Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-26 07:31:10

Shaun:

I also wish our liberating troops, a force for good in a world of self-serving cynics, a safe passage through the coming days.

I enthusiastically second that sentiment.

Bill:

Shaun, tell Bush to leave Social Security alone until after the War on Terror is won and I will agree with you;

One problem at a time? Just put everything on hold until terrorists no longer threaten us? This is a political, rather than a rational position.

Shaun, tell Bush to stop appointing American fascist judges until after the War On Terror is won and I will agree with you;

:laugh: Oh where to start? I wasn't aware that strict adherence to the US Constitution was a fascist trait.

Hot damn, you can be a good fascist and a good American, my political prospects are looking up.

"Let's get together, let bitterness pass, I'll hug your
elephant, you kiss my ass!" And the crowd went crazy.

<snickers> Amusing little jabs at the other side are a staple of both factions. I seem to recall something about buttons with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and the caption "Asses of Evil" at a Democrat fundraiser or two... It's hardly a major cause of strife.

"They wouldn't vote for our laws, they wouldn't stay out of wars, they wouldn't tax the rich bastards and they don't care about the enviroment, but when they make fun of our donkey logo that's the last straw!"

#1) Iraqi WMD was a LIE!
#2) Saddam working with bin Laden was a LIE!

1) No, it wasn't. It may have been a mistake, an exagerration, or an as yet unverified truth; but it was not an outright lie. And the Left would do well to backpedal on that piece of rhetoric as the record shows many of their own people spread the same "lie" right up until George Bush looked like he'd actually act on it.

2) Maybe I wasn't paying attention or maybe I just don't crystallize complex geo-political scenarios into soundbites, but I don't recall a specific "Saddam and bin Laden planned 9/11" justification for war. I know alot of people believe that, but they believe alot of things that aren't so. Saddam did support terrorism and there is evidence of some mid-level cooperation between elements in the Iraqi government and al Qaeda, but no outright Saddam/bin Laden plot.

Again, ignorance of the population doesn't constitute a lie.

But just for the sake of finding common ground, reaching out and all that I'll accept the premise and concede a lie on this point, if the Dems will concede that the justifications behind tax increases, gun control, welfare programs, "diversity" and the enviromental movement are lies.

Oops, I told myself I'd try to be calm and understanding today. More lies!

PS, George Bush knew about 9/11 the day before and Dick Cheney shot Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll.

And you agree the Swift Boat Liars were a cheap political attack.

They raised their own funds, they had something to say and they said it. Why is it that when citizens question one side they're patriots but when it's the other way around they're liars?

The people on the Right are actually starting to believe they can get away with stuff, the people on the Left are completely cracking up, it's becoming a madhouse.

But what the hell, if it breaks it breaks. Stupid balance anyway.

BWhite · 2005-01-26 08:25:45

"Saddam and bin Laden planned 9/11" justification for war.

Come on, Cobra. Cheney pounded this drum for months, and still does. Only a few months ago Cheney said we can never know the true extent of cooperation between Saddam and bin Laden.

It also done using standard "Swift Boat" operating procedure.

Pay (with GOP money) dozens/hundreds of shills in the press to beat the drum about (#1) WMD and (#2) Saddam = bin Laden. Then Bush can mumble something ambiguous and inarticulate that can be interpreted a variety of ways.

Large percentages of people come to believe #1 and #2 are true and the President retains plausible deniability. Very clever. But very dangerous when it backfires.

= = =

Ronald Reagan started this.

Go to Selma, Alabama and talk about "states rights" - - it's code for offering up "race bait" to those whites still smarting about the civil rights fights of the 1960s. When called on it, smile and say "that's not what I mean" then wink at the KKK members standing nearby.

Cheney and Rove are masters at that game. And they did it masterfully with Saddam WMD and Saddam = bin Laden.

Want unity?

'Fess up to stuff like this, first.

= = =

Attending prayer services where Billy Graham says God selected GWB and then playing it both ways. To the evangelicals, distribute a DVD (using GOP money) that portrays Bush as a genuine saint annointed by God.

Then to the secularists, say "stop being so paranoid" - - that's not what I really stand for.

Edited By BWhite on 1106749786

BWhite · 2005-01-26 09:06:45

Remember this?

Polands]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3525356.stm]Poland's President unhappy about being "misled" about Saddam's WMD.

When a head of state says "misled" the truth is worse.

Palomar · 2005-01-26 09:25:48

*Why do I get the feeling some folks just aren't going to see/agree with the other person's POV on the issue? Not that anyone has to, of course...but it seems futile sometimes.

Euler: Yes, it sure would be nice if we won the war -and- if the Iraqi elections turn out in favor of democracy. Especially after the human cost (lives) and money involved...

Cobra: The people on the Right are actually starting to believe they can get away with stuff, the people on the Left are completely cracking up, it's becoming a madhouse.

Yes indeed. ::sigh::

Bill: Remember this?
Poland's President unhappy about being "misled" about Saddam's WMD.
When a head of state says "misled" the truth is worse.

Most politicians (*wherever* they reside on the globe) are corrupt, self-serving crooks. Why give this guy any credence? What if he initially DID truly believe there were WMDs over in Iraq, and now he's singing a different tune so as not to be branded "America's poodle" or to better secure his political future or...?

There's so much propoganda, misinformation and distortion going around. Is it possible the U.S. media is kissing up to global political opinion? Is it possible the U.S. gov't is carefully screening GI's, as to who can appear on-camera and who cannot?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-26 09:30:43

Come on, Cobra. Cheney pounded this drum for months, and still does. Only a few months ago Cheney said we can never know the true extent of cooperation between Saddam and bin Laden.

Which I suppose strictly speaking is true, we don't know the "extent of cooperation".

But here's the deal and it always plays out his way, one side floats a fairly ambiguous could-go-either-way statement, the other picks it up and spins it as whatever extreme position suits them, then when the originator tries to dispute that intepretation they're hit harder for "spinning" the spin. Republicans and Democrats do it all the time, even in this case both parties are using uncertainty for political gain. We don't really know exactly what connections there were. Republicans want people to believe they were strong, Democrats want us to believe they didn't exist.

As usual the truth is probably somewhere in between and just because my boots might have a little shit on them doesn't mean yours are clean.

Pay (with GOP money) dozens/hundreds of shills in the press to beat the drum about (#1) WMD and (#2) Saddam = bin Laden. Then Bush can mumble something ambiguous and inarticulate that can be interpreted a variety of ways.

Define "GOP money". While it's easy to cast Right-leaning groups as "Republican shills" while their Leftist counterparts are merely citizens exercising their free speech the fact remains that in both cases they receive funds through their respective parties, directly or otherwise, with the intent of generating gains for those parties.

So of course the Swift Boat Vets got money from Republicans, it's not as though they'll go to George Soros and he'll say "Well, I don't like your message, but here's a fat check anyway." Conversely MoveOn.org was funded by "DNC money" because it suited wealthy Democrats to do so. Both represent fairly extreme, virulent strains of their respective factions. Bitching and moaning about one while giving the other a pass undermines credibility, it's done purely for partisan purposes.

Personally, I don't care about either. If they can get funds to run their ad, fine. I wouldn't object if Stalinists and Nazis started up 527's and ran ads next election. Free speech, free association, democracy in action. Sometimes it's beautiful, but usually it's just a mess.

Ronald Reagan started this.
Go to Selma, Alabama and talk about "states rights" - - it's code for offering up "race bait" to those whites still smarting about the civil rights fights of the 1960s. When called on it, smile and say "that's not what I mean" then wink at the KKK members standing nearby.

First off, "states rights" isn't code for anything but "Fed leave us alone" and second, didn't you just quote Robert Byrd in this thread? Talk about winking to the Klan, it's impossible to keep a straight face when they drag that guy out.

The message again being "it's okay when it's us".

Cheney and Rove are masters at that game. And they did it masterfully with Saddam WMD and Saddam = bin Laden.
Want unity?
'Fess up to stuff like this, first.

But the other side played a masterful game as well, and you bought it. One side had operatives playing the "Saddam=al Qaeda with nukes" card while the other countered with "Lies Lies Lies!".

While I'm wondering what happened to the weapons we knew Saddam had at one point, acknowledging that they may have been destroyed some time ago despite the lack of evidence to that end, you insist that it was all a fabrication. I can accept uncertainty between two extremes while many demand one or the other. If we don't find WMD they were never there. If we don't find a memo from Saddam to Osama bin Laden titled "Let's work together to blow up New York this summer" there was no contact at all. It isn't that clear. We're in a vast sea of grey and probablity.

Attending prayer services where Billy Graham says God selected GWB and then playing it both ways. To the evangelicals, distribute a DVD (using GOP money) that portrays Bush as a genuine saint annointed by God.
Then to the secularists, say "stop being so paranoid" - - that's not what I really stand for.

Gasp! Tailoring a message for a specific audience? A politician is doing this? I'm shocked.

Damn I'm being sarcastic today. :hm:

Nothing personal, you're still a good guy Bill even if we're butting heads on this. I will fess up to one implied charge that's actually true. Unity isn't at the top of my list of priorities at the moment.

Remember this?
Poland's President unhappy about being "misled" about Saddam's WMD.
When a head of state says "misled" the truth is worse.

So if a head of state feels misled, not only was he misled but actually worse?

In that case, when Bush said Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, the truth must have been worse?

Either way it's a silly argument.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1106753516

clark · 2005-01-26 09:54:26

A policy of pre-emptive use of force, coupled with inaccurate intelligence (or biased interpretation to suit needs) equals what?

The new crusade is to spread democracy, right? That's the final rationale for why we invaded Iraq (what was settled on), right?

So, let me ask you now, now that democracy in every region of the globe is in out best interests, and every region of the globe pretty much hates us, is it in our best interest to set up democracies that will represent the will of the people who dislike us?

We are working against ourselves, and have managed to mangle our stragetic interests to serve short term goals that are untenable in the long term.

We told Saddam he had to give up WMD's, not tyranny. We told the world we had to get rid of Saddam because of a credible and immediate threat, coupled with the reality of a post-9/11 America- not because he was tyrant and Iraq deserved freedom.

The world who had access to the intelligence too said it wasn't so. They said there was no immediate threat. How is it that we were misled but those who said otherwise were not?

BWhite · 2005-01-26 09:58:54

Before the invasion, German intelligence said there were no WMD. Our response?

Rumsfeld openly snubbed Schroeder.

Well, they were right and we were wrong.

Our next move? Apologize.

clark · 2005-01-26 10:04:34

Maybe we can sign an apology letter in an old French train car.

Palomar · 2005-01-26 10:08:14

Bill: Remember this?
Poland's President unhappy about being "misled" about Saddam's WMD.
When a head of state says "misled" the truth is worse.
Most politicians (*wherever* they reside on the globe) are corrupt, self-serving crooks. Why give this guy any credence? What if he initially DID truly believe there were WMDs over in Iraq, and now he's singing a different tune so as not to be branded "America's poodle" or to better secure his political future or...?
There's so much propoganda, misinformation and distortion going around...
--Cindy

*Hi Bill.

BWhite · 2005-01-26 10:13:48

Bill: Remember this?
Poland's President unhappy about being "misled" about Saddam's WMD.
When a head of state says "misled" the truth is worse.
Most politicians (*wherever* they reside on the globe) are corrupt, self-serving crooks. Why give this guy any credence? What if he initially DID truly believe there were WMDs over in Iraq, and now he's singing a different tune so as not to be branded "America's poodle" or to better secure his political future or...?
There's so much propoganda, misinformation and distortion going around...
--Cindy
*Hi Bill.

Remember Poland? (from the debates?)

They are supposed to be our greatest ally, after England.

I believe they have the 3rd largest number of troops in Iraq, on our side. US first, UK second, Poland 3rd.

BWhite · 2005-01-26 10:19:49

Cobra, you are also a reasonable guy.

Surely you understand that Bush can foster American unity by moving to the center. Attack the more extreme elements of the Right and admit that the more extreme assertions of his foreign policy were in error.

A "Sister Soljah" moment. :;):

= = =

Remember Condi Rice and Saddam's aluminum tubes?

Senator Dick Durbin (from Illinois) pointed out yesterday that before the Iraq authorization vote Rice insisted that those tubes had only one use - - to enrich nuclear bomb grade material. She was wrong.

By failing to admit and clarify errors like these to the Democratic Senators, she undermines any prospect of bi-partisan unity.

You want bi-partisanship? Start showing some.

Edited By BWhite on 1106757513

Palomar · 2005-01-26 10:50:12

Most politicians (*wherever* they reside on the globe) are corrupt, self-serving crooks. Why give this guy any credence? What if he initially DID truly believe there were WMDs over in Iraq, and now he's singing a different tune so as not to be branded "America's poodle" or to better secure his political future or...?
There's so much propoganda, misinformation and distortion going around...
--Cindy
*Hi Bill.
Remember Poland? (from the debates?)
They are supposed to be our greatest ally, after England.
I believe they have the 3rd largest number of troops in Iraq, on our side. US first, UK second, Poland 3rd.

*Which debates? It's getting durned difficult, keeping track of all the political threads and conversations and stuff that went on on TV...

No problem.

But still, why give him credence? He threw his lots in with the Coalition, now he wants to whine? He took a risk but doesn't like the consequences? It's pointless to complain NOW, isn't it?

Tony Blair isn't complaining. I don't think he's overjoyed about the circumstance, but he's not back-peddaling either. Yet, anyway.

The Polish President is a -politician-. ::knock, knock:: :;): He'll do whatever he feels is necessary to hold onto his position and etc.

Again: How can you be sure he -wasn't- initially entirely convinced there were WMDs in Iraq? And that now he's wishing to sing a different tune in order to protect his own political hide?

I don't take any politicians at face value.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-26 11:16:05

Surely you understand that Bush can foster American unity by moving to the center. Attack the more extreme elements of the Right and admit that the more extreme assertions of his foreign policy were in error.

What is meant by "the center" depends greatly on who you talk to. Some would say that Bush is in the center, which could be argued based on some of his policies and the fact that he was re-elected and therefore must be fairly mainstream. Many "Liberals" thinks he's a Right-wing nut while many Conservatives think he's most definately not one of their own.

So if center means "majority support" than Bush is in the center. But that's not ususally what people calling for a politician to "move to the center" mean. They mean "move closer to us." In which case the whole thing is just one more ploy.

We all assume that we're the reasonable ones, even the most wacked-out loonies. the "center" is relative.

By failing to admit and clarify errors like these to the Democratic Senators, she undermines any prospect of bi-partisan unity.

Fair enough, I agree that certain members of the Administration were too quick to draw conclusions from inconclusive data. Doesn't mean they were lying or even necessarily wrong, just not as objective as they should have been.

You want bi-partisanship? Start showing some.

But I want bi-partisan implosion. Patching the status quo again isn't that appealing.

I don't take any politicians at face value.

I'm of the opinion that not only are all politicians dishonest but that quite possibly a truly honest person cannot succeed as a politician.

Of course one can be a leader without being a politician, but the two are often confused.

BWhite · 2005-01-26 12:14:47

Cobra, do you agree with what Shaun wrote:

To me, this is treasonous and unconscionable behaviour in time of war - especially where it arises out of little more than petty domestic political rancour between one party and another. As I've said before, this kind of behaviour by the Allied press and population during WWII would have been a very serious offence, punishable by imprisonment or even death.

Our policies at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo undermine our ability to win the War on Terror;

Our "stretching the truth" on WMD alienates allies like Poland;

Our stance on Iran undermines any solution except military regime change, which I believe will backfire miserably;

Our inability to stick to a coherent reason for Iraq regime change (don't like reason A, I have more up my sleeve - - shuffle and change as needed) undermines national unity;

and to then to say you either kiss Bush's ass or you are a traitor and should be arrested or executed leaves true American patriots only one choice:

Protest like Hell!

= = =

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … html]Condi Rice confirmed with record "No" vote.

The 13 "no" votes registered by Democrats were a record for a nominated Secretary of State. Henry Kissinger drew seven in 1973 and Alexander Haig was opposed by six senators in 1981.

Edited By BWhite on 1106763684

Palomar · 2005-01-26 12:34:48

and to then to say you either kiss Bush's ass or you are a traitor and should be arrested or executed

*Oh come on, Bill. I don't believe Shaun meant to say either of those things.

My take on it is that he was pointing out extremes. Back then (the old days) any serious effort at protestation was responded to by punishment; nowadays "anything goes."

Seems to me he's simply requesting a bit of discretion.

You keep pointing out that the real battle here is for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Well, same for this side of the pond too.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-26 13:05:43

Cobra, do you agree with what Shaun wrote:
Quote
To me, this is treasonous and unconscionable behaviour in time of war - especially where it arises out of little more than petty domestic political rancour between one party and another. As I've said before, this kind of behaviour by the Allied press and population during WWII would have been a very serious offence, punishable by imprisonment or even death.

So as to not be misinterpreted I'm probably going to be a bit long-winded here, I apologize in advance.

I'm a strong supporter of free speech, particularly of the criticizing government variety. Yet there are many ways of expressing dissent. To question the reasons for going to war is perfectly reasonable, to demand accountability for incidents such as those at Abu Ghraib is necessary. But when dissent is taken to the point of deliberately undermining the morale and resolve of the nation in time of war for the express purpose of highlighting, exacerbating and sometimes causing failure of the endeavor for political gain I can no longer defend such conduct.

I'm not saying we should go out and arrest anyone who maintains that the war is to steal oil and the justifications were all lies, we should leave now. It is their right to say whatever they choose. Even if it emboldens the enemy and costs lives. Ideally such freedom as we enjoy carries with it responsibility. Freedom to bash our government and villify our own nation, but discretion enough not to do so when so much is at stake.

But we have become a people to whom the ideas of "discretion" and "discipline" are alien. Coupled with people on both sides of the political divide who view the domestic opposition as the greater enemy, we almost can't avoid having oppositon movements that in past eras would have been considered "treasonous" and dealt with accordingly. As Shaun points out, such behavior was not tolerated during WWII. Both the US and Britain simply imprisoned anyone whose expressed opinions were too much in line with the enemy.

And that's the real point, while I don't believe that most of the American Left supports the terrorists (some of the fringe do) the simple fact is that undermining the war effort is de facto support of the enemy. It encourages them while demoralizing our own people.

I don't believe that it would be right for us to round up and imprison those who oppose what our nation is doing, but at the same time I do believe that there are times when it's best to shut the hell up and deal with the external threats, which pose an danger to all of us, before attacking lesser but closer adversaries.

But at the same time, there are internal threats if you're the opposition. Were an extreme Left-wing government in place instead of this one I'd be unwilling to ignore all the disagreements I'd have with them just for the sake of unity in the face of the enemy. But at the same time I would direct that opposition against them and their domestic policies rather than the war effort itself.

You can fight political enemies without giving comfort to America's enemies.

And if that fails, there's always secession.

Cindy:

You keep pointing out that the real battle here is for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Well, same for this side of the pond too.

Quite true, and one must know oneself as well as one's enemy to achieve victory.

Perhaps those who lost ground recently need to examine themselves to find out why.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1106766474

BWhite · 2005-01-26 15:51:18

In theory I agree with all of this:

I'm a strong supporter of free speech, particularly of the criticizing government variety. Yet there are many ways of expressing dissent. To question the reasons for going to war is perfectly reasonable, to demand accountability for incidents such as those at Abu Ghraib is necessary. But when dissent is taken to the point of deliberately undermining the morale and resolve of the nation in time of war for the express purpose of highlighting, exacerbating and sometimes causing failure of the endeavor for political gain I can no longer defend such conduct.

How do you criticize a leader who starts a war - - and fights it ineffectually - - and then uses that war as a cloak to shield himself from criticism?

Fighting the War on Terror "forever" would thereby insulate the government from criticism, forever.

And, if a resolution of war, enacted by Congress was enacted based on false information, then the DUTY of every citizen is to fight to persuade Congress to rescind that declaration of war.

= = =

And since the "War on Terror' cannot be succintly defined, and the mission in Iraq has become one of nation building then libertarians need to be especially concerning about blanket endorsements of executive power and discretion.

= = =

I agree its wrong to undermine morale, during war. Its MORE wrong to start a war for ulterior motives not stated in public and fight that war ineffectually, thereby harming the country.

Paul Wolfowitz was quite candid. WMD was the most persuasive reason for Saddam regime change - - so that was the reason they went with, whether true or not.

Edited By BWhite on 1106776813

BWhite · 2005-01-26 15:57:24

Can someone summarize the pressing national interest for our being in Iraq, besides Saddam has WMD and Saddam was actively working with bin Laden?

BWhite · 2005-01-26 16:05:37

Attorney General subcommittee vote was 10-8, along party lines.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-26 16:08:13

How do you criticize a leader who starts a war - - and fights it ineffectually - - and then uses that war as a cloak to shield himself from criticism?

You don't criticize. You point out errors and offer ways of correcting them. You try to show that leader what he could do better while understanding that he's privy to far more information than you possess.

And, if a resolution of war, enacted by Congress was enacted based on false information, then the DUTY of every citizen is to fight to persuade Congress to rescind that declaration of war.

Accepting the "false declaration" premise for the sake of argument, ideally under such conditions we could call it off. "War off" and everyone goes home. Only we know it doesn't work that way.

Imagine the Japanese hitting Pearl Harbor, then the next day we get a letter saying something to the effect of "We apologize for the initiation of hostilities, such was not our intent when we attacked. We didn't mean it, please accept this rescinding of our declaration of war. Domo arigato and have a nice day."

??? Riiiight...

Once it's on, it's on.

And since the "War on Terror' cannot be succintly defined, and the mission in Iraq has become one of nation building then libertarians need to be especially concerning about blanket endorsements of executive power and discretion.

Indeed, we must keep a watchful eye. Yet we must not get fixated on one source of that threat, otherwise we risk being flanked. Certain elements of Left and Right pose a threat to liberty and in both cases they are not as "fringe" as one might think.

Which is why I don't trust any of them, watch them with suspcion, and keep my options open.

Now back to work on that tunnel to Canada.

BWhite · 2005-01-26 16:20:38

Michael Lind writes in the Financial Times:

In 1998 Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state, said of the U.S.: "We are the indispensable nation." By backfiring, the unilateralism of Mr Bush has proven her wrong. The US, it turns out, is a dispensable nation.
Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.
Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war.

BWhite · 2005-01-26 16:23:53

How do you criticize a leader who starts a war - - and fights it ineffectually - - and then uses that war as a cloak to shield himself from criticism?
You don't criticize. You point out errors and offer ways of correcting them. You try to show that leader what he could do better while understanding that he's privy to far more information than you possess.

What if you believe he is "cherry picking" the intel in a way that produces false results? or distorting it willfully?

= = =

By the way, who exactly are we at war against?

Edited By BWhite on 1106779434

BWhite · 2005-01-26 20:57:08

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/speech- … .html]Juan Cole is quite accurate, here.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-26 20:59:22

You know, CC, when the time comes, I think I'll vote for you.
I know, if you win, it'll be the last time any of us will ever be required to vote .. but at least until your death, and the battle for succession plunges the world into chaos, it'll be a great ride!

But on a more serious note, I want to thank you for your post on Jan. 26th 2005, at 14:05 (Page 8 of this thread). Very nicely put. It not only expresses your own well-reasoned views very clearly but parallels my own feelings exactly.

And Cindy, as CC rightly acknowledges and expands upon, you've brought up a vitally important point about politics. Neither side of politics has any monopoly on morality. In fact, using the terms 'politics' and 'morality' in the same sentence, as most of us appreciate, is essentially oxymoronic!
To believe that all virtue lies in one political party and all vice in another, is to live in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land and place one's faith in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny! It's an endearing show of innocence but totally divorced from reality.

---

A few points of either fact or intelligent extrapolation of facts (stated a thousand times already but casually and conveniently dropped from most discussions about Iraq):-

The Iraq war was legal - a continuation of hostilities conditionally and temporarily halted in 1991.

It followed more than a decade of Saddam playing a cynical game of brinkmanship over his WMD with a corrupt and ineffectual U.N.

During that time, sanctions are widely believed to have killed upwards of a million Iraqis through disease and malnutrition, most of them children under 5 years of age, and to have left 500,000 more children in need of psychiatric treatment. Much if not most of this carnage took place under the auspices of a Democrat in the White House - a charismatic Teflon-coated man called Clinton. (I state this not because I favour one American political party over another, but because it illustrates the lack of conscience at both ends of the political spectrum - something we need to acknowledge before sensible debate can be undertaken. To Clinton's eternal credit, though, he side-stepped the typically inept U.N. to intercede in Kosovo. )

Iraqi WMDs were believed to exist by almost all intelligence agencies in the 90s and up to late 2002. The U.N. evidently believed it because they had had weapons inspectors in Iraq, off and on, during all or most of that period, looking for them.
The fact that WMDs can be moved and/or hidden makes it almost impossible to find them - especially in a country the size of Iraq, ruled by someone like Saddam.
Those WMDs certainly existed at one stage; Saddam used them on the Kurds. How many or how much of such weaponry he produced and stockpiled is open to debate. But it existed.

Iraq's Ba'athists and Syria had a cosy relationship, and a common border, during all this WMD fiasco. It's quite probable that weapons and weapons-production facilities were transported not only around Iraq itself in a game of cat-and-mouse, but over the border into Syria also, in trucks. Heavy traffic, most of it trucks, was seen crossing into Syria at the beginning of the war in 2003.

Whether or not Iraq was in high-level contact with Al-Qa'ida is something we may never know for sure, but since each had a common enemy in America, I'd be surprised if some kind of collaboration didn't occur.

Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism, as are Iran and Syria to this day. Iran is a soon-to-be nuclear power, unless they can be stopped, and they've stated that one of their prime objectives is the destruction of Israel.
Iran and Syria, havens for Al-Qa'ida operatives and former Sadaamist leaders, are supplying murderers and explosives to support the carnage in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of our troops as well as ordinary Iraqis.
We can't do anything about Iran but bluster at the moment. But Syria might be a different kettle of fish. Bashar al-Hassad, the new leader ('same as the old leader'), depends on the military for power (don't they all?! ) but hasn't as much hold on them as his father did. This is partly due to the country's economic problems, which have stalled the overdue modernization of the military's obsolete Soviet ordnance An underfunded military is a dissatisfied military!
Although diplomacy at the moment precludes overt American threats against Syria, despite the distinct possibility that she was complicit in embarrassing the U.S. over WMD, it occurs to me that she may be the next target for America once Iraq is at least partially pacified.

Israel is a pariah to the left-leaning media worldwide. Whatever she does, she can hardly be more vilified by them than she is already. Iran would annihilate Israel tomorrow morning if it were possible, so Israel has nothing whatever to lose in attacking Iranian nuclear sites.
Therefore, it seems likely to me that any action against Iran will be carried out by Israel, probably utilising U.S. satellite surveillance technology and combined intelligence operations (already started last year, if reports are accurate).

The Iraq war has already transferred much of Al-Qa'ida's attention, via Iran and Syria, toward killing Americans on Iraqi soil. But at the very least they're American soldiers, armed and able to shoot back, unlike the innocent civilians who died in New York, Bali, and elsewhere.
To this extent, it has carried the front to the heart of the Muslim extremist world, which is better than having it in Manhattan, from our point of view.

Before certain parties tell me we're all hypocrites and should be attacking China and Saudi Arabia, I admit it's a very imperfect world - a bit like politics! It would be better if we could tackle all centres of Islamofascism and human rights abuses equally and simultaneously but that's impossible.

It's now apparent that terrorism is exacerbated by the existence of totalitarian regimes sympathetic to Muslim extremists because of their anti-Western or anti-Semitic stance. A war against Islamic terrorism has no chance of ultimate success while terrorism is aided and funded by such regimes.
Iraq was the easiest first target.
I supported, and still support, Iraq's liberation as an end in itself but also as part of a bigger picture.
How to deal with Syria and Iran, in turn, may well be quite different to the way in which Iraq was tackled but, nevertheless, they will have to be dealt with, one way or another.

Just some facts, some views and some opinions.

Euler · 2005-01-27 00:36:18

It followed more than a decade of Saddam playing a cynical game of brinkmanship over his WMD with a corrupt and ineffectual U.N.

In the period leading up to the war, Saddam was allowing the weapons inspectors to operate in Iraq and was cooperating fully.

Iraqi WMDs were believed to exist by almost all intelligence agencies in the 90s and up to late 2002. The U.N. evidently believed it because they had had weapons inspectors in Iraq, off and on, during all or most of that period, looking for them.

The US before 9/11, the US intelligence agencies did not believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. In fact, in 2001 Condi Rice said that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Those WMDs certainly existed at one stage; Saddam used them on the Kurds. How many or how much of such weaponry he produced and stockpiled is open to debate. But it existed.

The reason we knew that they existed at one stage is because we sold them to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraq's Ba'athists and Syria had a cosy relationship, and a common border, during all this WMD fiasco. It's quite probable that weapons and weapons-production facilities were transported not only around Iraq itself in a game of cat-and-mouse, but over the border into Syria also, in trucks. Heavy traffic, most of it trucks, was seen crossing into Syria at the beginning of the war in 2003.

There is no evidence that WMDs were ever transported to Syria. No one ever suggested that they might be transported to Syria until we were sure that there really were not any WMDs in Iraq. The whole "they were shipped to Syria" idea is simply a politically expedient excuse that was made up so that the neocons would not have to admit that they were wrong.

Whether or not Iraq was in high-level contact with Al-Qa'ida is something we may never know for sure, but since each had a common enemy in America, I'd be surprised if some kind of collaboration didn't occur.

Why would the most secular government in the region support a bunch of religious fanatics who hate Saddam and his "apostate regime"? And why would Saddam want to support terrorist attacks on the US when it is obvious that he has nothing to gain by such an action and much to lose?

Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism, as are Iran and Syria to this day.

Iraq contributed to a fund that gave money to the families of Palestinians killed by Israel. So did a lot of other countries, and Saudi Arabia contributed much more than Iraq did.

Iran and Syria, havens for Al-Qa'ida operatives and former Sadaamist leaders, are supplying murderers and explosives to support the carnage in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of our troops as well as ordinary Iraqis.

Is there any evidence to support this? And why would Iran be a haven for Saddamists when they spent many bloody years fighting against Saddam's regime?

Although diplomacy at the moment precludes overt American threats against Syria, despite the distinct possibility that she was complicit in embarrassing the U.S. over WMD, it occurs to me that she may be the next target for America once Iraq is at least partially pacified.

Why should we have to pay for another expensive(in economic, political, and human terms) invasion of a poor Arab country that poses no threat to us?

The Iraq war has already transferred much of Al-Qa'ida's attention, via Iran and Syria, toward killing Americans on Iraqi soil. But at the very least they're American soldiers, armed and able to shoot back, unlike the innocent civilians who died in New York, Bali, and elsewhere.
To this extent, it has carried the front to the heart of the Muslim extremist world, which is better than having it in Manhattan, from our point of view.

Yes, but it is also a lot cheaper for the terrorists to fight in Iraq, and our invasion of Iraq gives a lot more people an incentive to become terrorists.

It's now apparent that terrorism is exacerbated by the existence of totalitarian regimes sympathetic to Muslim extremists because of their anti-Western or anti-Semitic stance. A war against Islamic terrorism has no chance of ultimate success while terrorism is aided and funded by such regimes.

It is apparent that the vast majority of funding for terrorist groups comes from private individuals. A war against terrorism has no chance of success while there are still large numbers of people willing to give up their live in an attempt to get revenge.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-01-26 07:31:10

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#102 2005-01-26 08:25:45

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#103 2005-01-26 09:06:45

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#104 2005-01-26 09:25:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#105 2005-01-26 09:30:43

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#106 2005-01-26 09:54:26

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#107 2005-01-26 09:58:54

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#108 2005-01-26 10:04:34

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#109 2005-01-26 10:08:14

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#110 2005-01-26 10:13:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#111 2005-01-26 10:19:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#112 2005-01-26 10:50:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#113 2005-01-26 11:16:05

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#114 2005-01-26 12:14:47

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#115 2005-01-26 12:34:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#116 2005-01-26 13:05:43

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#117 2005-01-26 15:51:18

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#118 2005-01-26 15:57:24

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#119 2005-01-26 16:05:37

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#120 2005-01-26 16:08:13

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#121 2005-01-26 16:20:38

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#122 2005-01-26 16:23:53

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#123 2005-01-26 20:57:08

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#124 2005-01-26 20:59:22

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#125 2005-01-27 00:36:18

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer