Or how 'bout we attack Iraq to keep a known mass-murderer from getting his hands on ways to kill even more people?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So, now we're going for the moral angle. And here I thought that conservatives didn't want the United States acting as the policeman for the world.
You do understand that for foreign policy to work it has to be constant. Once we go after Saddam for being a bed fellow, we have to go after others. Oh, North Korea comes to mind. Not to mention all the mass murders in Africa that we have hardly lifted too much of a finger to stop.
And it also avoids the question. Is attaking Iraq the solution to the problems of terror? I sure do not thing so. But it seems to me like that's all you and Mr. Bush have.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
THE solution? No, but what little reason we have to think it can hurt is greatly outweighed by the reasons to do it anyway.
As for the mass-murderers in Africa, well, there IS a difference. For what it's worth, we didn't stomp any of them in wars that they started, then allow their continued existence only so long as they played nice. Not that I necessarily agree that that's a GOOD reason for the difference, of course, but if the UN is crying over our trying to enforce a treaty that was actually broken, how much support would we get for invading countries that never signed such treaties?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The mass-murderers in Africa? Oh, you mean that little business that went on in those countries with a 10,000- strong UN peacekeaping force armes with all sorts of weapons, that ran away as soon as they got shot at?
Come to think of it, we went and bombed the Serbs without UN approval, either... "Once we go after Milosiveich for being a bad person, we have to go after others..."
Of course, those were both policy decisions of the Holy Bubba...
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:No, but what little reason we have to think it can hurt is greatly outweighed by the reasons to do it anyway.
Let me know when you've joined the Army to go and fight in King George's War. And let me know when you've added up the number of women, children and non-conbatants who will most likely die in King George's War, then we'll talk more about little reasons.
quote:If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.
-George W. Bush
"Little reasons" is arrogance.
quote:As for the mass-murderers in Africa, well, there IS a difference.
That's not what you said in you let's get Saddam for moral reasons argument.
You said,
quote:[o]r how 'bout we attack Iraq to keep a known mass-murderer from getting his hands on ways to kill even more people?
Which makes the United States quite the world policeman.
It was nice to see how both of you said nothing about North Korea. Kim Jung Il starves his own people according to Mr. Bush. I'd say that makes him a mass murder. He has weapons of mass destruction. He has deals with terrorists and exports missiles. They claim the right to a first nuclear strike against the United States.
So, if mass murders and evil people are bad, when are we going to war over there?
Speaking of policy decisions of Clinton, he got them to shut down their nuclear program. Mr. Bush calls Kim Jung Il a "pygmy" and the nuclear program is back up and running.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:It was nice to see how both of you said nothing about North Korea. Kim Jung Il starves his own people according to Mr. Bush. I'd say that makes him a mass murder. He has weapons of mass destruction. He has deals with terrorists and exports missiles. They claim the right to a first nuclear strike against the United States.
I think the main problem with attacking the DPRK is that they may actually win or at least cause sufficient casualties to force a stalemate. Remember, the South Korean capital is only about 30km south of the CMZ, and well within artillery range. Which means heavy civilian casualties in a friendly nation. Not good.
As for the Africans, the problem is most of them were elected. It's just after that they've proved to be megolomanical nutters (Thinking of Mugabe here...). The big problem there was that there wasn't any tradition of democracy so people just resorted to the usual ways of business. And of course with the aid money coming in, which after all is so easy to misplace with a little creative accounting... (not all African leaders, obviously, but quite a few.)
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, that's how we enforced the 'Pax Britanica'. We just payed off anyone who may have been too powerful . Apart fromn the Boers. But we won against them in the end as well.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Why would it be a problem, btw, that many of the worst African despots were elected? After WWII, the US has demonstrated a clear pattern of attacking democratically elected leaders and defending nondemocratically elected ones. (Are there any exceptions to that, really?)
Come to think of it, WWII also featured the US fighting for various monarchies and military juntas against two originally democratically elected/nominated dictators, plus one mixture of a military junta and a divine emperor. So the last time the US actually defended democracy (as in fighting on the side of a democratically structured republic) was... when? The Civil War? 1812?
posted
Well, not 1812, as the UK was more democratic than the French Empire. The Civil War also was against a democracy.
As for the African despots, the problem isn't so much that they were elected, it's that they don't like giving up power and frequently use the position for personal gain at the expense of their people.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Feb. 12 � Senate Democrats continued their filibuster Wednesday blocking a vote on President Bush�s nomination of Miguel Estrada to the federal appeals bench. Senate Democratic Whip Senator Harry Reid vowed that Estrada �will never be a federal judge� unless he answers additional questions about his legal views and the White House turns over confidential memos he wrote while serving as a top Justice Department litigator in the Clinton administration.
quote: Daschle and top Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont want Estrada to turn over memoranda he wrote while working for the Solicitor General�s office at the Justice Department, saying those documents will reveal how Estrada thinks. The Justice Department has refused to release the memos. Seven former solicitors general � who served both Republican and Democratic presidents � have written to Leahy urging him to not seek the Estrada memos. �We relied on frank, honest, and thorough advice from our staff attorneys, like Mr. Estrada,� the seven said. �Our decision-making process required the unbridled, open exchange of ideas � an exchange that simply cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear that their private recommendations are not private at all, but vulnerable to public disclosure.�
Newly re-elected Mary Landrieu (D-LA), claims that her Hispanic supporters "misunderstood" a campaign ad in which she said she'd vote YES on Estrada.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Republicans are usually the first to fap madly away at the timeless perfection of the constitution, so I can't see why they have a problem with the Senate performing its constitutionally-mandated task as a check on the Executive's power to appoint the Judiciary. Fighting nascent tyranny, undoubtably, the same as constitutionally-protected militias might. God knows, it boggles the mind that the legal framework of a quarter-millennium-old document could ever be used as a set of political monkey-bars today. Who could ever have predicted that?
Live free or die! Yee-haw!
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"After WWII, the US has demonstrated a clear pattern of attacking democratically elected leaders and defending nondemocratically elected ones. (Are there any exceptions to that, really?)"
A quick recap:
IRAN 1953 CIA directs overthrow of elected left-leaning government, installs Shah.
INDONESIA 1965 Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; left-leaning elected government toppled; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost.
CHILE 1973 CIA-backed coup ousts elected leftist president; rightist dictator installed.
TURKEY By means of repetitive coups the US-backed army has ousted the democratically elected parties for several times.
GREECE 1947-49 Supports and directs extreme right in civil war.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 CIA directs war against leftist Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Nationalist insurrection challenges American occupation; US command operation puts down rebellion.
KOREAN WAR 1950-53 Joins South Korea and other allies to fight China and North Korea.
GUATEMALA 1954 CIA directs exile invasion and overthrow of leftist government; military junta installed.
LEBANON 1958 US occupation ends under UN Observer Group.
VIETNAM WAR 1960-75 Fought South Vietnam rebels and North Vietnam forces; 1-2 million killed.
CUBA 1961 CIA-directed "Bay of Pigs" invasion.
LAOS 1962 Green Berets active in training, military buildup, support of rightist forces during guerrilla war.
PANAMA 1964 Control of Panama Canal Zone challenged; rioting against US forces.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops invade during election as pre-emptive action against leftist rebellion or communist government.
GUATEMALA 1966-67 Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels.
CAMBODIA 1969-75 War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed.
OMAN 1970 US directs Iranian invasion in support of Omani government against Marxist "Dhufar rebellion."
LAOS 1971-73 US directs South Vietnamese invasion.
ANGOLA 1976-92 CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Advisors aid government forces against leftist rebels.
NICARAGUA 1981-90 US directs guerrilla exile invasion ("Contra war") against revolutionary government; US forces plant mines.
LEBANON 1982-84 Marines help police negotiated evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization; US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government.
HONDURAS 1983-89 Military bases established for US-backed "Contra war" with Nicaragua.
GRENADA 1983-84 US troops topple pro-Cuban government.
LIBYA 1986 Air strikes against nationalist government with terrorist links.
BOLIVIA 1986 Operation Blast Furnace; US troops and Bolivian police face peasant resistance in cocaine-producing regions.
IRAN 1987-88 Intervention on side of Iraq in war against Iran.
Hmm... post-eighties interventions are fairly innocent by comparison:
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops restore order after civil unrest spurred by Hurricane Hugo.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Armed US aircraft support constitutional government against failed coup.
PANAMA 1989-90 Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 US soldiers; more than 2,000 people killed.
GULF WAR 1990- Operation Desert Storm drives Iraq out of Kuwait; 200,000+ killed. No-fly zone ongoing; periodic bombing.
SOMALIA 1992-94 US-led United Nations occupation during civil war.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 US troops in NATO operation to enforce sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-95 Operation Deny Flight patrols civil war no-fly zone; air combat, Serbs bombed.
CROATIA 1995 American and NATO forces attack Bosnian Serb airfields prior to Croatian offensive.
SUDAN 1998 Pharmaceutical factory bombed; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Bombing of Islamic fundamentalist military camps; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 US aircraft play the key role in heavy NATO air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo.
COLOMBIA 2000 Special Forces anti-rebel battalions, supply combat aircraft.
MACEDONIA 2001 US forces in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest partially disarm Albanian rebels.
AFGHANISTAN 2001 In retaliation for terrorist attacks in US, forces attempt ouster of Afghanistan's Taliban government, attack bases linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Republicans are usually the first to fap madly away at the timeless perfection of the constitution, so I can't see why they have a problem with the Senate performing its constitutionally-mandated task as a check on the Executive's power to appoint the Judiciary.
Don't have a problem with them performing their duty, if that's all it was.
But here's the thing.
Landrieu likely got re-elected because of that promise, given the closeness of her election.
Leahy, who is saying that the questions aren't being answered? I am told that he didn't submit any of these questions during the Judicial Committee hearings, which he was a part of. They have a procedure. He didn't follow it.
The Democrats are asking that Estrada turn over private files which NO solicitor general, Liberal of Conservative, has ever done, and which the past solicitors have written in to protest, saying that it could DAMAGE the judicial process. (This last being a BAD thig, and AGAINST the separation of powers.)
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Regarding Miguel Estrada, member of that poor oppressed group, the arch-conservatives...four words: Start A New Thread.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. Apart fromn the Boers. But we won against them in the end as well.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
