quote:My point-if we abandon Iraq, as Kerry has suggested to the UN or NATO
Please cite where Kerry said this and when he addressed NATO or the UN assembly.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
My point-if we abandon Iraq, as Kerry has suggested, to the UN or NATO, the leaders of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations will proclaim this a victory.
I think he means we let them take over...abandoning our position to them.
I don't agree with that assessment because:
Mr. Kerry is not suggesting we abandon anything.
Mr. Bush took the country where it should not be. To just up and leave now would be impossible. But we must do more to internationalize the security forces.
If Iraq was a threat to international peace and security as Mr. Bush has argued, then the international community should be helping to take care of it.
It turns out the Texas sheriff styled diplomacy might not have been the way to go. And when you insult those who might assist you, they might be so ready to help out like they might have otherwise.
It's not in the best interest of the United States to give Mr. Bush another try at it. It's not like taking a mulligan in golf.
He's had 3� years.
He has a track record.
And it's bad.
[ September 07, 2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- 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
"I don't agree with the handling of the Iraqi situation for we are conceding cities to the theocrats and the reactionaries as has happened in Fallujah and Najaf."
So... what? We should just nuke the cities into ash? You're essentially saying that you believe we should pursue a military solution to the situation in Iraq. So, either you're suggesting that we just wipe out all the Iraqi fighters at once (which can only be accomplished by taking most of the Iraqi population with them), or you're suggesting that we should continue on our current course: one of escalating casualties on both sides and no end in sight.
So, which is it? Bomb the desert into glass, or sink deeper into the quagmire?
[ September 08, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I never predict things and I never will, but internationalization of Iraq (to the level that its sovereignty ((which, of course, is a paper fantasy)) permits, anyway) will not happen until Bush is gone.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I don't agree with the handling of the Iraqi situation for we are conceding cities to the theocrats and the reactionaries as has happened in Fallujah and Najaf
Well, exactly what are they supposed to do? Far better to temporarily withdraw to consider your strategy for returning to towns to a peaceful state and to gather the resources to do that than to leave troops in there for days, weeks or even months, trying to fight a guerilla war against an enemy with at least some local sympathy, not to mention the advantages of local knowledge and being defenders. The only thing that would do is increase the casualties among US forces and civilians and destroy substantial sections of local infrastructure. Far better to go in prepared and ready to take them out in a quick fight or (where possible) negotiate a settlement.
-------------------- "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
As if to prove that 9/11 everything is with this Administration, today, Dan Froomkin of the Washington Postwrites writes about White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan conflating the 1000th death in Iraq with 9/11.
quote:Conflation Watch
Here's how Scott McClellan handled the questions about the milestone yesterday:
"Q Senator Kerry is calling it a tragic milestone, reaching 1,000 deaths in Iraq.
"MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we remember, honor and mourn the loss of all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom. And we also remember those who lost their lives on September 11th. The best way to honor all those who have lost their life in the war on terrorism is to continue to wage a broad war and spread freedom throughout a dangerous part of the world so that we can transform that region of the world and make the world a safer place, and make America more secure.
"Q And you're convinced each one of those lives is worth it, Scott?
"MR. McCLELLAN: Each one -- well, let me say, when I say we remember, honor, mourn the loss of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we do so for those in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also remember those who lost their lives on September 11th, nearly three years ago today. And that's why I said it's important that we continue to wage a broad war on terrorism and that we work to spread freedom throughout the Middle East and transform that region so that we defeat the ideologies of hatred and tyranny.
"Q But the question is, for -- each of those families lost someone, a loved one, and each one of those is worth it -- that's the question.
"MR. McCLELLAN: Mark, I think -- I think of the cost we paid on September 11th, and September 11th changed the equation, as you've heard the President say."
-------------------- 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
"...New Rule: You can't run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn't run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn't theater security. 9/11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit. It was a fuck-up by a guy on vacation.
"Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President. I'm not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that. And I'm not saying there was anything improper about your immediate response to the attacks. Someone had to stay in that classroom and protect those kids from Chechen rebels.
"But by the looks of your convention, you'd think that the worst thing that ever happened to us was the best thing that ever happened to you. You just can't keep celebrating the deadliest attack ever as if it's your personal rendezvous with greatness. You don't see old men who were shot down during World War II jumping out of a plane every year. I mean, other than your dad.
"But even your dad didn't run for re-election based on a recession and his propensity to barf on the Japanese. Now, I know you'd like us all to get swept away with emotionalism and stop sweating the small stuff like the deficit and the environment, and focus on what's really important: how you look in a fireman's hat. But crying during your speech? I mean, come on! There's no crying in politics! It's not fair! That's a trick chicks use. How are we supposed to discuss this rationally if you're going to cry?! There's a name for people who exploit their participation in historical events for political gain. They're called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
"So I say, if you absolutely must win an election on the backs of dead people, do it like they do in Chicago, and have them actually vote for you."
posted
Did anyone see John McCain's visit to David Letterman? It aired last night in Sweden, I'm sure it's old news to you americans, but I have to say something.
Apparently, he had been flinging feces at Michael Moore behind his back, at the republican convention, not knowing that Moore was inside the hall, watching. He bawled over "Fahrenheit 9/11" and a couple of scenes in it, despite not having seen the film himself, then IIRC he had said something like "if I see him I'll punch him in the face" or something like that.
Before he went up on Letterman, Letterman had a talk with Michael Moore through a video feed covering the convention, where Moore very humbly and politely explained that McCain was free to explain his unprofessional attacks on him at any time he wished, or just go see the movie with him before saying anything else about it, then he could give him a pummeling if he still wanted to.
I thought "Ok, maybe McCain is a gentleman deep down, I wonder what he'll say". After all, Letterman had praised McCain a lot before he entered, saying how he wanted him for president and all that. Then the guy comes up and counters Moore's response with the shrewd comment that "what Moore is good at is making money and he should be able to afford a shave and a haircut now!". Later, his ad hominems led him to call Moore fat (well he's a big, big guy). Letterman just snickered (I don't blame him) and said it would be nice with a president who's not afraid to kick some ass. McCain: "I like the term 'emperor' personally, I like it very much." To top things off, now that he had set the bar, he explained that if he was president, the first thing he would do as to foreign affairs... "You know, Mr. Chirac? (makes a punching motion in the air) *BOOM!* Hahaha!!"
I believe this is what the scientists would call a "jackass". At least Letterman got him to condemn the GOP's mudflinging on Kerry and Vietnam, but DAMN! I thought senators were like the step below being President and VP, how is it that McCain can still hold office, being so diplomatically and rhetorically challenged???
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Sorry this post is coming so late relative to the replies you were all nice enough to write to my previous posts. Between a funeral, a wake, interviews for jobs, and applying to more jobs (yep, I�ve got one offer, I guess the economy is doing well!) I didn�t have time last week to respond to you all.
TSN: a lot of those Iraqi troops might never have done anything to us, but I�d bet hard currency some of them had done stuff to Iraq�s people. Just in case we forget what we were ending by toppling Saddam, try this link and watch the movies. On a note regarding a later post of yours, yes, the Newsweek poll wasn�t appropriately timed, so it�s sample was a bit off. But some polls released today and yesterday in some of the battleground states clearly show a measureable bounce from the convention. For a good daily update of this according to electoral college results (which is all that really matters anyway) go here.
As for presidents doing policy, I overspoke. What I was thinking was that you can still be an effective president without doing policy. I would say that Bush does as much policy as his dad, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Eisenhower. And I don�t think the comparison to Washington and Lincoln is very applicable. The executive did not have the same volume of work to do at their time. I remember reading that when Adams moved into the White House, the entire executive branch had 6 crates of documents to move. Today, the vast amounts of information that a president would have to assimilate to have the kind of involvement that a Washington would have would be sheer overload. (Have you ever tried reading the Federal Register? Because that�s what presidents 100 years ago could afford to do. Not so today.) I have yet to see a substantive critique involving data that demonstrates Bush�s style can�t work as well as Clinton�s. I think there are sufficient examples of presidents in similar sui generic moments who do as much policy as Bush and succeeded along with presidents who are more involved in detail and who fail. However, in the spirit of compromise, could we all agree with Don Kettl who said, �This one will either end with huge success or spectacular failure.�? (Taken from here.)
As for disingenuous arguments, the issue is not what his motives were, the issue was whether there was adequate justification to go to Iraq. There were plenty:
1. End the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq transition to democratic self-rule 2. Find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 3. Collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 4. End sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support 5. Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources
These are all taken straight from wikipedia. Pay close attention to who wanted to emphasize WMDs. Let me add a few more justifications I saw beforehand:
6. Prevent further assassination attempts against the leaders of our country 7. Enforce more than 10 UN resolutions condemning Iraq�s flouting of internationally dictated conduct after the first Gulf War 8. Prevent further assistance to terrorist groups (e.g., Abu Nidal) 9. Frighten wavering states into stopping support of terrorists and abandoning their WMD programs (e.g., Libya)
All of these were good justifications. His motives were irrelevant and I have seen no evidence that he affirmatively avoided debate. He simply made up his mind and went with it. That he made up his mind faster than anyone doesn�t per se mean the decision was wrong or even ill-advised.
This will be the last post on this thread I do. Since I have more interviews to do next week and applications to send, I know I am not going to be able to respond to any more replies. It has been fun though! Thanks all for an invigorating exchange.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
"1. End the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq transition to democratic self-rule 2. Find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 3. Collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 4. End sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support 5. Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources"
1. That's not Bush's decision to make. 2. Oops. There weren't any. 3. Since when do we conquer a country to get intelligence? 4. Ending sanctions has nothing to do with invasion. And I don't think killing all those thousands of Iraqis would be considered "humanitarian". 5. While I certainly won't claim that this wasn't a (the?) reason for the war, I do claim that it isn't a valid one. It's like shooting a man to "secure" his wallet.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Like much of what the Bush Administration says, it's one of those stories that sounds good, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
-------------------- 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
