be any of the reasons that have been made public and on record, logical, and completely within the realm of common sense. Nooooooooooooo. It has to be something completely nefarious & sinister......because, hey's Bush & Cheney, "pure evil". And with that as the foundation to ANY thought process, nothing good, noble, or well inentioned can be coming from the likes of them
Whew....good thing we have "Mr Objective" Tee here, to tell us the real reasons
-
A decision ought to be made: stay the course or get out. Stay the course means slaughter the bastards - - kill as many as you need to kill to ensure that the government the U.S. puts into power stays in power. In Iraq if Iraq is the only country needed; in all the "target" countries if more will have to be subdued to make the oil grab work. This will either result in an economic benefit to the US (the savings on oil outweigh all the loss of life and treasure spent on the conquest of Iraq) or it won't.
If the government persists in its bullshit ("We came to find WMD but we stayed to bring the blessings of democracy to the Iraqi people") then the debate will never get off the ground because even if you could convince anyone that you have a right to occupy another sovereign state until you have forced it to accept the kind of government that you think is best for it, the administration would constantly be frustrating the goals set by the "bringin 'em democracy" policies every time the goal of democracy clashed with the real (but hidden) goals of U.S. oil hegemony.
Killing the bastards is one of the goals, the one that we have been doing best at too.
Why do you have this oil fixation? Ther is no possible outcome that would give the USA such "controll" as you imagine , it is so far fectched that I have troubble following your imagination.
-
<<Why do you have this oil fixation? Ther is no possible outcome that would give the USA such "controll" as you imagine , it is so far fectched that I have troubble following your imagination.>>
You can come to it from three directions.
1. Process of elimination: the WMD story was so patently absurd only a moron could fall for it. But even if you did fall for it, that rationale ended when no WMD were found. THAT was the time to say "Sorry, no WMD here after all," pack up and leave. But then the new rationale, bringing democracy to Iraq. From people who never gave a shit about democracy in their lives. Some of them veterans of the campaigns to overthrow the Allende government in Chile, all of them totally unconcerned about democracy in Egypt, democracy in Saudi Arabia, democracy in Iran, democracy in the West Bank, democracy in Gaza, democracy in Syria, democracy in Uzbekistan, democracy in Kyrghistan, democracy in Pakistan, democracy in El Salvador, democracy in Paraguay, fuck 'em all and fuck their democracy. But Iraq? Iraq needs democracy folks, Iraq's hurtin for democracy, they need it so bad there we'll fight and die for it and spend half a trillion dollars for it. Again, you gotta be a moron to believe that.
2. History - - the history of the modern post-WWI Middle East is the history of oil and exploitation, the landmarks of which are the British and French division of the old Ottoman Empire into fragmented states each around its own oil wells, the occupation of "Mesopotamia," post-WWII U.S. support of the House of Saud to cement its interest in Saudi Arabian oil, and the CIA overthrow of the Mossadegh government in the wake of its nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., and its installation of the Shah. They've always had a history of meddling in the affairs of the local states, often militarily, for no reason other than oil.
There's also just plain logic and common sense: why SHOULDN'T they control those oil fields? Who will if they won't?
-
<<Why do you have this oil fixation? Ther is no possible outcome that would give the USA such "controll" as you imagine , it is so far fectched that I have troubble following your imagination.>>
Process of elimination: the WMD story was so patently absurd only a moron could fall for it.
So apparently nearly every country's head of state and intelligence agency were morons. But Bush....he lied. :D Good thing we have "Mr. Objective" Tee here to clear it all up
But even if you did fall for it, that rationale ended when no WMD were found. THAT was the time to say "Sorry, no WMD here after all," pack up and leave. But then the new rationale, bringing democracy to Iraq.
No, that was never a change, only a moral requirement following regime change & taking out the WMD threat. Apparently "morons" can't grasp that concept
There's also just plain logic and common sense: why SHOULDN'T they control those oil fields?
So why don't we?? Most powerful nation on the Globe...largest, most technically advanced military. Every justification could be made in taking over the oil fields in "repaying us" for taking out Saddam, and yet.........................
Here's a hint. It wasn't
Who will if they won't?
Ummm, the Iraqi people? Gads, what a concept
-
<<Why do you have this oil fixation? Ther is no possible outcome that would give the USA such "controll" as you imagine , it is so far fectched that I have troubble following your imagination.>>
You can come to it from three directions.
1. Process of elimination: the WMD story was so patently absurd only a moron could fall for it. But even if you did fall for it, that rationale ended when no WMD were found. .....Again, you gotta be a moron to believe that.
2. History - - the history of the modern post-WWI Middle East is the history of oil and exploitation, .... for no reason other than oil.
There's also just plain logic and common sense: why SHOULDN'T they control those oil fields? Who will if they won't?
Number one , Saddam had history of seeking , buying , building and useing WMD. Saddam was worse than Hitler in this particular respect , especially if you were to ask a Kurd or an Iranian . I suppose he might have been reformed , but when did he ever say he was repentant?
Number two , oil has lubed history for more than a century now , but "controll" as you put it is not a possibility now as much as it once was back when national enonomys were more independant , can you imagine the result of some idiotic contorller trying to reduce the availiblity of Oil to one of the major markets ?The "controll " that had to be wrested from Sadam was cash , a result of Oil, which Saddam was useing to preserve instability where it was usefull to him , and to purchase strength for himself ,oh, and to buy precursors to WMD.
-
Oh, come on!
The people that control the oil are the ones who refine and sell it.
The oil industry by its very nature is corruption-prone.
No one but the experts know how much or what kind of oil is in a well.
No one but an expert knows how much is being pumped out.
No one but an expert at the refinery knows how much and what kind can be produced from any specific amount of crude oil.
All these experts work for a salary and can be bribed without danger of anyone ever being convicted.
Whenever Iraqi oil is pumped, US oil companies will profit.
And unless you own stock in them, they will not share it with you, no matter how many Iraqis died, no matter how much you spent to finance the war, no matter how many relatives and/or friends died in Iraq.
-
I found it kind of interesting that the only people who argue against oil as the main reason for the invasion and occupation are the usual suspects, sirs and plane. Let's examine their reasoning.
sirs: <<It can't be any of the reasons that have been made public and on record, logical, and completely within the realm of common sense. Nooooooooooooo. It has to be something completely nefarious & sinister>>
In other words: 1. We should believe in the multiple reasons that the U.S. government has given for its actions. Those reasons are logical and completely within the realm of common sense. It is both logical and common sense to believe that Iraq would attack the U.S.A., an infinitely more powerful nation, with WMD, for what unimaginable benefit other than its own anihilation we cannot say - - very logical and commonsensical; and
2. It's ridiculous to believe that a U.S. government led by Bush and Cheney could have nefarious and sinister motives, since they are, presumably, as saintly and pure a pair of men as ever led the U.S. to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state.
plane: <<Ther is no possible outcome that would give the USA such "controll" as you imagine , it is so far fectched that I have troubble following your imagination.>>
yeah, I agree, this is very hard to follow. I invade a country and destroy its leadership, pick another government, choosing all the candidates who can run for office and who cannot, keep it in power by my own force of arms and stay there as long as I have to stay, either in permanent military bases within the very boundaries of the country itself or all along its borders. Nevertheless, despite my installation of this government and my ability to intervene at a moment's notice to keep it in power, I expect it to be scrupulously fair in its oil policies, especially when there are more barrels of oil sought than there are barrels of oil for sale, I will be treated as just one more customers in a whole line of customers waiting patiently, money in hand, to purchase what that government will allow us to buy and accept whatever allocation it chooses to make amongst its customers. Yeah, that makes sense. Also, if the government owing its very existence to my military forces decides as its predecessor did that it will sell its oil for euros instead of dollars, I will just tell them, "Well that's OK, that is YOUR decision to make and although I am very disappointed in you, I say God bless you and may you enjoy your new euro bank account in good health." BOY are you naive!
sirs: <<So apparently nearly every country's head of state and intelligence agency were morons. But Bush....he lied. >>
Relying again on the fiction that every head of state and every foreign intelligence agency also believed in Bush's bullshit. On what basis no one has ever figured out, except sirs, who probably speaks to all of them on a daily basis or believes he does, and hears from them (or the voices in his head that claim to be them) that "We believed it too, sirs, honest we did!") Which clashes oddly with the known fact that NONE of the heads of state of France, Germany, Canada, Russia, China and dozens of other countries were taken in by this bullshit and WOULD NOT SUPPORT a Security Council initiative to authorize an invasion of Iraq because there was no justifying evidence. I don't expect these inconvenient facts will ever stop sirs from spouting that same tired bullshit about the unanimity of international opinion behind Bush, but the fact of the matter is there, and I hope these facts will put some perspective on sirs' nonsense.
sirs: <<So why don't we?? Most powerful nation on the Globe...largest, most technically advanced military. Every justification could be made in taking over the oil fields in "repaying us" for taking out Saddam, and yet.........................>>
And yet . . . YOU CAN'T. That is the problem, and you stated it very well. "Most powerful nation on the Globe . . . largest, most technically advanced military." You can't commit all your forces to that one point because then you would be powerless at many other points. So you commit what you sensibly can commit to the job, but those limited forces are not enough. So more will have to be committed. Still many more will have to be held back otherwise you will be attacked at other points, or powerless to protect your friends who are attacked at other points. And a superpower who can't protect its friends . . . won't have those friends for very long. Long story short: you can't because you just aren't powerful enough.
sirs: << No, that [the change in rationalization from WMD to "bringing democracy"] was never a change, only a moral requirement following regime change & taking out the WMD threat>>
It was a "moral requirement" to kill 600,000 Iraqis so that they could have the kind of democratic government the American government thinks they should have? How on earth is the blatant violation of the basic principle of non-intervention in the affairs of another sovereign state, a part of the Charter of the United Nations which the U.S. itself has solemnly pledged itself to obey, a "moral requirement?" And BTW, the intellectual dishonesty of your argument that the U.S. "took out" a "threat" of WMD is duly noted. Nobody can "take out" a non-existent threat.
The American people were lied into war with the lie that Saddam had WMD that posed an immediate threat to America; once that lie was exposed, they were told that they had to stay in Iraq until the Iraqis had a self-sustaining democratic government or a reasonable shot at one, or similar nonsense - - definitely a change from the original rational of "protecting" America from the "threat" of Saddam's WMD.
sirs: [in response to my question, who will control the Iraqi oil fields if the U.S.A. does not?]
<<Ummm, the Iraqi people? Gads, what a concept>>
Oh, THAT'S a relief. So in about ten or fifteen years time, the Russians, Chinese and Indians, as desperate for oil as they may be, will still voluntarily refrain from taking any steps towards securing the Middle East oil fields -- in fact will be just as scrupulous about respecting Iraqi sovereignty as the U.S. and Britain have been. Gee, it's nice to know that the neo-cons in Washington are so trusting of other rival powers' intentions regarding something as important as oil. Are you there when they all sing Kumbaya together sirs, or are those little singalongs just limited to heads of state?
plane: <<Number one , Saddam had history of seeking , buying , building and useing WMD.>>
Well that's a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Or of the misleading power of half-truths. You mis-stated "history" here by what you left out. The "history" of Saddam's use of WMD was that it was allegedly used against powers that were vastly inferior in retaliatory power to the U.S.A. Neither the Kurds nor Iran had the power or have the power to wipe Iraq off the map. It is almost like arguing, "Well he ("he" being the 98-pound weakling next door) spanked his four-year-old, that proves he was about to come over here and punch my lights out." The fact that he used a weapon against victims who were in no position to wreak massive retaliation (anihilation, actually) upon him and his country is NOT an argument that makes it any more likely that he would use the same weapon against a country that COULD physically anihilate Iraq. Also, not just Iraq but many countries (Israel and the U.S. included) have histories of "seeking, buying and building WMD." India and Pakistan to name just the two most obvious.
plane: <<Number two , oil has lubed history for more than a century now , but "controll" as you put it is not a possibility now as much as it once was back when national enonomys were more independant , can you imagine the result of some idiotic contorller trying to reduce the availiblity of Oil to one of the major markets ? . . . >>
plane is speaking of today's conditions when there is still enough oil to satisfy every major player's need. I am speaking of a time when there won't be enough oil to satisfy all buyers, when allocations will have to be made by the producers. A time when China will be much more militarily powerful than it is now. I pointed out several times in this group a statement made by a senior Chinese defence official that China's goal was to achieve technological parity with the US military in fifteen years, which IMHO would be a very significant milestone. It could be argued that it would be sheer negligence for any U.S. administration today NOT to take steps against that eventuality. In any event, I do not take plane seriously on this point since he is basing his argument on today's market conditions and my argument rests on a longer but still foreseeable term.
-
.The fact that he used a weapon against victims who were in no position to wreak massive retaliation (anihilation, actually) upon him and his country is NOT an argument that makes it any more likely that he would use the same weapon against a country that COULD physically anihilate Iraq.
He wouldn't have to do it. All he would have to do is supply a willing accomplice who had no qualms about doing it. Perhaps an organization not directly attached to any particular nation state. Any organizations spring to mind?
-
Michael's caricature of a mind produces a caricature of Iraq. The oil issue factors in to decisions, of course, in this way: not so much as to US "control" of the Iraqi output but so to keep the political situation in the Middle East conducive to a continued flow of oil. This is not, except corruptly, about oil companies and fat cat profits; instead, regarding this factor, it is, in a very real sense, designed to keep our nation's lifeblood flowing, and thus averting major dislocation, suffering and death of average Joes like me. But beyond oil, only a true incorrigible cynic would fail to understand the genuine fear and the reflexive impulse to fight back at the appropriate targets caused by the 911 attacks. The rationales offered in the beginning were not fig leaves as much as they were the chimera of impassioned minds (leading, I must add, to a wrong policy choice on Iraq). The successive rationales, laudable if successful, were occasioned by the new situation that prevailed in Iraq post-invasion. The idea now, according to all well-meaning people, is to end the matter most successfully according to the highest principles that can be brought to bear on the problem.
-
I found it kind of interesting that the only people who argue against oil as the main reason for the invasion and occupation are the usual suspects, sirs and plane.
That's because the rest of us are sick and tired of making that same argument again.
Just like most of us don't argue the "Bush is Hitler" thing anymore.
Those who continue to make the claims are just looking silly.
-
<<He wouldn't have to do it. All he would have to do is supply a willing accomplice who had no qualms about doing it. Perhaps an organization not directly attached to any particular nation state. Any organizations spring to mind?>>
Yeah, I can think of a few. Mostly religious fundamentalist nuts who excoriated Saddam and his Arab Socialism and his secular Western ways for years, but he could use them - - and then be blackmailed for the rest of his life, with "Hey want the Americans to know where those WMD came from?" In fact his whole future existence and that of his country would be mortgaged to some group of fundamentalist nutcakes in addition to the risk of the U.S. finding out anyway. Nice prospect. And what would be the benefit of all that anyway? Could ANY group permanently destroy the U.S.? The U.S. would survive any strike made on it and still be able to do the same nefarious deeds as always, only with even less restraint.
Makes about as much sense as any of your other absurdist crypto-fascist insanities, but hey, keep 'em coming, I could use the target practice.
-
<<Michael's caricature of a mind . . . ??
Was that necessary? Do you honestly believe your mind is in ANY way superior to mine?
-
Do you honestly think your reality is in any way superior to mine?
-
<<It can't be any of the reasons that have been made public and on record, logical, and completely within the realm of common sense. Nooooooooooooo. It has to be something completely nefarious & sinister>>
In other words: We should believe in the multiple reasons that the U.S. government has given for its actions.
No, in other words, we should believe in the primary reason that was given, and STILL is, for it's action in going into Iraq
Those reasons are logical and completely within the realm of common sense. It is both logical and common sense to believe that Iraq would attack the U.S.A.,....
Start with a false premise, and.....well you know the rest
-
In fact his whole future existence and that of his country would be mortgaged to some group of fundamentalist nutcakes in addition to the risk of the U.S. finding out anyway.
And if he wasn't concerned with that? Suicide bombers aren't concerned with what happens to them, and Saddam supported them, why should he care what happens to him or Iraq. The damage inflicted is what would count.
Adjust you sights, commie boy. You miss more than you hit. And you certainly do need the practice.
-
.The fact that he used a weapon against victims who were in no position to wreak massive retaliation (anihilation, actually) upon him and his country is NOT an argument that makes it any more likely that he would use the same weapon against a country that COULD physically anihilate Iraq.
He wouldn't have to do it. All he would have to do is supply a willing accomplice who had no qualms about doing it. Perhaps an organization not directly attached to any particular nation state. Any organizations spring to mind?
And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons? Most military grade weapons are designed to be used by, uh, militaries. I doubt that a pickup truck with an ICBM strapped to the back could pass down the interstate unnoticed. And AFAIK, the terrorists don't have an air force at their disposal to drop them on us.
Any weapon that would actually have a practical use to a terrorist group is almost certainly available from other sources besides Saddam.
-
And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons?
The ricin attacks in Tokyo.
And yes you can make your own Ricin.
-
And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons?
The ricin attacks in Tokyo. And yes you can make your own Ricin.
And using Tee's "tee leaves technique", one can easily assume that Saddam's precarious position, surrounded by coalition forces may have made him much more susceptable with selling some of the WMD he was known to have had, that could easily have fit in the trunk of a car or even just suitcases.
-
I take Michael's side on this one, though I did not at the time of the invasion, while still articulating these reservations. Reduced to a nutshell, one has to factor likeliness of a negative event (gas attack, for example) with its rational severity and weigh them against the costs of going to war to prevent it. It is not worth saving 25 American lives, I suggest, while killing 4000 innocent Iraqis to accomplish that protection. And remember, the latter sentence addresses predictions, estimates, guesses, speculation ... until the act of war actually occurs. Bush's preemption theory is flawed.
-
<<Do you honestly think your reality is in any way superior to mine?>>
Thanks for not answering the question, which I'll take as a no, the only rational answer you could have given. In answer to yours, which I'll take to mean is my version of reality any way superior to yours, I'd have to say it seems a lot more likely, for the reasons I've already articulated in this thread. Which, as far as I've read, remain uncontradicted by any rational argument.
-
I wasn't using the terror connection as justification for the war.
I do disagree that it was unlikely that Saddams fingerprint could not possibly be on a showcase terror attack upon the United States. Not necessarily 9-11 but quite possibly OKC.
Regime change didn't cost more than 100 soldiers lives. The downshift from war to policing is where the lives came in.
I certainly would have managed the war differently than Bush, most assuredly if the rational for war was about controlling the flow of oil.
-
Not to blanch at a good-natured fight, I note the following: if you believe your reality is superior to mine, then, in turn, I assert that my mind is superior to yours, for it is the instrument that conceives and perceives my superior reality.
-
<<And if he wasn't concerned with that? [nuclear anihilation by the U.S. in retaliation for launching or arming a WMD strike on America?] Suicide bombers aren't concerned with what happens to them, and Saddam supported them, why should he care what happens to him or Iraq. The damage inflicted is what would count. >>
More right-wing fantasizing from the paranoid lunatic fringe. There isn't a suicide attack in history INCLUDING 911 that posed the remotest risk of nuclear anihilation to the perpetrators or their sponsors. Not even Bush and his gang of amoral war criminals ever proposed nuking the perps of any "terrorist" or other hostile act to date. A suicide bomber is nothing more than an alternative means of delivering conventional explosives by ground transport that less courageous combatants like the U.S.A. and Israel prefer to deliver by air. It's absurd to think that any strike by a suicide bomber would invite a nuclear retaliation.
But thanks for a classic demonstration of right-wing "logic" at work. I'll use the same "reasoning" in a slightly different context: Bush sends young Americans to fight and die in Iraq. These young Americans have the dedication necessary to put their lives on the line to fight America's battles overseas. Therefore Bush has the dedication necessary to put his life on the line to fight America's battles overseas.
<<Adjust you sights, commie boy. You miss more than you hit. >>
Not in your case, BT. I hit every time and you know it.
<<And you certainly do need the practice. >>
Well, everybody can benefit from a little practice. Nobody's perfect.
-
But since you exist only as a sequence of characters on my monitor, it is quite likely I who have conceived both your mind AND your allegedly superior reality which you claim it conceives and perceives and therefore my mind has to be the superior one.
-
Mikey,
The war in Iraq isn't about Bush. And if you can't even hit that target correctly, what can you hit.
If it is about oil then it wouldn't matter which party controlled the whitehouse. Because we all know the oil oligarchy controls whoever sits in the chair.
You yourself have said there isn't a dimes difference between the dems and the GOP. They all answer to their masters.
Reload and aim again.
-
And where's a precident for a terrorist organization using any such weapons?
The ricin attacks in Tokyo.
And yes you can make your own Ricin.
It wasn't Ricin, it was Sarin. And yes, they did make it themselves, which illustrates my point. Seriously, if you were going to initiate a gas attack in the United States, would it be easier to synthesize it here, or try to smuggle in the massive quantity required?
That one strikes me as a no-brainer.
-
To me, you're an actual person sitting at home at a keyboard taking his daily playtime, which, mostly, is to vent not to enlighten. And therein lies my superiority, if any: I truly seek to think and enlighten.
-
<<The oil issue factors in to decisions, of course, in this way: not so much as to US "control" of the Iraqi output but so to keep the political situation in the Middle East conducive to a continued flow of oil. This is not, except corruptly, about oil companies and fat cat profits; instead, regarding this factor, it is, in a very real sense, designed to keep our nation's lifeblood flowing, and thus averting major dislocation, suffering and death of average Joes like me.>>
Well, since the oil was flowing without the invasion and in all likelihood would have continued to flow for the immediate future, the invasion could not have had anything to do with "keeping the flow going" since there was no immediate threat to it. There WAS, however, Saddam's threat to denominate Iraqi oil sales in euros, a decision which, if adopted, would have had serious negative repercussions on the strength of your vulnerable dollar, particularly if others followed suit. If you have anything in mind beyond the immediate future, then it seems you are agreeing with me: they want the flow [to them] to continue in my future scenario of vastly increased international demand outstripping production, when the major players (China in particular) are a lot more muscular than they are at present. I agree with the possibility you have expressed, that the concern might be more altruistic, in that it could genuinely be about the nation's need for oil, not Bush and Cheney's concerns for the bottom line of their oilpatch buds. However, given the corrupt and venal nature of both of these men, it is kind of hard to imagine them forsaking a God-given opportunity to reap the immense wealth that is just there for the taking.
<<But beyond oil, only a true incorrigible cynic would fail to understand the genuine fear and the reflexive impulse to fight back at the appropriate targets caused by the 911 attacks. >>
Quite honestly, I have yet to meet a real New Yorker who felt any "reflexive impulse" to invade Iraq in response to the 911 attacks. The only ones I know who will support the Iraq war are rabid Zionists who are just happy to see an enemy of the State of Israel destroyed and his country dismembered into feuding factions. They see it as one less problem for the Israelis to worry about. All of them, the Zionists and non-Zionists alike, feel it's sheer insanity to connect Iraq or Saddam to what happened on 911. If this "reflexive impulse" existed anywhere, it certainly wasn't prevalent in the city most directly victimized by the attacks and I suspect it was deliberately fostered for the sole purpose of facilitating a preconceived administration plan that was related only tangentially if at all to 911.
<<The rationales offered in the beginning were not fig leaves as much as they were the chimera of impassioned minds (leading, I must add, to a wrong policy choice on Iraq). ..
That might have been semi-convincing, had we known nothing of PNAC and the involvment of Bush's senior cabinet members in the plan. Passion had nothing to do with this.
<<The successive rationales, laudable if successful, were occasioned by the new situation that prevailed in Iraq post-invasion. >>
Does this mean what I think it does? That as the situation on the ground changed, new reasons for staying there had to be cooked up accordingly? [I'm leaving aside the "laudable if successful" part because it opens a whole nuther can of worms.] I'd go along with that. They lying bastards went in on false pretences and when the original lie was exploded, they had to invent new ones.
<<The idea now, according to all well-meaning people, is to end the matter most successfully according to the highest principles that can be brought to bear on the problem.>>
WOW. THAT'S lawyer-talk. You oughtta write for "President" Bush. It says everything and it says nothing, all at the same time. Who are "all well-meaning people?" Are Bush and Cheney included? Is Jim Baker? (If I might digress for a moment, WTF is so "well-meaning" about Baker and what group of Americans did he ever benefit?) Is Cindy Sheehan well-meaning? Is Ted Kennedy? Don't ALL "well-meaning people" want to end every project "most successfully" and what are the "highest principles" and which of them can be brought to bear on the problem? Is that really a confession that nobody knows now what to do?
-
<<The war in Iraq isn't about Bush. And if you can't even hit that target correctly, what can you hit. >>
The target in this case, BT, was neither Bush nor the war in Iraq. It was YOU, specifically your absurd contention that the U.S. had a genuine reason to fear that Saddam would turn over his WMD to third parties to attack the USA with."
<<Reload and aim again.>>
Nah, once right in the bull's eye is enough for me. It was a pretty big bull's eye anyway. Time for a new target.
<<If it is about oil then it wouldn't matter which party controlled the whitehouse. Because we all know the oil oligarchy controls whoever sits in the chair.
<<You yourself have said there isn't a dimes difference between the dems and the GOP. They all answer to their masters. >>
As is proven by the fact that the Dems didn't put up any fight at all against the invasion and didn't even put an unconditional pull-out in their 2004 campaign.
It's only when the master's plans go badly awry that some servants see the problem faster than others. The Republicans, being a bunch of crypto-fascist militarist morons, won't see the problems until the disaster is staring them straight in the face, the Democrats, being considerably brighter, will probably see if from further down the road.
-
<<To me, you're an actual person sitting at home at a keyboard taking his daily playtime, which, mostly, is to vent not to enlighten. And therein lies my superiority, if any: I truly seek to think and enlighten.>.
Well, domer, believe it or not, I too am trying to enlighten. Not necessarily my interlocutors, but those who follow the thread. And encourage. I want people who hear the kind of fascist claptrap freely bandied about here to know that there IS an answer, and that they can and should give it. I even believe that you too are a real person. You're NOT a figment of my imagination. Are you?
-
Seriously, if you were going to initiate a gas attack in the United States, would it be easier to synthesize it here, or try to smuggle in the massive quantity required?
I would purchase the finished and certified product rather than try to cook it up on my own in a basement lab.
I believe there are less cargo inspectors than nosy busy body neighbors and my chances of getting caught were less. And with a cut out picking up the shipment, i would have a better chance of beating the rap than i would if i made the goods myself.
I would also let the gas loose in more than one Wal Mart during the after thanksgiving sales.
-
Michael, I coupled "reflexive impulse" with "appropriate target," which Iraq was not, though the passions of the moment made it seem such to many. Undoubtedly, the administration's pre-existing mindset skewed the deliberations in Iraq's direction. That is not to say that those preconceptions were corruptly employed as much recklessly applied: idea met opportunity in a distorting sea of fear and anger.
The focus continually shifted as the occupation wore on, with Bush never admitting his errors in the WMD prediction and the terrorist-supplier belief. We were there, and the situation had changed. A country wrenched from a brutal dictator, comprised of disparate elements, had to be helped along to stable governance (if possible). So the focus turned to that. Quite clearly, in the wake of his non-confessions, Bush used this as political cover. That, however, did not undercut the need of a victor and occupier to aid the defeated and occupied in its new start, an undertaking, I submit, that is clearly within creed of any worthwhile political or military philosophy. This begs the question, the one currently so acute, as to whether this rehabilitation is even possible given the realities.
Finally, I think all of the people you mention are well-meaning. Indeed, Kennedy was not only well-meaning but prescient. Bush andd Cheney, I maintain, are well-meaning but ideologically ensnared, which skews their judgment. And yes, I purposely left the matter vague, for two reasons: it encourages discussion, and anything more definite, at my station and level of understanding, would just be talk for the sake of talk, which, contrary to stereotype, is not what this lawyer is about.
-
Seriously, if you were going to initiate a gas attack in the United States, would it be easier to synthesize it here, or try to smuggle in the massive quantity required?
I would purchase the finished and certified product rather than try to cook it up on my own in a basement lab.
I believe there are less cargo inspectors than nosy busy body neighbors and my chances of getting caught were less. And with a cut out picking up the shipment, i would have a better chance of beating the rap than i would if i made the goods myself.
I would also let the gas loose in more than one Wal Mart during the after thanksgiving sales.
Considering that every act of terrorism I'm aware of has been perpetrated using home grown implements, including the one instance of Sarin gas, I suspect that your preferences are not shared by most real terrorists.
But even aside from that, say you are an unusually persnickety terrorist, and now that Saddam is gone, and you have to resort to synthesizing your own Sarin. How much of a barrier is that going to be to someone that was serious enough to attempt importing it? I expect if they're tenacious enough to import it, they're tenacious enough to synthesize it. It's not really all that hard.
-
Considering that every act of terrorism I'm aware of has been perpetrated using home grown implements,
The terrorists built those planes they used on 9/11?
-
Considering that every act of terrorism I'm aware of has been perpetrated using home grown implements,
The terrorists built those planes they used on 9/11?
You're expecting a serious answer to that?
Were airplanes a locally available implement, or not?
-
Good post, domer. Not much I'd disagree with there except I do find it extremely hard to think of Bush and Cheney as well-meaning. I suppose it's possible, but certainly no more so than that they are NOT well-meaning.
I guess even "well-meaning" is a fairly subjective term.
Would you consider them well-meaning if they invaded Iraq to preserve America's oil supply without any motive of personal or corporate gain?
-
"..absurd contention that the U.S. had a genuine reason to fear that Saddam would turn over his WMD to third parties to attack the USA with."
This wouldn't seem out of caricter for him , his attempt to kill former President Bush for example , his funding of Palestinian extremists for another.
"...Saddam's threat to denominate Iraqi oil sales in euros, a decision which, if adopted, would have had serious negative repercussions on the strength of your vulnerable dollar, particularly if others followed suit...."
Hmmmm.. Is this a reason for the common American to be offended with Saddam? Rich Americans and Oil companys can get Euros.
-
"..absurd contention that the U.S. had a genuine reason to fear that Saddam would turn over his WMD to third parties to attack the USA with."
This wouldn't seem out of caricter for him , his attempt to kill former President Bush for example , his funding of Palestinian extremists for another.
"...Saddam's threat to denominate Iraqi oil sales in euros, a decision which, if adopted, would have had serious negative repercussions on the strength of your vulnerable dollar, particularly if others followed suit...."
Hmmmm.. Is this a reason for the common American to be offended with Saddam? Rich Americans and Oil companys can get Euros.
Saddam 's attempt to kill G. H. W. Bush, if it ever happened, did not carry the remotest risk of nuclear anihilation for him or his country. Neither did funding the Palestinian Resistance. I therefore repeat, uncontradicted, there is no evidence whatsoever - - none - - that would indicate any prior action by Saddam that involved trusting third parties with weapons or anything else that could blow back on Iraq in the form of nuclear anihilation. It is absurd and crazy to suggest that Saddam would pass WMD to third parties to use on the U.S. Logic alone tells you how crazy it would be. And nothing in Saddam's past actions have ever showed he even considered it.
Regarding euro-denominated oil sales, if other countries followed suit (as well they might, given the euro's rise against the dollar, which shows no long-term signs of abating) the dollar would be in deep shit. Whatever "common Americans" thought of it, the "rich Americans and Oil companies" who "can get euros" already know that "getting euros" in those circumstances would cost them billions of dollars more - - enough of an added cost that it would be worth it to them if the U.S. invaded Iraq to "persuade" the Iraqis that U.S. dollars were good enough for them.