[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and I think it is pretty clear to anyone willing to see it that 9/11 gave Bush the opportunity to coax the majority of the people in this country into immediately allowing military action even though many were confused as to exactly what for. I do believe it is less than truthful to pretend as if 9/11 had not happened that we would have gone in when we did and how we did with no plan for “nation building” ready beforehand.
No one is denying that 9/11 was the catalyst for a lot of shit. The confusion belonged only to those that refused to pay any fucking attention.
Bush was not even in office 9 months when we were attacked. I think that is a forgotten fact with those that can only see Iraq. I don’t know how much more clearly, or how many more times I can say it: Iraq is only a part of the GWOT, and Bush waited until we had Afghanistan under control before setting his sights on the next part of the GWOT.
You seem to think that Bush went to war with Iraq immediately after taking office when in fact he was halfway through his first term.
[/quote]
No, I think Bush went into Iraq as soon as possible and used 9/11 to gain support for it. Was the term “GWOT” even used before 9/11?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, I think Bush went into Iraq as soon as possible and used 9/11 to gain support for it. Was the term “GWOT” even used before 9/11?
[/quote]
You have every right to your opinion. I don’t know why you think this way - as it is beyond me how you can blame one man. Especially when that one man, by all ABB accounts, is too damn stupid to get both shoes tied in one trip.
The problem with not hearing the term “GWOT” before 9/11 would probably lay in Clinton’s lap - if his lap is not otherwise preoccupied with fat college chicks.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, I think Bush went into Iraq as soon as possible and used 9/11 to gain support for it. Was the term “GWOT” even used before 9/11?
You have every right to your opinion. I don’t know why you think this way - as it is beyond me how you can blame one man. Especially when that one man, by all ABB accounts, is too damn stupid to get both shoes tied in one trip.
The problem with not hearing the term “GWOT” before 9/11 would probably lay in Clinton’s lap - if his lap is not otherwise preoccupied with fat college chicks. [/quote]
It just couldn’t be that this term was applied to help justify the link between Iraq and 9/11? I have never said Bush is retarded, however, I wouldn’t exactly classify him as the “apparent” most intelligent president we have ever had and that is based on the way he conducts himself in public. That really has nothing to do with what we are talking about, however, because does it really take a genius to pull off what we’re talking about? All powerful men are also the most intelligent in the world? Why is that even an issue to you?
Who said I thought taking out Saddam was bad? I know I was asking basic questions, but you should know by now that this isn’t how I think and those questions lead us to this post. You answered it well and I thank you for it. You were honest about it instead of giving useless talking points as an answer and much of what you wrote I actually agree with. What I disagree with is HOW some of that “political clout” was spent, not necessarily what it was spent on. I feel that the American people were worked up into this and this is why the president’s approval rating is down and why many more than 2 or 3 years ago are now tired of Iraq…even though we are now in this for years and years to come. Emotions got us into this when it should have been seperated from the tragedy enough to avoid that type of mindset. This does allow me ask questions like, how much of a benefit has this war (conducted the way it was) created over having waited until a much beter plan of propoganda, relief, nation building and even troop strength was established? Do I feel we rushed in? I sure as hell do, and as you wrote, we went in at a time that Bush felt he had the political clout and he felt he had to make it in before that diminished. Do you see the issues many have now? Without political cheerleading, do you get what has many upset?[/quote]
When it comes to Bush’s approval rating, and the opinion of the Iraq war, I don’t think that has as much to do with what Bush has done as it has to do with the media, and the Democratic party attempting to do whatever it takes to knock him down a peg.
As I have said before, I have no problem with genuine questions about the war, genuine questions, and criticism of the president. I have some problems with how things have gone, although my problems are often the opposite of the left.
I do not accuse the president of connecting 911 with Saddam, but I do say he let that the idea of that connection persist. Although I do believe his administration seriously thought they could find some connection.
There is a big question about how long it would have been before there was another time where it was politically good to go into Iraq. I remember the time, and his support was declining. At the time I thought he was actually taking to long, and playing some stupid political game, which actually backfired. He already had congressional, and UN support for going in, but he made a serious mistake attempting to get a second approval from the UN that he didn’t need.
The idea was good, if it had worked. If he got that second statement of support against Iraq, he would have been standing on a stronger political footing. But I always felt it was a stupid gamble, and in the end one that cost him. Bush backed down, and politicians jumped on that like he didn’t have approval, which for the people who didn’t really pay attention, it didn’t look like he did.
I still believe the benefit of going in when we did was because without the political clout Bush had, it could have been years before we were able to go in, and I seriously question how strong Saddam would have been at that time. Maybe he wouldn’t have ran that time like he did before. Maybe he wouldn’t have needed to.
As I stated before, he did have the precursors for the WMD’s, and the facilities for putting it all together. Regardless of the questions about pre war uranium, we did find uranium, and a portion large enough for at least a crude nuke was found and removed.
If we would have waited, maybe he would have had those weapons in place, and maybe he would have believed he could win against the US, or at least hold us off long enough to let politics do it for him. Again imagine how many US troops would have been lost then.
That is why I support the actions, because in the long run, it would have been a lot worse. And there was no way we should let Saddam become that powerful. What would the implications be then?
The reason for the need for imminence is to restrain the US from simply claiming threat from any country it so desired and launching an invasion.
More precisely, in the international arena, how many tin pot dictators are now able to use the claim that in the future, at some point, some country has the potential to be a threat?
I can’t imagine a more damaging precedent to put in the hands of the tin pot dictators around the world.
Good job!
This is asinine - when has a ‘tinpot dictator’ needed a Western justification to wage a war of aggression? At what point has any dangerous rogue regime been hesistant to invade or attack merely because there was no ‘pre-emption doctrine’ or similar, but now, hooray, there is one, so they can fire up the tanks that would otherwise sit idle?
More of the same excuse-making - ie, our actions will produce a bad reaction that we will live to regret. Every baddie in the world is a result of something the West has done or will do - the baddies never of their own accord just act bad. This is the reflexive stupidity of nearly every leftish critic - that nearly all the violence and mayhem in the world can be explained as a mere response to a bad decision by a country in the First World, never the result of accountable free will on the part of maniacs.
In a word, no - baddies have always found whatever reason they wanted to invade or slaughter, and they always will. The US goes into Iraq or not, and there will be a Milosevic, a Pol Pot, a Hitler, whoever. Our newfangled defensive approach isn’t going to alter that a bit. Baddies will get away with whatever they think they can, regardless of whether or not the US acts pre-emptively in the future.
It is hilarious that you worry about what ‘precedent’ we set for rogue regimes - as if they care one bit about precedent, international custom, or doctrines of just war. [/quote]
Your arguments are great, but the fact that the administration admits they found nothing would go against your claims.
You surely realize the Bush administration would be very happy indeed to be able to make claims concerning Iraq’s possession of WMD’s.
Similarly, there are many stories, from both sides, to support their claims. The lack of claims from the White House is all the proof that I need. They’d make them if they could prove them reasonably.
Hey vroom,
My links do give a lot of facts. And I never said they had WMD’s. But the fact is they had the programs running. They had everything in place to produce WMD’s. They just weren’t doing it yet.
Again I said they had no reason to yet turn everything on.
Bush didn’t say they found “nothing”. But the completed, final fully functioning WMD’s, no, not there. All the parts in place to make the stuff? Yes. Plants to make the stuff? Yes. Preparations to make the stuff? Yes. The final product as expected? No.
I never argued above that he had any real final product. What I am doing is explaining why the intelligence was wrong, and where Saddam was eventually headed.
What Goebbels did above was completely twist everything I said around, and to tell everyone to quickly not pay any attention to the raving lunatic. It is very hard to argue against that tactic when I am not willing to sink that low.
I gave the facts. People need to argue against them instead of things people pretend I said. Do we need to again get into the straw man fallacy discussion? [/quote]
If Saddam had the WMD, he’d have used them. That was the whole point of going in there, before he developed the weapons. I’m not arguing with you Mage, just the people who don’t understand your point.
I deal with teenagers all day and sometimes eloquence and intellectual rigor kind of escapes them.
The next time a dictator wants to invade a country, it will simply point at the actions of the US and say we were just doing the same thing.
Then, instead of the UN putting on sanctions and opening up the door to further retaliation via the security council, it will go nowhere.
It isn’t about a change in dictator behavior, it is about a change in the way it will have to be viewed. After all, the only thing they have to do is put together “evidence” that justifies the action…
How on earth will the US ever argue against that with a straight face?
If Saddam had the WMD, he’d have used them. That was the whole point of going in there, before he developed the weapons. I’m not arguing with you Mage, just the people who don’t understand your point.
I deal with teenagers all day and sometimes eloquence and intellectual rigor kind of escapes them.
[/quote]
Obviously false. He had WMD in the past. And he had used them. We know because we have the reciepts of the WMD we sold him. When President H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi’s to rise up in rebellion, and they did President H.W. Bush turned his back on them, and presto RNC talking point: Saddam gassed his own people(with our help). So that(WMD) obviously was NOT the reason we went in there. There are quite a few reasons given by President Bush’s cabinet in their various Project for a New American Century papers, but most deal with securing the American empire.
In “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century” it says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” It goes on to lay out the need for permanent bases.
In your pursuit of “intellectual rigor” a good place to start would be the writings and beliefs of the people who took us to this war. Most of President Bush’s cabinet had been desiring to do so for some time, and in their own words they don’t give the reason you do. You could easily see for yourself if you do indeed have such “rigor”?
Please post your findings, I’d love to hear your suprise!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, I think Bush went into Iraq as soon as possible and used 9/11 to gain support for it. Was the term “GWOT” even used before 9/11?
You have every right to your opinion. I don’t know why you think this way - as it is beyond me how you can blame one man. Especially when that one man, by all ABB accounts, is too damn stupid to get both shoes tied in one trip.
The problem with not hearing the term “GWOT” before 9/11 would probably lay in Clinton’s lap - if his lap is not otherwise preoccupied with fat college chicks. [/quote]
Actually, the facts would tend to disagree badly with you Rainjack. “GWOT” is a marketing term only. Case in point: We are currently fighting a war that had little to do with the “GWOT” relatively speaking. In fact logic would dictate that we are encouraging the “GWOT” as witnessed by our creation of a new terrorist training state (Iraq) and the record increases in terrorism around the world. Also the public record would tend to show that President Bush did not understand (to be kind) any kind of war on terror, as demonstrated by his deprioritizing of anti-terrorism funding and efforts in his first year. To deprioritize would mean that it was of a higher priority with the previous president, President Clinton, possibly by his ability to do something called multi-tasking (i.e. fight terror and do "fat college chicks).
[quote]The Mage wrote:
That is why I support the actions, because in the long run, it would have been a lot worse. And there was no way we should let Saddam become that powerful. What would the implications be then?[/quote]
What would be the implications of Saddam not having WMD for over 10 years (see Duelfer Report) easily enforced by simple no-fly zones, sanctions, and the occasional bombing? The implication would be that the U.S. would have been able to focus on the real war on terror, saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives to name a few.
There was no good factual reason for invading Iraq unless one subcribes to the need of maintaining bases in the Gulf, as the neo-conservatives do.
[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, I think Bush went into Iraq as soon as possible and used 9/11 to gain support for it. Was the term “GWOT” even used before 9/11?
You have every right to your opinion. I don’t know why you think this way - as it is beyond me how you can blame one man. Especially when that one man, by all ABB accounts, is too damn stupid to get both shoes tied in one trip.
The problem with not hearing the term “GWOT” before 9/11 would probably lay in Clinton’s lap - if his lap is not otherwise preoccupied with fat college chicks.
Actually, the facts would tend to disagree badly with you Rainjack. “GWOT” is a marketing term only. Case in point: We are currently fighting a war that had little to do with the “GWOT” relatively speaking. In fact logic would dictate that we are encouraging the “GWOT” as witnessed by our creation of a new terrorist training state (Iraq) and the record increases in terrorism around the world. Also the public record would tend to show that President Bush did not understand (to be kind) any kind of war on terror, as demonstrated by his deprioritizing of anti-terrorism funding and efforts in his first year. To deprioritize would mean that it was of a higher priority with the previous president, President Clinton, possibly by his ability to do something called multi-tasking (i.e. fight terror and do "fat college chicks).
[/quote]
Whew - you are going with that line? I didn’t see a single fact that you say are against me. All I saw was a play on words, and the use of the word ‘logic’. I say use of the word as there was no real application of it. Iraq is most certainly a part of the war on terror. Whther you want to believe it or not has little to do with facts, or logic.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Whew - you are going with that line? I didn’t see a single fact that you say are against me. All I saw was a play on words, and the use of the word ‘logic’. I say use of the word as there was no real application of it. Iraq is most certainly a part of the war on terror. Whther you want to believe it or not has little to do with facts, or logic. [/quote]
More precisely, it would have little to do with President Clinton, and more to do with President Bush’s apparent lack of understanding of the importance of fighting terror pre-9/11 as factually evident in President Bush’s priorities in his first year (i.e. diverting funds to missle defense)
Post 9/11 GWOT is a marketing term ONLY, this is a term designed only for manipulating the RNC base, again evidenced by the invasion of Iraq, a country as you worded yourself “is” a part of the war on terror, but was not at the time invasion (relative to other countries ties to al-queda). It “is” now a part of the GWOT because as the CIA says it is now the new training ground for terrorists.
[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Whew - you are going with that line? I didn’t see a single fact that you say are against me. All I saw was a play on words, and the use of the word ‘logic’. I say use of the word as there was no real application of it. Iraq is most certainly a part of the war on terror. Whther you want to believe it or not has little to do with facts, or logic.
More precisely, it would have little to do with President Clinton, and more to do with President Bush’s apparent lack of understanding of the importance of fighting terror pre-9/11 as factually evident in President Bush’s priorities in his first year (i.e. diverting funds to missle defense)
Post 9/11 GWOT is a marketing term ONLY, this is a term designed only for manipulating the RNC base, again evidenced by the invasion of Iraq, a country as you worded yourself “is” a part of the war on terror, but was not at the time invasion (relative to other countries ties to al-queda). It “is” now a part of the GWOT because as the CIA says it is now the new training ground for terrorists.
[/quote]
No - Bush ID’d Iraq as part of the axis of evil in his SOTU address in January 2002, if I am not mistaken. In any event, Iraq was part of the GWOT before we even started the run-up to war.
And I hate to pop your balloon, but Clinton did absolutely nothing wrt global terror. It would have interfered with the economy, and he would rather be popular than to do the right thing.
And I hate to pop your balloon, but Clinton did absolutely nothing wrt global terror. It would have interfered with the economy, and he would rather be popular than to do the right thing. [/quote]
In your mind, you see our actions as stifling global terror? We have accomplished this goal? Terror is now reduced across the globe?
The next time a dictator wants to invade a country, it will simply point at the actions of the US and say we were just doing the same thing.[/quote]
So?
You mean to tell me that if some backwater fascist decides to invade a neighboring country on the pretext that that they were about to be attacked and wanted to invoke pre-emption, that the United Nations Security Council could not look at the facts and discern the difference between a true pre-emption and naked aggression?
The UNSC would have to honor the fascist regime’s claim on pre-emption, a priori, and the UNSC would have automatically be foreclosed from sanction, action, etc., merely because the bad guys have to be taken at good faith on the claim of pre-emption?
Wow, I think you just disqualified yourself from even playing a spirited game of RISK with that foreign policy assessment.
Ridiculous. Any situation is going to be viewed on a case-by-case basis, not pat abstractions. I know, I know - endless abstractions are your specialty - but the reality is if the UNSC were to have such a situation brought before it, a mere claim of pre-emption would not automatically be honored, no matter how many countries followed the doctrine.
Nonsense. They put together ‘evidence’ any way they want, completely regardless of what we do. Hitler claimed the Treaty of Versailles was unfairly harsh - do you think we should no longer have any stiff armistice treaties or tough sanctions because, under your theory, the next wannabe Hitler will predicate his aggression on that justification?
They will always find a justification - and how it is ‘viewed’ is irrelevant. You plead for abstract consistency - if the US can do it, then surely any country can? - but it is always a matter of degree and situational facts.
The UN Charter textually only provides for self-defense in the event of an ‘armed attack’. From a textual point of view, any action taken prior to an ‘armed attack’ is a pre-emptive move. Assuming you think adhering to this strict textual command of ‘armed attack’ is nothing more than a suicide pact in this day and age of nuclear weapons - and I hope you do - then you must consider that some pre-emption is a fair act of sovereignty and self-preservation.
So there are situations that require pre-emption - presumably millions of scenarios, no two the same. Where you show your limitations is in this foolish desire for brainless consistency, regardless of context - but not all situations are going to be the same.
Now you have embarrassed yourself. Why are you assuming that every act gets a shiny stamp of approval of pre-emption just because the aggressor claims it is pre-emption?
It doesn’t. And the UNSC - whatever it’s worth - still has every ability to say “nope” in regards to the justification to a ‘tinppot dictator’ invading his neighbor. The doctrine of pre-emption is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card - the UNSC can still vote to blow the smithereens out of a baddie even if the baddie is shrieking to high heavens “pre-emption!”. There is no moral imperative to say that “he has invoked the pre-emption doctrine, therefore we cannot touch him, because another one invoked it, and we did not touch him then”.
And, btw, just so we are clear - the US is not above reproach on this either. If someone wants to criticize any US act of pure pre-emption - and I think Iraq is plenty critizable, but not as a good example of pure pre-emption, given the breach of ceasefire and UN Resolutions, etc. - it is fair game, so long as it is done in good faith. And they are welcome to bring it up at the UNSC, for good measure - but guess how well that will do with the US as Permanent Member.
You know, for a guy who spends a lot of time grinning in the mirror at himself for being so ‘nuanced’, you are disappointing.
And I hate to pop your balloon, but Clinton did absolutely nothing wrt global terror. It would have interfered with the economy, and he would rather be popular than to do the right thing.
In your mind, you see our actions as stifling global terror? We have accomplished this goal? Terror is now reduced across the globe? [/quote]
Starting with our own backyard - I think we are much safer than we were before 9/11. How many attacks have there been since 9/11 on U.S. interests? I can’t think of any off hand.
You can say it’s not working all you want. But we have overthrown two state sponsors of terror since 9/11/2001.
