News Did When Clinton Lied, No One Died Ignore Larger Issues?

[The Smoking Man]

Nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein...the man who was deposed based on a war started by LIES, LIES, LIES, for no reason whatsoever.
So, as you say and I agree, if the first part is true(nobody is crying for poor old Saddam Hussein), then the second part is either not true, or it is evidence, along with the first part, of a contradiction by those who yet claim to believe the latter. At the very least, of some severe character flaw. How could any such hypothetical person believe that the poor man was deposed based on lies, lies, lies/for o good reason whatsoever, and yet cry not one utterence for justice for the poor man?
Look, if "cry all you want" is "not at all, not even the slightest bit"--then, good for you! I'm just pointing out the contradiction implied by, if that amount is "not at all, not even a little bit", of yet clinging to the latter "no reason whatsoever/lies lies lies" nonsense.
Aka, the premise of this and thousands of other bumper stucker threads just like this.
Not that you would do such a speciouis, insincere, and illogical thing. Of course not; who in their right mind would?
Oh, look, here is how its attempted. They say, "Well, he was a bad, bad man, but that was not sufficient reason to wage war, still, we're glad he's gone."
As if that was the slightest bit different. "He was a bad, bad man, but not bad enough to actually do anything about, such as 'We'll get him this time' in 1998.
And yet, Bush 'did something,' even though such hypothetical people believe that Saddam's relative 'badness' was precisely just barely insufficient to justify the 'doing.' To which I'd have to ask again, then where is the crying for justice for this bad but not bad enough to do what was done man and his murdered sons?
Nowhere, non -existing. Certainly not you or anyone here, why , such an illogical death grip clinging to a Big Headed Puppet Parade Placard (BUSH LIED!) would be beneath anyone of reasonable intelligence.
Especially in the face of his pending trial before the world.

Is English your first language?

 

[edward]

The spinning troll spins on, and on and on.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The spinning troll spins on, and on and on.

The Energizer Troll!?:zzz:

 

[Psi 5]

...
To sum-up:
"When Clinton lied, no one died" - is factually true, but logically flawed and pointless and therefore just mindless, useless rhetoric.
...

It is neither logically flawed nor pointless nor mindless rhetoric unless you are a mindless republican (which is all of them).

The logic is that the republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about sex, a point you conveniently don't mention. The logic is that Bush's lies have killed and maimed thousands of Americans and he is not being impeached. If you can't see the difference you are blind.

As to the rest of your statement, yes I agree Clinton is responsible for many deaths. Inaction during his presidency is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi's but it isn't clear he could have stopped it. As for his actions elsewhere, many presidents have done similar things with varying degrees of success but to compare that to Iraq is ludicrous.

 

[Miles Millbach]

I sat here and read the entire thread. I had to get to the very end to find some real bright thinking. Thank you Art and especially you Zlex. What I don't understand is why you even keep trying to talk sense with most of these dingbats.

I only have to look at the mass graves being dug up in Iraq and I no longer care what the reasons are. I don't care if the people are colored or pray to a different God. I see a reason for action.

There is a saying that I am sure most of you have heard many times. I have to use it often nowadays:

War never solved anything except ending slavery, facism, communism etc.etc.etc.

Why do we have to win the election over and over and over?

Miles

 

[Zlex]

Is English your first language?

Is English your first language?

Nice Ad Hom; I'll explain it again.

In total, the intelligence assessment of the current administration was, this guy who nobody believes was a saint and his band of henchmen 'needs removed.' (How is that for an expression? My wife uses that all the time.)

At some point, we all have to judge, was the man and his cronies rightly deposed, or not, and if not, on what basis could we ever possibly maintain that he should not be reinstated?

We could, after all, pull a Spain, throw an election, and disavow the previous administrations blunder in Iraq, if that is what it is judged to be. Spain, clearly, is under no burden of 'credibillity' that lasts longer than an admionistration; is our democracy any different?

So, in that case, what would possibly stop the new administration from actively advocating the reinstatement of the wrongly deposed Saddam&Co, especially if they attained office by screaming at the top of their lungs that he was wrongly deposed by the earlier adminsitration?

And, in fact, what would it say if they did not advocate that outcome, and instead enjoyed the benefits of the outcome, while simultaneously decrying the actions of those that brought about the outcome?

I know what it says to me.

We all agree he was a bad, bad man, So, the question is:

A] The man was 'bad,' but he did nothing sufficeint to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore wrongly deposed, the action to depose him was wrong, he should therefore be reinstated.

B] The man was 'bad', and he did something sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore rightly deposed, the action to depose him was right, he should therefore not be reinstated.

Bring on the shades of grey.

As in:

C] The man was 'bad,' as are we all. He may have done things sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, but he should not have been deposed, the action to depose him should not have been undertaken, he was only kinda sort of rightly deposed in the sense that nobody is too broken up about it now and will/can live with the achieved outcome, even though it is whithin their power to correct it, but the action to depose him was definitely wrong, based on lies, flawed, and costly, with no perceivable net benefit to the ongoing dinners at the Four Seasons, endlessly nuanced and held over the distant sound of questionable screaming, even though we're not going to lift a finger to correct that wrong as we continue our comfortably nuanced debates...

... because it is politically expediant to claim in this not a logic bound engineering problem nuanced anything goes world that this is a reasonaby consistant set of beliefs to cling to.

Or at least, in a world where math/logic literacy it as an appalingly dreadful low, will pass.

If only I could turn off that logic circuit when perusing these boards, I could speak the speak and drink the KoolAid. Alas, it comes hardwired.

 

[The Smoking Man]

If only I could turn off that logic circuit when perusing these boards, I could speak the speak and drink the KoolAid. Alas, it comes hardwired.

I prefer Freshie myself but that's not here nor there.

I see we almost have you down to a level of speaking real English now.

You also seem to be almost reading posts too. Wow ... This is a breakthrough.

The problem you have when drinking your Koolaid is that you fail to go back far enough. You see an attack on your sainted Bush and think that well, we have to put this off onto someone else so he looks better.

Who've we got ... Oh, Yeah ... Clinton.

Now there are one or two merrits to this rout of attack but the disadvantage is that it doesn't stop there. Once you broach history as a point of attack ... ALL history becomes valid ... including the fact that the 'Nasty man' was shown greeting Rumsfeld 2 weeks after he gassed the Kurds and they explained away this 'genocide'. This was then followed by assistance in targetting the Iranians during their war using satellite intel.

Yes, the very people you seek to exonerate by attacking the Clinton regime where present in the previous regime and set the ball rolling that led up to the current events.

Many of us here are outsiders and as such don't give a monkey's who is in power as far as your political infighting. We therefore look at relationships between the USA and external governments not in blocks of 'republican time' or 'Democrat time' we look at chains of cause and effect without the blinders of political affiliation.

If you want the 'god's honest truth' I have made too much to be considered a 'liberal' for about 3 decades now.

Now, while you tend to talk in terms of 'Koolade', I talk in terms of 'blood' spilled.

Both Saddam and the USA are responsible for 'Mass graves' and innocent lives lost.

Iran wants Saddam tried outside of the country in an international court so they can have the USA stand beside Saddam for their role in what the current Iraqi government has already admitted to as an unjust war started by Saddam against the sovereign nation of Iran.

Do you understand the implications of that? The newly freed nation of Iraq under American supervision has just dropped you into the role of co-conspirator of the person they are now trying for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In the eyes of the world ... especially the arab nations, they see you like Moussolini putting Hitler on trial for being a bad man.

This goes Waaaaaay back and shows a general lack of understanding on the part of most Americans about Middle Eastern affairs.

To you it is party politics.

To them it was wave after wave of westerners meddling in their business and putting into place the very regimes you deplore.

Iran itself was a democracy in the early 1950's for example and when the country nationalized the oil industry, westerners toppled the government and put a dictator in power. THAT is the hipocracy they see with every turn since.

The rest of the world admires Clinton actually for what he DID keep in his pants and what most administrations have flaunted and used to bring about the wars you now fight.

 

[SOS2008]

I sat here and read the entire thread. I had to get to the very end to find some real bright thinking. Thank you Art and especially you Zlex. What I don't understand is why you even keep trying to talk sense with most of these dingbats.
I only have to look at the mass graves being dug up in Iraq and I no longer care what the reasons are. I don't care if the people are colored or pray to a different God. I see a reason for action.
There is a saying that I am sure most of you have heard many times. I have to use it often nowadays:
War never solved anything except ending slavery, facism, communism etc.etc.etc.
Why do we have to win the election over and over and over?
Miles

I too have read through this entire thread, and all the many threads before this, discussing what the U.S. role in the world is, and should be. It appears you are a new member (welcome), but we have reviewed international law, sovereignty of nations, recent U.S. history and foreign policy (e.g. in regard to brutal dictatorships), etc. Is the U.S. role to be police of the world? We have also reviewed the premise of the ends justifying the means, whether deception, or torture, etc. What gives the U.S. government that right—just military might? Does that mean neocon concepts such as preemptive first strike, regime change, and etc. should be our foreign policy, and just how moral is this (we know it is contrary to international law and/or treaties)? I present this to you: War often ends in slavery, fascism, communism etc, etc., not to mention all the waste and suffering in the process.

In regard to posts in this thread, intelligence, writing skills, etc. are attributes, but quotes with links to reliable sources are the expectation in an academic forum such as PF. It is not a venue for soapbox speeches, and if people want to blog, I believe there is a section for that now. Also I sensed some rhetoric of hate hypocrisy in one of the posts you praise (#93), and the earlier post (#92) often veers into an OT rant. As for your other remarks about “dingbats,” I posted this earlier in the thread on High Crimes and Treason:

…I suspect you are attempting to reason with those who continue to defend Bush and his administration. The hard core Bush supporters …minds are closed; you can present all the evidence per logic of the scientific method and they will not believe—they hate academia and prefer simple black and white answers to things no matter how illogical.

I should add to that emotion rather than reason.

 

[Manchot]

We all agree he was a bad, bad man, So, the question is:

A] The man was 'bad,' but he did nothing sufficeint to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore wrongly deposed, the action to depose him was wrong, he should therefore be reinstated.

B] The man was 'bad', and he did something sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, he was therefore rightly deposed, the action to depose him was right, he should therefore not be reinstated.

Bring on the shades of grey.

As in:

C] The man was 'bad,' as are we all. He may have done things sufficient to be worthy of being deposed, but he should not have been deposed, the action to depose him should not have been undertaken, he was only kinda sort of rightly deposed in the sense that nobody is too broken up about it now and will/can live with the achieved outcome, even though it is whithin their power to correct it, but the action to depose him was definitely wrong, based on lies, flawed, and costly, with no perceivable net benefit to the ongoing dinners at the Four Seasons, endlessly nuanced and held over the distant sound of questionable screaming, even though we're not going to lift a finger to correct that wrong as we continue our comfortably nuanced debates...

... because it is politically expediant to claim in this not a logic bound engineering problem nuanced anything goes world that this is a reasonaby consistant set of beliefs to cling to.

D. Saddam was a bad man, and probably needed to be deposed. However, he was not so bad that American citizens needed to immediately take on the burden of deposing him.

The way you spin it, it's a question of whether Saddam was bad enough to be deposed. It's not. It's a question of whether it is worth it from an American standpoint. Are you forgetting that we're the ones footing the bill for this war (both financially and in terms of human cost)?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Manchot, America is not the only country fighting this war and it's not the only country paying for it. However, American companies are the ones most benefiting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Wow... that suggestion went further afield than I thought it would.

As for links in regard to Rwanda...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

If you accept the source as credible you should see that Clinton was well aware of what was going on. There is virtually no way that he could have not known unless he like Bush likes to take off on vacation and not pay attention to the news. As was already quoted Clinton says (four years later)...

"All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror,"

How is that? It was being broadcast daily on television news.

When about 500,000 had been slaughtered the US was asked for troop transports which were delayed because the US was haggling over the pricetag with the UN.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/etc/slaughter.html

Clinton was also apparently worried enough about the situation even in the beginning to be sure all american citizens were lifted out of the area while refusing to send aid to the natives themselves.
Later on the US would airdrop food and supplies but refused when asked to make the drops lower to the ground to avoid problems.
In that same speech four years after the genocide Clinton said...

"Genocide can occur anywhere. It is not an African phenomenon. We must have global vigilance. And never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence,"

When he had in fact signed PDD (Presidential Decision Directive) 25 which specifically aimed to limit US military involvment in such matters a month after the genocide began.

If you read through the information about what happened it is not too difficult to see that the admin in the white house at that time had no desire to be involved. The US participated in the game of hot potato just like very one else. Even if Clinton wants to say that it was a tragic mistake it was definitely a mistake made very deliberately.

 

[SOS2008]

Recently I watched interviews with former president Carter, and last night with John McCain.

Carter made the significant point that certain individuals who were in the Bush Sr. administration wanted to go for regime change in Iraq (Gulf War time period), but it was squashed. These same individuals are now in the Bush Jr. administration, so obviously this was a desire well before 9-11 (i.e., premeditated). Nothing wrong with this per se...until they "fixed" the intelligence to invade--illegally.

As John McCain stated, Saddam had been an ongoing to threat in the region (having attacked Iran and Kuwait), and was thwarting UN inspections. If a case for war was to be made, these real problems should have been the reason. I (and many) have said that there should have been a final attempt to gain cooperation from Saddam, and if it failed there would have been more unanimous support for military action. This was not allowed, because the neocons feared that Saddam might have cooperated and they would lose their opportunity to invade.

The jest of the slogan is that Bush, et al, has committed more serious offenses. Getting back OT--to this slogan, members can post all the negative information about Clinton they please, but the case cannot be made that he was worse then Bush. It's just nonsense, and as always, it's a lame attempt at rationalizing what Bush has done and muddying the water.

 

[Zlex]

I prefer Freshie myself but that's not here nor there.
I see we almost have you down to a level of speaking real English now.
You also seem to be almost reading posts too. Wow ... This is a breakthrough.
The problem you have when drinking your Koolaid is that you fail to go back far enough. You see an attack on your sainted Bush and think that well, we have to put this off onto someone else so he looks better.
Who've we got ... Oh, Yeah ... Clinton.
Now there are one or two merrits to this rout of attack but the disadvantage is that it doesn't stop there. Once you broach history as a point of attack ... ALL history becomes valid ... including the fact that the 'Nasty man' was shown greeting Rumsfeld 2 weeks after he gassed the Kurds and they explained away this 'genocide'. This was then followed by assistance in targetting the Iranians during their war using satellite intel.
Yes, the very people you seek to exonerate by attacking the Clinton regime where present in the previous regime and set the ball rolling that led up to the current events.
Many of us here are outsiders and as such don't give a monkey's who is in power as far as your political infighting. We therefore look at relationships between the USA and external governments not in blocks of 'republican time' or 'Democrat time' we look at chains of cause and effect without the blinders of political affiliation.
If you want the 'god's honest truth' I have made too much to be considered a 'liberal' for about 3 decades now.
Now, while you tend to talk in terms of 'Koolade', I talk in terms of 'blood' spilled.
Both Saddam and the USA are responsible for 'Mass graves' and innocent lives lost.
Iran wants Saddam tried outside of the country in an international court so they can have the USA stand beside Saddam for their role in what the current Iraqi government has already admitted to as an unjust war started by Saddam against the sovereign nation of Iran.
Do you understand the implications of that? The newly freed nation of Iraq under American supervision has just dropped you into the role of co-conspirator of the person they are now trying for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In the eyes of the world ... especially the arab nations, they see you like Moussolini putting Hitler on trial for being a bad man.
This goes Waaaaaay back and shows a general lack of understanding on the part of most Americans about Middle Eastern affairs.
To you it is party politics.
To them it was wave after wave of westerners meddling in their business and putting into place the very regimes you deplore.
Iran itself was a democracy in the early 1950's for example and when the country nationalized the oil industry, westerners toppled the government and put a dictator in power. THAT is the hipocracy they see with every turn since.
The rest of the world admires Clinton actually for what he DID keep in his pants and what most administrations have flaunted and used to bring about the wars you now fight.

I apologize for this soapbox debate.

But I don't begin to concede that as 'certain.'

IMHO, Endlessly "doing nothing" -- in the face of endless challenges to 'do something' -- is exactly, precisely what led to the accelerated build up of hostilities in the 90s.

In fact, making a great, global political show of "doing nothing" -- traveling far over the horizon, dressed up in camo, complete with blue berets and flags flying--for the express purpose of 'doing nothing' in the face of challenges from megapolitical thugs-- in Somalia, in Rwanda, in -- fill in the blank, whenever and wherever a random thug challenged the laughable concept of a 'world community' sans effective sheriff-- was a process that accelerated the growing chaos in the world, the chaos that finally landed on our doorstep on 9/11 like at no other time in our history.

America, you're our star spangled *****, now prove otherwise or shut up and take it. We don't believe you've got the spine to adequately defend yourself. We don't believe you've got the spine to stick up for your 'friends' , your allies, your principles, your stranglehold on the direction that the world and its predominant political movements are taking. You make great pouty gestures -- "Project Hope" in Somalia, and then run screaming with a great, cowardly 'never mind, not if some random thug is going to contest the issue; when that happens, Project Hope is demonstrated to be Project Hopeless.' Osama Bin Laden was not a passive observer of that lesson; he was front and center in Mogadishu.

America, you as 'leader' of the cowardly Western modernity that rewrote the map led the way in Rwanda just 3 months later, demonstrating that even when the West has already made the effort to deploy itslef over the horizon in the name of 'justice' -- even when it is already on the ground in 'not sufficiently in our national interests' Rwanda -- when the effort extends itself beyond 'gesture politics,' you fold up like spineless, cowardly bastards and run back to your imagined safe havens to sip your Capuccinos and pose around the crab spread, deluding yourselves and the rest of the comfortable world with your tributes to The Greatest Generation about 'never again.'

America made the art of leading the Western world to 'do nothing' a high art. We busted a gut only to give every appearance of doing everything possible short of actually doing anything, and it fooled only us, as we convinced ourselves that was all that was necessary; meanwhile, the hardasses of the world are demanding more than gestures, more than poses, more than slogans, more than Madison Ave PR campaigns.

In Iraq, when we covertly encouraged the Kurds to rebel, with promises that 'we'd have their back,' in 1996 we 'did nothing' as those very folks were 'rolled up' (euphemism for murdered), even as our NoFlyZones were 'maintained' from above the events. We took pictures from $30M fighter jets, then lied to ourselves that such a cowardly national act was good policy. We passed on a bill, and like all deferred bills, the final bill ended up much higher, because the **** fighters who are fighting us now are totally convinced that we are the same gutless, empty nation that so recently did THAT to Iraq.

"Doing nothing" -- again -- in the face of Saddam's defiance of the UN as symbol of the 'world community' -- was not clearly something that was going to be without endless and growing consequences. To believe so is to count on the limits of the depths of contempt that those that despise us can generate from our behaviour.

 

[Anttech]

Y--a--w--n[/size]

edit: why bother appoligising for doing something before then going on to it? This isn't hyde park you know, athough you do seem to think PF is a toilet

 

[Skyhunter]

I apologize for this soapbox debate.

Yet you continue to make claims and accustaions based on your opinion without sources. How do you expect anyone to believe a word you write, when it is all vitriolic opinion.

 

[Zlex]

Yet you continue to make claims and accustaions based on your opinion without sources. How do you expect anyone to believe a word you write, when it is all vitriolic opinion.

Well, what should I source exactly. I would think the last few years of history would be common knowledge.

Should I get out my son's Grade 10 history textbook?

Although, I do find it odd that only I am accused of having a vitrolic opinion based on nothing when I replied to post that also contained no sources.


EDIT:

Looking back though this entire 8 pages of posting I counted 9 outside sources. 5 of which I provided to back up my previous opinions. And I am accused of being vitrolic as opposed to all others.

Do you know why?

Neither do I.

I guess the best I ever get on this is rope-a-dope like that. It is as good as it ever gets. It is, the actual cream of the opposing point of view crop.

 

[Informal Logic]

IMHO, Endlessly "doing nothing" -- in the face of endless challenges to 'do something' -- is exactly, precisely what led to the accelerated build up of hostilities in the 90s.

..."Doing nothing" -- again -- in the face of Saddam's defiance of the UN as symbol of the 'world community' -- was not clearly something that was going to be without endless and growing consequences. To believe so is to count on the limits of the depths of contempt that those that despise us can generate from our behaviour.

Saddam was being contained, and due process was underway. Defiance of the UN is not a ‘clear and present danger’ threat to American security. We WERE doing something, and behaving consistent with our supposed policy of war as a last resort.

Just to reiterate points made by several members above – First is that of US foreign policy, for example in reference to dictators, specifically “bad” dictators (assuming there are any other kind). I also caught the interview with McCain yesterday evening, and he said Saddam was an exception. I disagree, and say this is BS, because there have been and always will be “bad” leaders in the world, and having a ‘policy’ means having consensus on when, how and why the US will act. The most glaring reason why McCain’s statement is BS is that the US has not only supported many such dictators, but that the US previously supported Saddam himself. A second point made above about foreign policy is reference to the Bush Doctrine (crikey). Is preemption (first strike) an acceptable policy? What about regime change? At this time both are illegal according to international law, and most people view it as immoral. Bushies will never stick to discussions on these larger, basic matters.

How can there be credible discourse about the invasion of Iraq without addressing these things first? Then we might move to discussions of the ends justifying the means. McCain also spoke to the matter of torture. He stated that terrorists do not and should not have the same rights as an American citizen, but should be treated according to human rights guidelines that all nations are expected to adhere to. I agree with this, however, deception is not acceptable, not ever. It would seem the majority of Americans agree, and are disgusted that they were misled, and certainly members of Congress. You Bushies out there — There is no excuse for this, so stop trying to make excuses.

 

[Informal Logic]

One, I did not mention morality. Though dictionary definitions may not exactly argee with me I consider "morals" to be predominantly faith based and "ethics" to be based purely on logic.
Secondly, the law, and hence legality, is based on "ethics" or rather logical conclusions about the proper manner by which to interact in an orderly and functional society. Or at least it should be.
The day people get a clue world peace should ensue.
Hence my statement including the words "common practice".
I bring this up in response to those that say the statement is about lies and not about deaths. The matter of deaths is obviously implied.
And just to be clear I am not implying that Clinton was ever responsable for any deaths in this statement.
Largely irrelevant. If someone subordinate to my authority were to make sexual advances towards me and we had consentual "sexual relations" I would still be dismissed from my position. Again I see no reason why this should differ with regard to the president especially considering that his position is of vastly greater importance than mine and as such should demand a higher standard of professionalism.
Considering the basis for impeachment, how else would you go about dimissing the president of the United States of America for misconduct? Would you just hand him his walking papers and tell him to clear out of the oval office?

My apologies—I only just happen to see this post. By your reasoning, the president should have to abide by your company dress code too, right? The difference is private sector or civil matters versus 'high crimes and misdemeanors." I really do not want to dwell on this though because to me it is a bit menial in view of the seriousness of the current investigation.

 

[Skyhunter]

I apologize for this soapbox debate.
But I don't begin to concede that as 'certain.'
IMHO, Endlessly "doing nothing" -- in the face of endless challenges to 'do something' -- is exactly, precisely what led to the accelerated build up of hostilities in the 90s.
In fact, making a great, global political show of "doing nothing" -- traveling far over the horizon, dressed up in camo, complete with blue berets and flags flying--for the express purpose of 'doing nothing' in the face of challenges from megapolitical thugs-- in Somalia, in Rwanda, in -- fill in the blank, whenever and wherever a random thug challenged the laughable concept of a 'world community' sans effective sheriff-- was a process that accelerated the growing chaos in the world, the chaos that finally landed on our doorstep on 9/11 like at no other time in our history.
America, you're our star spangled *****, now prove otherwise or shut up and take it. We don't believe you've got the spine to adequately defend yourself. We don't believe you've got the spine to stick up for your 'friends' , your allies, your principles, your stranglehold on the direction that the world and its predominant political movements are taking. You make great pouty gestures -- "Project Hope" in Somalia, and then run screaming with a great, cowardly 'never mind, not if some random thug is going to contest the issue; when that happens, Project Hope is demonstrated to be Project Hopeless.' Osama Bin Laden was not a passive observer of that lesson; he was front and center in Mogadishu.
America, you as 'leader' of the cowardly Western modernity that rewrote the map led the way in Rwanda just 3 months later, demonstrating that even when the West has already made the effort to deploy itslef over the horizon in the name of 'justice' -- even when it is already on the ground in 'not sufficiently in our national interests' Rwanda -- when the effort extends itself beyond 'gesture politics,' you fold up like spineless, cowardly bastards and run back to your imagined safe havens to sip your Capuccinos and pose around the crab spread, deluding yourselves and the rest of the comfortable world with your tributes to The Greatest Generation about 'never again.'
America made the art of leading the Western world to 'do nothing' a high art. We busted a gut only to give every appearance of doing everything possible short of actually doing anything, and it fooled only us, as we convinced ourselves that was all that was necessary; meanwhile, the hardasses of the world are demanding more than gestures, more than poses, more than slogans, more than Madison Ave PR campaigns.
In Iraq, when we covertly encouraged the Kurds to rebel, with promises that 'we'd have their back,' in 1996 we 'did nothing' as those very folks were 'rolled up' (euphemism for murdered), even as our NoFlyZones were 'maintained' from above the events. We took pictures from $30M fighter jets, then lied to ourselves that such a cowardly national act was good policy. We passed on a bill, and like all deferred bills, the final bill ended up much higher, because the **** fighters who are fighting us now are totally convinced that we are the same gutless, empty nation that so recently did THAT to Iraq.
"Doing nothing" -- again -- in the face of Saddam's defiance of the UN as symbol of the 'world community' -- was not clearly something that was going to be without endless and growing consequences. To believe so is to count on the limits of the depths of contempt that those that despise us can generate from our behaviour.

This entire post is your opinion. This is not an op-ed forum, it is one for discussion.

I get your point, you hate Clinton and think America should kick-ass.

Were you ever in combat or are you just another chicken-hawk like the bulk of the administration and neo-cons in general?

How many of your kids are putting their life on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Even if I agreed with all of your reasoning, I would still have to say that this administration has totally bungled the execution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more terrorists now than there were in 2001. Our allies don't trust us with intelligence because we outed our own intelligence community. And we are torturing suspects.

I guess it just feels good to dump on Clinton since Bush is such a dismal failure.

 

[edward]

Well, what should I source exactly. I would think the last few years of history would be common knowledge.

Please source exactly why if in your opinion the war was necessary, The Bush administration had to totally distort the truth about WMD to the American people.
The last few years of history have been spun like a top. Were there WMD? no. Were the American people led to believe that there were WMD based on unsubstantiated and forged information? yes.

Should I get out my son's Grade 10 history textbook?

YES And please read it. Be sure not to trip over the spinning pages.

Although, I do find it odd that only I am accused of having a vitrolic opinion based on nothing when I replied to post that also contained no sources.

The posts you replied to that contained no sources were using the sources posted by others.

Looking back though this entire 8 pages of posting I counted 9 outside sources. 5 of which I provided to back up my previous opinions. And I am accused of being vitrolic as opposed to all others.
Do you know why?

Perhaps because your sources would substantiate one sentence and then you would return to your own vitriolic militaristic never ending opinion.

I guess the best I ever get on this is rope-a-dope like that. It is as good as it ever gets. It is, the actual cream of the opposing point of view crop.

Again this is your opinion only, but yet a sly way of group ad hominem.

 

[Art]

Perhaps because your sources would substantiate one sentence and then you would return to your own vitriolic militaristic never ending opinion.
Again this is your opinion only, but yet a sly way of group ad hominem.

It seems we have lost The Smoking Man again because he rose to Zlex's provocation so I wouldn't waste your time rebutting what actually seems to be a new formulation of an old PC program where you could take a list of words and randomly generate what appeared to be english paragraphs. The ultimate tool for professional trolls.

 

[Skyhunter]

It seems we have lost The Smoking Man again because he rose to Zlex's provocation so I wouldn't waste your time rebutting what actually seems to be a new formulation of an old PC program where you could take a list of words and randomly generate what appeared to be english paragraphs. The ultimate tool for professional trolls.

He wasn't banned for anything he said here to Zlex.

 

[edward]

It seems we have lost The Smoking Man again because he rose to Zlex's provocation

The only post I saw by TSM that even faintly resembled an insult was when TSM inquired of Zlex: "Is your first language english"? He said this after reading as I did, numerous pages of disjointed diatribe obviously generated or pasted toghether within a short time period.

 

[SOS2008]

Please source exactly why if in your opinion the war was necessary, The Bush administration had to totally distort the truth about WMD to the American people.

Because the American people were not willing to go to war until it was proven necessary, and by that time the window of opportunity created by 9-11 emotions would have passed.

Also, as I've posted before, and I think you have to, there are pro-Israel elements to justifications provided. These people don't care about American blood or treasure, but only to pounce upon the Arab enemy at every opportunity.

In any event, until these factions come to the table to discuss a consistent and realistic foreign policy, I am no longer interested in their emotional and illogical op-eds.

 

[Art]

The only post I saw by TSM that even faintly resembled an insult was when TSM inquired of Zlex: "Is your first language english"? He said this after reading as I did, numerous pages of disjointed diatribe obviously generated or pasted toghether within a short time period.

Skyhunter enlightened me and it wasn't because of this thread. The post which led to his demise is gone but you could say he went out in style lol

 

[Zlex]

This entire post is your opinion. This is not an op-ed forum, it is one for discussion.
I get your point, you hate Clinton and think America should kick-ass.
Were you ever in combat or are you just another chicken-hawk like the bulk of the administration and neo-cons in general?
How many of your kids are putting their life on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Even if I agreed with all of your reasoning, I would still have to say that this administration has totally bungled the execution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more terrorists now than there were in 2001. Our allies don't trust us with intelligence because we outed our own intelligence community. And we are torturing suspects.
I guess it just feels good to dump on Clinton since Bush is such a dismal failure.

I don't hate Clinton. Look, in post Cold War America in the 90's, in an America anxious to cash in on a 'Peace Surplus,' part of the reason for his popularity might have been precisely because he was not quick to use the axe. There are folks to this day who will maintain to the last things like 'violence is never the answer/war is never justified.'

We might as well ask why Bush 41 didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad; some of the answers are the same. Not all, but some.


We elected a president in the 90's who did not have very high on his list the use of force to solve anything. In the Western way of thinking, that is often looked at as a virtue. It is unfair to say that he never considered it, never asked, or never deployed force. It is fair to say that he probably did so infrequently, as a last resort, and without a great desire to ever do so. If that is true, then in the face of a Pentagon doing its best to discourage him for whatever reason, it is not a shock to conclude that he leaned towards not doing so for as long as he possibly could. The arguments about how long that is a reasonable thing to do--ie, what is 'as long as possible,' are political questions. The factual answers are determined not by the answers in the back of a book, but by the process of winning an election and siezing the power to choose.

There is a difference between using force only as a last resort, and never using force at all. Both the restraint to use force, as well as the use of force, can be done at best imperfectly. We can argue for more or less, and tug all we want, and in the end, we put one of us in the White House. What we can't do is, point to the answer in the back of a book and say, 'here is what we should have done.'

News flash; Clinton was imperfectly flawed. Does that mean, as many have claimed, that he did not love this country and its ideals? That, when he did what he did, or didn't do what he didn't do, that he did so based on a desire to destroy this country? I can't believe that unless somebody shows me evidence of that. I can criticize the Hell out of him, and often have, and put out my two cents that says 'he should have done this, and he shouldn't have done that, he should have been a stronger CIC, he should have been a more restrained CIC...' but in the end, the nation chooses, and the middle is defined.

Perhaps some say, Afghanistan yes, WOT yes, Iraq No. But, if the 'Iraq No' folks take office on the assumption that it was wrong to depose Saddam&co and get rid of that regime, then how do they get away with not righting that wrong when in office, by using the power of the US to restore the Saddam regime to power? They can do what they are doing know--blame the Bush Administration--and then apologize to the world on the US behalf, say that those idiots should not have done that, we would have done differently, and here is the proof. Yet, if they would and will live with the outcome, then they concur with the outcome, and it is hollow to claim that it should not have been done.

Clinton did have a sense that the gloves needed to come off. He signed Executive orders establishing the legality of pre-emption. He also signed into law the ILA. He asked, he requested training, and planning, and spinups. What he did not do was, overcome the objections of those who yet remembered what was done to Oliver North after similar Executive Orders had been signed.

 

[Zlex]

Saddam was being contained, and due process was underway. Defiance of the UN is not a ‘clear and present danger’ threat to American security. We WERE doing something, and behaving consistent with our supposed policy of war as a last resort.
Just to reiterate points made by several members above – First is that of US foreign policy, for example in reference to dictators, specifically “bad” dictators (assuming there are any other kind). I also caught the interview with McCain yesterday evening, and he said Saddam was an exception. I disagree, and say this is BS, because there have been and always will be “bad” leaders in the world, and having a ‘policy’ means having consensus on when, how and why the US will act. The most glaring reason why McCain’s statement is BS is that the US has not only supported many such dictators, but that the US previously supported Saddam himself. A second point made above about foreign policy is reference to the Bush Doctrine (crikey). Is preemption (first strike) an acceptable policy? What about regime change? At this time both are illegal according to international law, and most people view it as immoral. Bushies will never stick to discussions on these larger, basic matters.

Let's see what Bob Kerrey, Sr Democrat on the Senate Intelligence COmmittee, says about "what we wanted done." and how long we've wanted him out of power.

Source: JFK Foundation Library

Scan ahead to the eye catching section:

BOB KERREY: No, you have no idea what's in the speech. You can't be that boring. Well, yeah. I mean, since 1991, since UN Security Resolution 687 laid out very specifically what the Iraqi regime had to do, we've had a military strategy to contain. And by the way, it's unlike any other nation on earth, and unlike any other security resolution that's ever been passed. It passed unanimous. It details every single thing that the Iraqi regime must do. And since that point in time, the Iraqi regime, led by Saddam Hussein, has done almost none of it.

And at the risk of going to jail for saying this-- Because part of the problem, in my view, in national security is we keep too many secrets. And when you're making a decision, especially if you're a guy, and you've got a bunch of guys sitting around making decisions, there's a tendency to make bad decisions. And if you don't have anybody checking your work, like every now and then, your wife comes in and says, "Are you nuts?" Is this what your thinking? "Well, that's what I was thinking." "Well, you're crazy. This isn't right." Because we have so many secrets, oftentimes decisions get made that are really bad. For example, we kept from the American people the secret of what the Soviet Union looked like in 1988. I campaigned for the Senate for the first time in 1988. We presumed the Cold War would go on forever. All we needed was one of those top secret pictures to see that they were farming with ox carts, for god's sake.

Anyway, this is all leading to, we had covert operations in place in Iraq starting in 1991. I suppose I could go to jail for disclosing that, for all I know. I don't know. But I was the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee, and I had to sign off on them. It isn't just that we had a bunch of guys over there, trained to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We were signing up people. There were Kurds in northern Iraq who believed us, who believed that we'd stick with them, that, "Oh, yeah, you can overthrow Saddam Hussein, and we're going to be right there with you, and we'll stick it out with you." And we didn't.

DICK GORDON: You're talking about after the war.

BOB KERREY: Nineteen ninety-six, both of the main Kurdish forces were rolled up and killed, and driven out of Iraq as a consequence of Saddam Hussein sending military forces up, even with our no-fly zones being maintained. There were a lot of Iraqis who died. A lot of them tried to come to the United States. We wouldn't let them come here. I just said at the time, 1998-- Now comes the administration again saying, "We want you to sign off on another covert operation. We're going to get him this time." And I said, "I'll sign off on it if you make your open policy the same as your closed policy. Don't sign people up to risk their lives if we're saying publicly we don't think it can happen, and we don't favor it publicly. That's when we wrote the act. On Halloween, 1998, that was the first time the United States' over policy and covert policy was identical. And that's the first time that we could honestly say, both in Washington DC and in Kirkuk or Mosul or wherever else you were trying to sign people up, that we were telling them the same thing.

I don't go in for the sophmoric drama of pretending not to understand why it was important to consummate the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 in the only way it could have been done ... or why taking out Saddam was related to the kind of horror this country experienced on 9/11/01 ... or that finding WMD was not the only reason for invading Iraq ... or that waiting for the blessing of Saddam's UN whores was a sucker's bet.

Why do you think the US government conducted covert operations in Iraq since 1991?

Why were Kurds ans SHia encouraged to overthrow Saddam?

Why did we just watch from 15,000 feet while Saddam sent his military to squash them in 1996?

Why did Kerrey and others demand a public price--the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998--as a price for authorization for continuing covert action in Iraq in 1998?

Nossir, Mr. President, if you are going to ask the meateaters to go sell trust to folks in dangerous places, and then make them watch while we stand back and do nothing while they get murdered doing what we said we'd back them up doing, you are going to have to raise your right hand on that podium and put that public axe in it and declare to the world, "I, WJC, the POTUS, am aiming this axe at Saddam Hussein's Heart."

Apparantly, all of that orphan and widow making was not related to the "so called war on so called terror." Apparently, it was part of a much more well defined political, strategic, or tactical plan by the former Administration. So secret, we have yet to hear it explained.

Whatever all that orphan and widow making was, it was years before GWBush lurched into DC with his wild assed, crazy, totally out of the blue, "Let's Git Saddam" focus in January 2001, with Richard Clarke suddenly scratching his head and wondering, "Where oh where did this sudden fixation with Getting Saddam out of Iraq come from, and what could it possibly be a part of?"

 

[Skyhunter]

Let's see what Bob Kerrey, Sr Democrat on the Senate Intelligence COmmittee, says about "what we wanted done." and how long we've wanted him out of power.

Thank you, It is much more informative when you supply a reference.

However, except for historical perspective, I find it mostly irrelevant to current events. The disaster in Iraq is the result of George W. Bush's decisions, and mistakes made by Rumsfeld and the CPA.

Why would you assume that those who believe the invasion was illegal would advocate restoring Saddam to power?

It is not black and white. Your post's would be more effective if you made more liberal use of other colors.

 

[SOS2008]

We might as well ask why Bush 41 didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad; some of the answers are the same.

This is worthy of discussion, rather than a glossed-over simplified opinion, though OT for this thread. Bush Sr. did not pursue regime change because it was determined that the outcome would be negative--for many reasons, some of which have been proven from Bush’s ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq.

The arguments about how long that is a reasonable thing to do--ie, what is 'as long as possible,' are political questions. The factual answers are determined not by the answers in the back of a book, but by the process of winning an election and siezing the power to choose.

To address the first statement, you mention elsewhere distinctions of “last resort” and, yes, military force can be necessary—as a last resort to defend our nation, so “how long” is not criteria for invasion. To address the second statement, I assume you are referring to Bush being elected and believing there to be a so-called mandate, but I would argue that “seizing’ of power is an accurate description of Bush’s rise to the White House.

Yet, if they would and will live with the outcome, then they concur with the outcome, and it is hollow to claim that it should not have been done.

What outcome? The one of keeping Saddam contained until a successful approach to regime change could take place (international action--particularly in the event of another act of aggression, revolution/civil war, or what have you) or the one of creating a training field for an exponential increase in terrorists?

I don’t feel our foreign policy should be knee-jerk reactions, especially driven by emotions/fears, but rather it should consistently reflect American values. In your post # 128, you still have not answered these questions (or for that matter other supporters of Bush/invasion of Iraq, be they mainstream conservatives, neocons, pro-Israel fundamentalists, whether Christian or Jewish, etc.):

Should U.S. foreign policy be one of policing and intervention?
Should U.S. foreign policy be one of preemptive first strike?
Should U.S. foreign policy be one of regime change?
Should U.S. foreign policy be one in which interrogation methods include torture?

And as was asked--if so, when, why and how so, and I would ask, based on what source (historical data, international law, etc.) – not just opinion?

And in conclusion, as also being discussed in another thread, if it is proven that Bush, et al, purposefully deceived the American people/Congress with lies and cover-up of lies, should there be impeachment investigations/trial?

Please, make a substantiated, solid, convincing case based on evidence.

 

[deckart]

For what it's worth, I think Bush was an idiot to invade Iraq on the premise of WMD. That's where he screwed up. I think he should have been honest and simply told the world why. Most conservatives knew the WMD bit was BS, IMO. I sure knew it was. But, I also believe it was the right thing to do. I'm glad we did it. The people in Iraq that oppose it are the ones that once held tyranical power over the people there. It doesn't work for them. To bring radical change to any culture and government costs blood. It always has and always will. There are things worth fighting, sacrifycing and dying for. This is one of those things.
Now, my father would argue with me. He says that the Iraqi people don't deserve what they are getting. Because we've made it too easy for them and therefore cannot appreciate it. We, in America, fought hard and shed a lot of blood to get where we are and to have what we have.
Anyhow, that's my two cents to where this thread has been going the last few pages.

 

[Zlex]

What outcome? The one of keeping Saddam contained until a successful approach to regime change could take place (international action--particularly in the event of another act of aggression, revolution/civil war, or what have you) or the one of creating a training field for an exponential increase in terrorists?

The history of the 90's is a slow and increasing move towards hostilities as a solution, as a last resort, hoping to the last that Saddam and his sons could forever be contained, that they would never be successful with their desires&will, that somehow, someway, at best, the consequences of these nobody denies brutal thugs with ready access to the resources of the nation of Iraq would forever be localized to simply brutalizing the Iraqi people themselves, and no others.

A gamble about the unseeable by anybody end of the road that the Clinton Administration had decided to pursue at. The end of that road was unseeable, even as we were taking it. But, the end of that road is equally unseeable now that we have taken another.

The issue over Iraq, the political battle was, "How long do we merely threaten force in the hope of a peaceful resolution, how long to we merely draw lines in the sand, how much time do we give Saddam & his sons access to the resources of the nation of Iraq, knowing what his intentions and actions and desires are from his behaviour to date?"

10 years?

Until the mushroom cloud is seen?

Forever?

Those are not equal choices, and as I said, the answer is not in the back of any book, plain to see.

The GOP position was, 'enough is enough,' the Bush Administration won an election, and the clock ran out on the Third Way. Yet, looked at not as a GOP/Democratic issue, the response from America over this issue was drawn out over a decade of restraint. That is not the same as endless restraint, and in this issue, endless restraint is not a virtue. Ten years of restraint in this crisis was not enough? 12 years was going to do it?

Moot, unknowable; Saddam&Co had the will&desire, Saddam&Co had sufficient resources to obtain the required resources, all that was left was the inevitable passage of time. The 'retirement' of Saddam was going to be followed by the ascension of his sons, not a free election. That was NOT going to be an improvement in the situation.

Had Perot not run, and had Bush 41 won in '92, I think there would have been a tendency for there to be a long period of restraint, just as there was with Clinton; that is the 'Western' way. A similar ramp up of hostilities would have occurred, given the same behaviour of Saddam&Co. And, eventually, the same thing would have happened. It's the nature of thugs, Saddam&Co were going to repsond only to the use of force, period, no matter how long we gave them to change their stripes and act rationally.

Political considerations turned this into a battle of visions in the US, however, and for as long as Clinton&co held power, they clung to the already invested strategy to the last minute, which, from the point of view of those with differing views on the topic, seemed to be well beyond a reasonable amount of time, and was every month increasingly risking a greater tragedy at the unseeable end of the current road.

So if, by comparison, it seemed that with the change of Administrations that there was a 'rush to action' to implement the already stated as necessary 'regime change in Iraq,' that is a fair and accurate assessment. However, criticism of that change of policy makes the assumption that it was wrong to do so, and that is nowhere in evidence as being obvious. In fact, the run up in the 90's describes not a waning crisis, but just the opposite. The fact that the effort was 'accelerated' does not equate to the fact that to do so was wrong, and yet that is exactly the nature of the criticism aimed at this change of policy. At best, we hear:

"Saddam&Co were going to effectively be bottled up forever," ignoring that he'd been operating free of inspectors since 1998.

"The inspections were working," ignoring that our inspectors were not even in Iraq until Bush moved the troops into the region."

"Saddam did not have WMD yet," without denying that he had a gun to his scientists heads demanding of them to 'build me a bomb.'

Reviewing the CNN reporting of the 'crisis in Iraq' during the latter half of the 90's, and the dire warnings, and the repeated talk of 'Iraq's last chance,' what is missing is any evidence, anywhere, that in the period from the late 90's and these dire warnings, the 'crisis in Iraq' had shown any signs of ameliorating.

Add onto that the mood of the nation after 9/11, and that is more than enough to understand why Saddam&Co are today effectively, factually, removed from power.

It was a question of time only. I don't blame CLinton&co for showing restraint and giving sufficient chance for other means to work. I do question other's who say that we could have afforded to do that forever without severe risk of terrible consequences, but am grateful that the debate is officially moot; there is a factual result, and that is, the effective removal of Saddam&Co and the repeal of the Republic of Fear.

I don’t feel our foreign policy should be knee-jerk reactions, especially driven by emotions/fears, but rather it should consistently reflect American values. In your post # 128, you still have not answered these questions (or for that matter other supporters of Bush/invasion of Iraq, be they mainstream conservatives, neocons, pro-Israel fundamentalists, whether Christian or Jewish, etc.):
Should U.S. foreign policy be one of policing and intervention?
Should U.S. foreign policy be one of preemptive first strike?
Should U.S. foreign policy be one of regime change?
Should U.S. foreign policy be one in which interrogation methods include torture?

Is the one fundamental 'American' value that it is not a sin for anyone to lay claim to, 'anything goes?' Is THAT the only mighty OneSizeFitsAll value we can all at least agree on?

If that's it, and there are and never have been any 'American values,' then there are and never have been any American values worth fighting for, or more importantly, defending, and my, isn't that the key to the Magic Kingdom? That is, in fact, the position of some who would prefer America would never, under any circumstances, fight for any values. What Americans fight for, supposedly, only comes down to greedy self-interest, and supposedly, noise about 'values' is so much fig leaf covering up the hard on we have for other people's goodies.

Because, if there is some confusion over this, and there actually may be one or more other values that Americans will fight for, it is because "consistency" is clearly not one of them.

Why DID we bail in Beirut? One minute, we're so concerned about peace in that region that we risk the lives of our very best to secure same; the next minute, suddenly, we are licking our wounds and could care less.

Why DID we bail on the Somalians? One minute, we're so concerned that they are getting fed and/or being run by ruthless warlords that we risk the lives of our best to secure same; the next minute, suddenly we could care less.

We 'cared,' just not so much; the casualties taken in Somalia were certainly fewer then what we are paying today, and are apparently willing to pay, to oust Saddam and secuire a free Iraq.

Why DID we lobby the UN to make sure that the murder of 800,000 Rwandans was less glaringly labeled as only being 'genocide-like?' In that case, we cared enough to ... send Mad Albright for some P.R.

Wait a minute; how murky and undefinable and unexplainable can 'American values' be if we can so easily lose sight of them when faced with 'hardships' that pale in comparison to what previous generations shouldered to secure same for us?

SO, what are we about, now? Is the US able to impose a beneficent Pax Americana uniformly and perfectly distributed throughout the world?

No; clearly, it cannot.

Well then, can US leaders, guided by our imperfect political process, perfectly pick and choose the 'right' opportunities to do same, based on a confluence of our other 'interests' du jour which must be other then simply a prioritazation of our values?

No; clearly it cannot; certainly not without any consensus on 'American values' other than, 'anything goes.'

Well then, should they even be allowed to try, and if not, should that be a new, American value, one characterized by

a] We can't do it all perfectly.
b] We can't even do any of it perfectly.
c] We'd best do nothing, ala Rwanda.

If all this mournful nonsense of mine--which clearly, it might all be--about there actually being something still smoldering which used to be characterized as 'American values' is long dead, then the conclusion is obvious; it is all just mob noise and tribal grunting, exactly as it appears to be sometimes, and anything truly does go.

For example, Bush's incursion into Iraq has been characterized as an 'unprovoked attack.' Clearly, that in isolation must be a violation of some kind of 'American value,' loosely based on the Paradox of Violence/justification for Superior Violence. Yet if so, there might be more then one, so there is hope for us political romantics yet.

Yes, it's true, if I see a bully across the street with some poor guy strung up on a meathook, that bully has not yet attacked me.

It's true, if I tell that bully to 'Stop that, or else I'll do more then ask you to stop that again,' that bully has not yet attacked me.

But, being the kind of person who clings to the belief that 'unprovoked attacks' are not justified, at what point do I get over my bad self and go help the poor bastage who could easily be me strung up on the meathook?

Even if I'm selfishly afraid he'll someday use that meathook on my loved ones. Even if I do business with the poor bastage hung up on the meathook. Even ifthe bully is well liked by a holy majority of folks in the neighborhood doing business with him. Even if I don't speak the bully's language, appreciate his cultural heritage, or understand the needs of his neighbors.

Even if I've got all that and more stacked against me, at what point is it necessary for me to cave into my simple urge to just defend humanity from thugs, even if I've got to use force to do so?

I don't think it's even in our constitution, directly. So, what is it in the murky grab bag of what should be 'American values' that allows us, finally, to decide to get over our bad selves and lift a finger to defend humanity, when we are able, from the evil that it does to itself?

It's really not that complicated, unless there is a pressing political need to make it so, or, it happens to be convenient or profitable in some criminal fashion.

Play nice; share your toys; don't cheat, don't lie, don't steal, don't hurt anybody, do your part, say please and thank-you.

And then, we grow up, and the world gets nuanced.

EDIT:

I would like to talk more about the policy of pre-emption.

With the advantage of never going to have it perfect hindsight, was the world better off not occupying Germany in 1937? Was the world better off waiting until 1946? Don't hold me to the exact dates; not my point. The world actually only waitied until 1938 to 'try,' not 1946. There was a bloody period of trying in between, racked up 50 million. That's a lot of never going to get it back unspooling DNA; we have no idea what mankind lost in that 50 million. Cure for cancer? Hell, a cure for war? Moot. But the price is pretty clear; about 50 million, and their lost children's children..

It's an odd calculus, I'm sincerely a little afraid to even ask the question; was civilization better off for not averting that culling of 50 million souls, by waiting until 1946 to actually re-establish the peace and subdue Germany and its active agression?

For once, I'm not being a total wise ass.

After WWI, Hitler may have wanted to re-establish the German war machine, but he was effectively crippled--it was a hollow joke-- right up until he gained control of the Czech arms industry. That made all the difference. Suddenly, the best laid plans of the War to end all Wars went up in smoke. Up until that key moment, Hitler and his war machine could not realistically be perceived as a threat, and yet after that key acquisition, well, it's history. Up until then, in addition to the tactics of his generals, his key weapon was the incredulity of those arrayed against him; the French actually had superior numbers and superior technology at the time, just vastly inferior tactics, tactics from an earlier era. After that, Germany had teeth again. The calculus changed abruptly, even by modern standards. Too late, after the fact.

Look, maybe the answer really is 'yes.' That, no matter what the price in human lives, the precedent of massive ships of state not sailing off before the fact of actually receiving bloody death blows is too fundamentally valuable to ever be questioned. That, so much as crossing the street to defend another human being is not justified, as long as oneself is not threatened, is a concept that should be extended and applied to nation states. The US waited and debated until getting its nose bloodied at Pearl Harbor by Japan in what Japan saw as a pre-emptive attack, before entering WWII, then declared war on ... Germany. But, I get the point. Different times, different circumstances.

But, let's not get all mushy, and look back on WWII, and convince ourselves that the outcome was determined by right, by justice, or by God, Allah, or Jesus, by the UN, by negotiation, or by diplomacy. The outcome was determined by megapolitics, the politics of brute force.

As will the current conflict.

As will, most all conflict, even low level, borderline criminal conflict. The outcome in such cases, even when imposed by civil society, is imposed by brute force, and we issue ourselves fully signed licenses, with all the proper certificates and seals, that assuage our discomfort with same and allow us to exert brute force in defense of civilization and its civil compacts.

So, the answer as to whether we, in 1946, were a 'just' occupier of Germany/Japan I will just leave hanging, unanswered. There is disagreement still over even that; no doubt. The world where "none express anger" over any outcome is a world where miraculously, all of the O2 molecules have spontaneously aligned themselves in a hundred micron layer next to the ceiling; not going to ever happen, though, often held up as evidence of a failure of policy when that world is not achieved.

 

[Zlex]

Thank you, It is much more informative when you supply a reference.
However, except for historical perspective, I find it mostly irrelevant to current events. The disaster in Iraq is the result of George W. Bush's decisions, and mistakes made by Rumsfeld and the CPA.
Why would you assume that those who believe the invasion was illegal would advocate restoring Saddam to power?
It is not black and white. Your post's would be more effective if you made more liberal use of other colors.

So, nevermind the ILA, Oct 1998, Public declaration, this is our policy, that piece of legislation, as well as our continuous since 1991 covert action in Iraq--that is all irrelevant?

1] War on Iraq based on lies.
2] Absolutely no basis for War in Iraq.
3] Saddam was no threat to anybody.
4] Saddam was no threat to Iraq.
5] Saddam was no threat to the region.
6] Saddam was no threat to the US.
7] Saddam was not running the Republic of Fear.
8] Saddam was not running CLub Med for Terrorists.
9] Saddam was never going to transfer nothing to nobody.
10] Saddam was never going to reinstate his programs with all the corrupt UN/France/Russian/German Oil For Food Billions.
11] Nothing went out of Iraq by way of Syria on its way to warehouses in Khartoum, and Syria has no idea what the Hell the Sudanese gov't is asking them to take back.

OK, I'm just about sold: the War in Iraq was unjustly waged.

12] Therefore, Saddam was unjustly deposed.


13] Therefore, poor innocent not a threat to nobody never going to be a threat to anybody is unjustly sitting in a prison this very moment, unjustly deposed.


So, wait a minute, where are the 'FREE SADDAM NOW!' big headed puppets?

Do you mean to say that folks actually believe 1-11, which implies 12] but stop short of 13?

 

[Mercator]

Can you repeat that please?

 

[Polly]

This is just getting funnier and funnier.

 

[edward]

Just when did this forum become a cut and paste OP/ED page.

 

[Curious3141]

Perhaps some say, Afghanistan yes, WOT yes, Iraq No. But, if the 'Iraq No' folks take office on the assumption that it was wrong to depose Saddam&co and get rid of that regime, then how do they get away with not righting that wrong when in office, by using the power of the US to restore the Saddam regime to power?

To address this fallacious point, let me make the analogy to a surgeon presented with a case of an acute abdomen with fever and right iliac fossa pain and tenderness with guarding (tensing of the abdominal muscles). Any med student will tell you "acute appendicitis" is differential diagnosis numero uno.

Most of these cases go in for surgery, but the surgeon often finds nothing wrong with the appendix. That notwithstanding, he removes the vestigial structure at that sitting. This is done because a) the appendix serves no real function, b) it may very well get inflammed later and need removal and c) the tacit understanding is that an appendicectomy scar on the abdomen is taken by all surgeons to imply the removal of the appendix and hence acute appendicitis will be dropped from the list of differentials in later presentations.

The surgeon is actually doing the right and accepted thing by taking out the appendix after having gone in in the first place. But, with the benefit of hindsight, should the op have been done at all ? (Probably not). But the surgeon would've been remiss to have left the vestige behind.

Similarly, any incidental malignancy (cancer) found by the surgeon upon operation would at least have to be biopsied and removed/debulked as much as possible. Even though the surgeon's justification for having gone in wasn't ultimately met, it would be negligent to leave a malignant entity behind when it can be easily removed.

The removal of Saddam was similar in a sense to this. Having gone in, it would've been negligent to leave a malignant dictator behind. But the analogy is hardly perfect, because a lot of people (justifiably) feel that the motives for going into Iraq were not honorable and were based on lies, fabrications and exaggerations. That would be akin to a quack surgeon (think "Dr" Nick Riviera of the Simpsons) faking the indication for complicated surgery to milk money from the patient. That is simply morally and ethically very wrong indeed. But even if a quack doctor goes in with impure motives, it would be completely negligent not to remove an obvious tumor. And opening up the patient to "put it back in" would be unthinkable.

 

[SOS2008]

< snip >

In discussing previous U.S. positions and actions in regard to Iraq, I had hoped you'd review the Bush Sr. administration and reasons why they did not depose Saddam -- and if you do, PLEASE document it with links to reliable sources.

In the meantime, you refuse to answer direct questions with direct answers. You'll have to excuse me for not reading your rhetorical novel at this time to see if a bit of substance can be gleaned--maybe on my next day off.

 

[flotsam]

While I'm not arildno; I think he's perfectly correct in saying that it's perfectly fine to lie about one's own sexual habits.
It's nobody's business what goes on in the "bedroom." If I ask you if you're into kinky S&M watersports, and you lie about it, you're perfectly justified in lying about it. I shouldn't have been asking in the first place.
But you already knew that.

I agree. Your private life is nobodys business but your own, as long as you are not Ted Bundy.
As for 'watersports' I don't understand. I regularly go canoeing of a weekend and I don't see any need to keep that secret. Do you waterski? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

 

[Zlex]

The removal of Saddam was similar in a sense to this. Having gone in, it would've been negligent to leave a malignant dictator behind. But the analogy is hardly perfect, because a lot of people (justifiably) feel that the motives for going into Iraq were not honorable and were based on lies, fabrications and exaggerations. That would be akin to a quack surgeon (think "Dr" Nick Riviera of the Simpsons) faking the indication for complicated surgery to milk money from the patient. That is simply morally and ethically very wrong indeed. But even if a quack doctor goes in with impure motives, it would be completely negligent not to remove an obvious tumor. And opening up the patient to "put it back in" would be unthinkable.

The motive for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam.

I fully accept the fact that folks believe it is possible to say one without the other; folks have aptly demonstrated their belief in that belief, several times, including this latest reaffirmation, and I fully accept that you find no inconsistancy in the above. In fact, I rely on your acceptance of that, in a public forum, to illustrate the logic behind you and yours.

1] Saddam deposed, and sons murdered, based on nothing but "lies and bull****."

2] Saddam and sons were bad, bad men, yet, not bad enough to actually have the US do anything about.

3] Yet...tyhe US actually did something about them, to wit, deposed not bad enough Saddam and murdered his not bad enough sons.

4] Yet, where is the cry for justice for bad but not bad enough Saddam and his bad but not bad enough murdered sons, from those who claim to believe that they were at most bad but not bad enough to do anything about?

Here is where, I suppose, I should get some fantasy Bactine to spray on my imagined raw nerves.

and, here is where you say again, "Sure, he was a bad, bad, man, but not sufficiently bad to do something about."

...and where I say, "If not sufficiently bad to do something about, and yet, something about was still done, then still unjustly deposed, so the logic remains and you and yours still do not get to have it both ways, so choose, or I'll acknowledge the emptiness of your position, and regard it as meaningless political sniping."


Don't bother; I can live with the certain knowledge that logic is not an absolute requirement by some to cling to their petty little hatreds, as has been amply demonstrated.

 

[Skyhunter]

let's put things in perspective.

The motive for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam.
I fully accept the fact that folks believe it is possible to say one without the other; folks have aptly demonstrated their belief in that belief, several times, including this latest reaffirmation, and I fully accept that you find no inconsistancy in the above. In fact, I rely on your acceptance of that, in a public forum, to illustrate the logic behind you and yours.
1] Saddam deposed, and sons murdered, based on nothing but "lies and bull****."

2000 plus US soldiers dead, 10's of thousands maimed and crippled based on lies and bull****!

2] Saddam and sons were bad, bad men, yet, not bad enough to actually have the US do anything about.

Were they worth sacrificing your children?

3] Yet...tyhe US actually did something about them, to wit, deposed not bad enough Saddam and murdered his not bad enough sons.

And look where we are now.

4] Yet, where is the cry for justice for bad but not bad enough Saddam and his bad but not bad enough murdered sons, from those who claim to believe that they were at most bad but not bad enough to do anything about?
Here is where, I suppose, I should get some fantasy Bactine to spray on my imagined raw nerves.
and, here is where you say again, "Sure, he was a bad, bad, man, but not sufficiently bad to do something about."
...and where I say, "If not sufficiently bad to do something about, and yet, something about was still done, then still unjustly deposed, so the logic remains and you and yours still do not get to have it both ways, so choose, or I'll acknowledge the emptiness of your position, and regard it as meaningless political sniping."
Don't bother; I can live with the certain knowledge that logic is not an absolute requirement by some to cling to their petty little hatreds, as has been amply demonstrated.

Sorry, your name is not George W. Bush. You don't get to frame both sides of the argument.

[edit] Just for the record. It is illegal start a war for "regime change", or to depose a leader. That is why he had to lie about the reasons. [/edit]

 

[Curious3141]

The motive for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam.
I fully accept the fact that folks believe it is possible to say one without the other; folks have aptly demonstrated their belief in that belief, several times, including this latest reaffirmation, and I fully accept that you find no inconsistancy in the above. In fact, I rely on your acceptance of that, in a public forum, to illustrate the logic behind you and yours.
1] Saddam deposed, and sons murdered, based on nothing but "lies and bull****."
2] Saddam and sons were bad, bad men, yet, not bad enough to actually have the US do anything about.
3] Yet...tyhe US actually did something about them, to wit, deposed not bad enough Saddam and murdered his not bad enough sons.
4] Yet, where is the cry for justice for bad but not bad enough Saddam and his bad but not bad enough murdered sons, from those who claim to believe that they were at most bad but not bad enough to do anything about?
Here is where, I suppose, I should get some fantasy Bactine to spray on my imagined raw nerves.
and, here is where you say again, "Sure, he was a bad, bad, man, but not sufficiently bad to do something about."
...and where I say, "If not sufficiently bad to do something about, and yet, something about was still done, then still unjustly deposed, so the logic remains and you and yours still do not get to have it both ways, so choose, or I'll acknowledge the emptiness of your position, and regard it as meaningless political sniping."
Don't bother; I can live with the certain knowledge that logic is not an absolute requirement by some to cling to their petty little hatreds, as has been amply demonstrated.

Wow, way to be a historical revisionist and an apologist for the administration.

I remember the lead up to the war quite clearly. It was on CNN for all the world to see, for goodness' sake. The main justification for going into Iraq was because Saddam was thought to have WMDs, was not cooperating with the world in accounting for those WMDs, and was perfectly prepared to use those WMDs against the USA or another international target. I clearly recall that under the US' threats to go to war, Saddam capitulated fairly quickly and allowed full access to the international agencies to tally up his weapons. The man is despicable and evil, but he is not stupid, and he has a strong instinct for self-preservation.

But it was crystal clear that America was not to be moved from its purpose, which evidently was to invade Iraq at all costs. Even as Saddam was complying and the UN agencies were issuing statements that they were at last getting full access and there was nothing yet found, Bush relentlessly and implacably pushed for war. There was a sickening feeling of inevitability about the whole thing. Because, as much as I wanted to see Saddam and his sons removed from power (and killed as far as I could care, they were monsters), I dreaded the loss of innocent Iraqi and American lives with a half-cocked invasion. That is exactly the situation you see playing out right now.

Saddam was a terrible man, so were his sons, and I'm glad they're gone. But at what cost ? Noone in their right mind would've supported a war of aggression simply to remove a dictator who did not pose an immediate danger to the world with WMDs. You don't go in and depose a leader "just because" !There are other similarly evil dictators in N. Korea and the African continent who deserve removal purely on the basis of their tyranny, why has America under Bush not touched them ?

Regime change is NOT a justification for war in and of itself, this is enshrined in YOUR laws. Protecting the security of America and the world IS a justification, which is why the WMD thing was used from the get-go. This, it became rapidly apparent, was a barefaced LIE to justify the unjustifiable !

 

[Zlex]

Wow, way to be a historical revisionist and an apologist for the administration.
I remember the lead up to the war quite clearly. It was on CNN for all the world to see, for goodness' sake. The main justification for going into Iraq was because Saddam was thought to have WMDs, was not cooperating with the world in accounting for those WMDs, and was perfectly prepared to use those WMDs against the USA or another international target. I clearly recall that under the US' threats to go to war, Saddam capitulated fairly quickly and allowed full access to the international agencies to tally up his weapons. The man is despicable and evil, but he is not stupid, and he has a strong instinct for self-preservation.
But it was crystal clear that America was not to be moved from its purpose, which evidently was to invade Iraq at all costs. Even as Saddam was complying and the UN agencies were issuing statements that they were at last getting full access and there was nothing yet found, Bush relentlessly and implacably pushed for war. There was a sickening feeling of inevitability about the whole thing. Because, as much as I wanted to see Saddam and his sons removed from power (and killed as far as I could care, they were monsters), I dreaded the loss of innocent Iraqi and American lives with a half-cocked invasion. That is exactly the situation you see playing out right now.
Saddam was a terrible man, so were his sons, and I'm glad they're gone. But at what cost ? Noone in their right mind would've supported a war of aggression simply to remove a dictator who did not pose an immediate danger to the world with WMDs. You don't go in and depose a leader "just because" !There are other similarly evil dictators in N. Korea and the African continent who deserve removal purely on the basis of their tyranny, why has America under Bush not touched them ?
Regime change is NOT a justification for war in and of itself, this is enshrined in YOUR laws. Protecting the security of America and the world IS a justification, which is why the WMD thing was used from the get-go. This, it became rapidly apparent, was a barefaced LIE to justify the unjustifiable !

The dismantling of Saddam's regime has been on the US books continuously, unbroken, since 1991. Covertly until Oct 31, 1998, overtly since. It is a total fabrication to claim that the 'neocons' in Bush Administration showed up in Jan 2001 with the brand, new fresh idea, "Hey, let's go overthrow Saddam."

Mission Accomplished in Irag? Who said that, and when?

The third crisis, Desert Strike, was a response to a skillful attack against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Irbil. Iraqi forces surrounded the city, smashed the Kurdish forces, and destroyed a protracted covert operation funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to destabilize the regime.

American officials vowed retaliation and in September 1996 launched two waves of cruise missiles against targets in southern Iraq. In addition, the United States announced the unilateral extension of the southern no-fly zone to the 33d parallel, depriving Iraq of two air bases and moving the one closer to Baghdad. Saddam began aggressively rebuilding air defenses damaged by cruise missile strikes as more allied fighters were deployed.
SAMs engaged coalition aircraft during the following weeks, but tensions subsided and the crisis was over by mid November.

This confrontation was a victory for Iraq. Weakened by economic and political turmoil, Saddam performed some internal housecleaning. He settled a grievance with a Kurdish faction and annihilated U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts in the north. He also drove another wedge into coalition strategy as Turkey and Saudi Arabia decided not to
allow air strikes from their territory (hence the cruise missile strikes) and France suspended its participation in Southern Watch. The attack on Irbil also highlighted the limits of containment in the north. Because of its distance from land- and carrier-based assets and the inability to employ forces in Turkey, the coalition had few options to stop the attack on Irbil other than an all-out assault on Baghdad.

Source

But...this was about Bush lurching into office with a brand new fixation on Iraq.

So...Bush should have relied on imperfect intelligence to tell us exactly when the T-30 second point in some future launch was going to occur.

The "T-30" seconds assessment was clearly imprecise.

The assessment of the motivation, capability, past history, past behaviour and desire to pursue was not.

Why was this a Clinton Administration priority "We'll get him this time," sufficient to damage our national credibility? (ie, caught in a Do Nothing pose, flying $30M fighter jets in 'NoFlyZones' taking pictures while Saddam demonstrated to the entire world that we were its star spangled 'Do Nothing' *****es?

Iraqi nukes?

Thankfully, moot. That's exactly the point.

Bush had the balls to publicly lead and do precisely what previous administrations privately and covertly concluded had to be done; depose Saddam Hussein and his sick twist Ba'ath Socialist Party Regime of Fear.

The Road Formerly Taken (ie, do it on the cheap in the dark while we all sip our Cappucinos, lie, mislead the Kurds to do it themselves with false promises of backing, then leave them to swing in the wind while we tsk-tsk-tsk their demise on p8 of the local paper over our Danish and Lattes) had consequences for this nation precisely because it was gutless and cowardly and destroyed our national credibility. It --and other similar have it both ways cowardly failures of leadership--did nothing but foment the contempt and chaos that escalated in the 90s, and that to this very day we are paying a price for; the throat slitters and ****fighters contesting the current outcome in Iraq do not believe for one second that we are not that same cowardly, gutless nation.

And, why should they? They can read the papers; they can watch CNN.

So, "NUKES"--staged and ready to launch, stacked up waiting for us to count and Saddam to press the button-- were the only justification for effectively deposing Saddam Hussein.

Yet, if that is so, then why was that a covert/private priority of the Clinton Administration?


No, that's not what you mean. You mean, "for going to war." Ie, to actually publicly DO what your are secretly, furtively, covertly trying to do. To lead. To effectively achieve a goal that some yet decided was sufficiently in need of doing to furtively and ineffectively do, not recognizing/believing that the ineffectiveness of the course taken was itself fomenting the contempt and chaos we were attempting to thwart on the cheap.

To thwart on the cheap, in the dark, on the sly, with our wet finger on our limp wrist in the wind, mindful mostly of our legacy. Gee, it would be important to give this a half assed try, as long as it is not messy or inconvenient and can be accomplished with no pain or accountability. A total slave to Gesture Politics, to polls, to poses, to image, to perception, all of which the hardasses of the world find contemptable, a glaring sign of foundational weakness, and an open invitation to go for the throat.


Such sentiments would be unfathomable around the civilized trendy Georgetown Bistros, around the crab spread at Renaiisance Weekend events, and at all the other havens of delusional comfort delivered by others long ago.

But ok, I'll try to put this in the best worst light. GWB cranked up the claims of WMD to get license to kick Sadaam&Co out of Iraq.

there must be a reason he wanted Saddam&Co out of their gig, running the Republic of Fear. Some kind of personal gain. Oh, yeah--Haliburton; he wanted to throw a war and hand out huge war contracts for his crony friends.

Well, run with that. If that is why he did this, and there is no other context, then fry the bastard.

Oh, come on, there has to be THE reason. It can't be something like the following math:

"No Fly Zone" War running for 12 years straight, day in, day out. UN kicked in and out of Iraq at will anyway.

"Some have said that we must wait until the threat is imminent..."

Forget it GWB; nobody is listening to the 2003 SOTU Address; too hidden, too fringe. They are going to say that you said, "The threat is imminent."

No, Saddam may be a little 'harsh' just like the Hutu majority was a little harsh, but it's none of our self-interest bidness. No, let's get back to our self interests, and do something about the ME. Like, leave Israel tied naked to a stake in the desert, so the local KKK can have at it. You know, '***** up.' The Western disease on the slide to Hell.

Subtract one modern state Arab thug running the Republic of Fear in the ME like a loose cannon in his personal amusement park of Death, defying both the UN and the US mere contention that it had actually won Gulf War I. Knock state thug #1 off the list, tell the world 'So, he wasn't #1? No problem, who's next?'

Add one free Arab democracy in the region, where the success of 25 million Arab people is suddenly aligned lockstep with the interests of the US.

Remove yet one more Club Terroism open arms/safe landing pad in the region. That retirement home is officially closed.

So, GWB et al knowingly cooked up all the WMD stuff from whole cloth, never mind the Ministers of Ministries That Did Nothing But Pretend To Do What They Once Actually Did But Did No More, Not Covertly, Not Secretly, Not Anything, It' Just Takes 12 Years To Clean Out The Office In Iraq".

He(and they) did all of that lieing on the gamble that, once Saddam&Co were actually kicked out of Iraq and the mass graves were exposed and the torture rooms were uncovered and the rape rooms were described and the day to day Olympic training techniques in the Republioc Of Fear were exposed, a compalcent world that once could not be moved to act to save 800,000 Rwandans from simply being hacked to death, one by one, with machetes would have been nudged to do the Right ****ing Thing for a change.

Bewcause, there was absolutely no need to go to Iraq. I mean, Rwanda. I mean, stay in Somalia.

Because, *****ing up in the face of evil has nothing to do with the War on Terror, or why OBL has contempt for the West.

Imagine how the remaining Rwandans must love the U.S.A.

Imagine how the Senagalese UN troops who witnessed our state cowardice in Rwanda must feel.


Imagine how the Candian commandant, Dellaire, who was left hanging in Rwanda must feel about the U.S.A. AFter all, all of that wa back during the Golden Age, when the world loved AMerica.


You see, it wasn't until Jan 2001 that the World started hating our guts for being hollow, spineless cut and run cowards, unwilling to stand up to sheer evil and lift a finger for anybody else.

Hey, as long as it was a "peacekeeping" mission and we didn't actually have to make any noise or widows or orphans, no problem, we're parading, right there with Kofi leading the blue helmeted UN.

But, as soon as a thug with a machete shows up, we're aoutta there, seeyalater bye, you're on your own.

I mean, the cost to a country in which 115 Americans murder each other every single day over nothing more significant than the holy right to drive across town for the really, really godd Italian Ice is just way too high.

So, you little brown people that these same cut and runners claim they care so much about, you are on your own.

We can't clean up every mess in the world--even if, in the case of Rwanda, all it took was unarmed good men standing up to out of control evil and saying, "No, you cannot do this."

 

[Skyhunter]

We can't clean up every mess in the world

Exactly, so pick and choose which ones to rant on about.

Bush and his administration, like you, were so focused on Iraq, that they ignored Al Qaeda until the WTC and Pentagon were attacked, and then they used the incident as an excuse to invade Iraq.

I don't wholly disagree with your assessment of Clinton's policies, I just find your disdain and contempt, contemptible.

You seem to be really hung up on this John Wayne image of America and maintaining it by kicking butt. In the real world, John Wayne is a dead actor. And the image of the US is suffering more now than in any other time since WWII, and probably at anytime in our history. Unilateral bullying to depose dictators of oil rich nations is not helping our international image.

And to emphasize my point why are we doing nothing about Sudan?

Get real, just because it makes you feel good when America is kicking ass doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to respect us for it.

 

[kat]

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possesses and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Democrats who voted yea:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

 

[Zlex]

Exactly, so pick and choose which ones to rant on about.
Bush and his administration, like you, were so focused on Iraq, that they ignored Al Qaeda until the WTC and Pentagon were attacked, and then they used the incident as an excuse to invade Iraq.
I don't wholly disagree with your assessment of Clinton's policies, I just find your disdain and contempt, contemptible.
You seem to be really hung up on this John Wayne image of America and maintaining it by kicking butt. In the real world, John Wayne is a dead actor. And the image of the US is suffering more now than in any other time since WWII, and probably at anytime in our history. Unilateral bullying to depose dictators of oil rich nations is not helping our international image.
And to emphasize my point why are we doing nothing about Sudan?
Get real, just because it makes you feel good when America is kicking ass doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to respect us for it.

SkyHunter,

On the subject of 1990's confusion about the Paradox of Violence and the abuse of still heroic humanitarian efforts, I'm greatly influenced by the tortured writings of folks like David Rieff, a vocal and competent critic of the Iraq war. But...read what he says.

I've recommended his book to dozens of folks: "A Bed For The Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis." I've read it twice, it is not a long read, but it is a difficult, painful, and even shameful read. But, you can get a good feel for his anguished journey from these set of interviews. Read all three pages, starting here.

To me, even as I disagree with him on Iraq, he paints the most reasoned and well thought out picture I've ever come across on the timely topic of our pained, struggling grasp of both humanitarian efforts and the Paradox of Violence.

Rather than read all of that, and then try to figure out my position, let me uncharastically attempt state it simply.

I believe that the less we show an actual willingess to bust our nuts when required, the more it will be ultimately necessary to factually bust our nuts, and vice versa. So, the long running Western/UN/3rd Way experiment to absolutely and unilaterally repeal the Paradox of Violence has been, IMO, a leading cause of ever increasing mayhem in the world. The abuse of humanitarian efforts to hide the ineffectual failings of that flawed policy charachterizes the 90's, and the long overdue invoice has arrived to be paid.

That's as simple as I can make it, and yet it is too simple by more than half. OK, I failed. I can live with that, and do every day.

Rieff's anguished book does a great job of illustrating that it's not only not 'either/or' -- humanitarian effort or military effort -- but, sometimes they are one in the same, sometimes they are one masking the need for the other, and sometimes they are one abusing the other. He illustrates the examples of the 90's on the ground in detail, and demonstrates how humanitarianism was being abused by the West an an endless excuse to do nothing in the face of things badly needing 'done.' At the same time, he recogizes the risk, and raises the fear of the opposite(which he beleives is the case in Iraq), that marching behind the fascia of "humanitarian efforts", imperialist nations so inclined could launch endless and unbounded campaigns of conquest. I disagree with him on this assessment of Iraq, because of our shameful history there; we owe the Iraqis their freedom for our past national shameful 'have it both ways' behaviour there. We renig on that obligation, and we have no right to be other than shamed forever. If this nation ever urinates on the lives already sacrificed in Iraq--including the thousands thrown to the wolves in 1996 by our gutless and uncommented upon policies-- by cutting and running yet again, thus, passing an even larger invoice marked "overdue" to some future generation, then I'll join in and urinate on a flag that has ultimately, after all these generations, become a symbol of disgrace. We can't finally say, "Well, we lied to you in the past and left you to swing in the wind, and this is getting difficult, so we're going to continue to lie to you again and let you swing in the wind again, turn you back over to the tender mercies of the throat-slitters, and go back to our self-congradulatory parades, Renaiisaance Weekend affairs complete with crab spread, and weepy Hollywood image of ourselves."

In the face of all the whining and angsting and crying and moaning, the hated cowboy nazi idyit fratboy is standing firm and saying 'No Way, Not On My Watch.' Screw his legacy, screw the polls, screw his finger in the wind.

Good for him, that's called leadership. The only thing wrong with it is that rest of the world, throat slitters and Cappucino sippers alike, believes it's just a temporary stiffening of our collective spine, he'll eventually leave the White House, we'll revert to Jell-O Puddin' soon enough, and we can all get back to our Renaiissance Weekend, scream ignoring ways.

 

[Smurf]

And people say the "Liberal Media" uses sensationalism.

 

[SOS2008]

107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. J. RES. 114, October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION

Thank you for doing the research and posting this. Very informative. Though the list of Dems is a short one, I for one will not excuse them--even those like Kerry who supported it with a "disclaimer." In the meantime, I did not see anything in the resolution specifying a preemptive first strike for purposes for regime change.

The dismantling of Saddam's regime has been on the US books continuously, unbroken, since 1991. Covertly until Oct 31, 1998, overtly since. It is a total fabrication to claim that the 'neocons' in Bush Administration showed up in Jan 2001 with the brand, new fresh idea, "Hey, let's go overthrow Saddam."

...Bush had the balls to publicly lead and do precisely what previous administrations privately and covertly concluded had to be done; depose Saddam Hussein and his sick twist Ba'ath Socialist Party Regime of Fear.
The Road Formerly Taken (ie, do it on the cheap in the dark while we all sip our Cappucinos, lie, mislead the Kurds to do it themselves with false promises of backing, then leave them to swing in the wind while we tsk-tsk-tsk their demise on p8 of the local paper over our Danish and Lattes) had consequences for this nation precisely because it was gutless and cowardly and destroyed our national credibility.

Correct that before making an argument in regard to a specific country or leader (or dictator), a broader review of policy needs to be considered first. This is an academic forum, yet members continue to focus on one simple case rather than do the research that would take this discussion to a higher, more meaningful level.

First one should understand the neocon philosophy, which originated long ago and has continued to evolve to the current “Bush Doctrine:”

Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and the abandonment of "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.

…Modern neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present), and are particularly noted for their association with and support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States

What needs to be discussed is foreign policy, beginning at the macro level -- what the role of the U.S. is/should be:

A great read - America's Role in The World - www.cwru.edu/groups/cpe/issues/winter2003.pdf

Then one can become more specific, for example, is America’s role one of intervention, and when, how and why? For example:

The United States and Third World Dictatorships: A Case for Benign Detachment

Executive Summary
It is a central dilemma of contemporary American foreign policy that the world's leading capitalist democracy must confront an environment in which a majority of nations are neither capitalist nor democratic. U.S. leaders have rarely exhibited ingenuity or grace in handling this delicate and often frustrating situation.

The current turmoil in Central America is illustrative of a larger problem. American officials assert that this vital region is under assault from doctrinaire communist revolutionaries trained, funded, and controlled by the Soviet Union. Danger to the well-being of the United States is immediate and serious, administration spokesmen argue, and it is imperative that the Marxist-Leninist tide be prevented from engulfing Central America. Accomplishing this objective requires a confrontational posture toward the communist beachhead (Nicaragua) combined with massive support for all "friendly" regimes, ranging from democratic Costa Rica to autocratic Guatemala. Washington's Central American policy displays in microcosm most of the faulty assumptions underlying America's approach to the entire Third World.

The current strategy of the United States betrays a virtual siege mentality. It was not always thus. Throughout the nineteenth century U.S. policymakers exuded confidence that the rest of the world would emulate America's political and economic system, seeing the United States as a "beacon on the hill" guiding humanity to a better future.[1] As late as the 1940s, most Americans and their political representatives still believed that democracy would triumph as a universal system. The prospective breakup of the European colonial empires throughout Asia and Africa was generally viewed as an opportunity, not a calamity. Scores of new nations would emerge from that process, and Americans were confident that most would choose the path of democracy and free enterprise, thus isolating the Soviet Union and its coterie of Marxist-Leninist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

The actual results were acutely disappointing. No wave of new democracies occurred in this "Third World"; instead, decolonization produced a plethora of dictatorships, some of which appeared distressingly friendly to Moscow. This development was especially disturbing to Washington since it took place at a time when America's cold war confrontation with the USSR was at its most virulent. The nature and magnitude of that struggle caused American leaders to view the Third World primarily as another arena in the conflict. Consequently, the proliferation of left-wing revolutionary movements and governments seemed to undermine America's own security and well-being.

http://find.cato.org/search?q=cache:zXmV-iR2rgM:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php%3Fpub_id%3D924+Current+Dictatorships&restrict=Cato&site=cato_all&output=xml_no_dtd&client=cato_all&access=p&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Ftemplates%2Fsearch%2Fcato.xslt

In addition, we should analyze current dictatorships in the world, and consider a policy toward all these countries. Are there good dictatorships, or are all these governments bad? And if these are all bad, should elimination of dictatorships be a central or even crucial part of our foreign policy? We know regime change is illegal—should it be? Is it moral or immoral? And what do we hope to achieve?

Universal Democracy?

A SHORT WHILE AGO, one of the world’s most brutal and entrenched dictatorships was swiftly toppled by the military force of the United States and the United Kingdom. The 2003 Iraq war was launched to disarm Saddam Hussein, but for many of its advocates and supporters, the more compelling aim was to bring about regime change. In fact, the goal is not simply “regime change” but a sweeping political transformation in that country — and, it is hoped, in states throughout its neighborhood — towards what has never existed there before: democracy.

This is the most ambitious effort to foster deliberate political change since European colonial rule drew to a close in the early post-World War II era. Can it succeed? Since Iraq lacks virtually all of the classic favorable conditions, to ask whether it can soon become a democracy is to ask, really, whether any country can become a democracy. Which is to ask as well, can every country become a democracy?

http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond.html

I know I have posted a list of dictatorships more than once, and someone provided a link to a website that thoroughly debunked the premise that democracy = world peace. After all, as with dictatorships, there are good versus bad democracies too, no?

 

[Zlex]

Thank you for doing the research and posting this. Very informative. Though the list of Dems is a short one, I for one will not excuse them--even those like Kerry who supported it with a "disclaimer." In the meantime, I did not see anything in the resolution specifying a preemptive first strike for purposes for regime change.
Correct that before making an argument in regard to a specific country or leader (or dictator), a broader review of policy needs to be considered first. This is an academic forum, yet members continue to focus on one simple case rather than do the research that would take this discussion to a higher, more meaningful level.
First one should understand the neocon philosophy, which originated long ago and has continued to evolve to the current “Bush Doctrine:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States
What needs to be discussed is foreign policy, beginning at the macro level -- what the role of the U.S. is/should be:
A great read - America's Role in The World - www.cwru.edu/groups/cpe/issues/winter2003.pdf
Then one can become more specific, for example, is America’s role one of intervention, and when, how and why? For example:
http://find.cato.org/search?q=cache:zXmV-iR2rgM:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php%3Fpub_id%3D924+Current+Dictatorships&restrict=Cato&site=cato_all&output=xml_no_dtd&client=cato_all&access=p&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Ftemplates%2Fsearch%2Fcato.xslt
In addition, we should analyze current dictatorships in the world, and consider a policy toward all these countries. Are there good dictatorships, or are all these governments bad? And if these are all bad, should elimination of dictatorships be a central or even crucial part of our foreign policy? We know regime change is illegal—should it be? Is it moral or immoral? And what do we hope to achieve?
http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond.html
I know I have posted a list of dictatorships more than once, and someone provided a link to a website that thoroughly debunked the premise that democracy = world peace. After all, as with dictatorships, there are good versus bad democracies too, no?

From your great read:

Nevertheless, we have responsibilities
to others that make it sometimes cowardly
to say or do nothing in response to evil.
Nothing allows corruption to flourish like the
silence of ordinary good people.

I wish I had an answer for you. But, I think that's a good way of putting it, and it points out the hard choices. The answer to should we get rid of all the 'bad' men is certainly not in the back of any textbook.


A] Get over our bad selves and don't go in; coldy watch more of the world burn while we gear up for another season of "Who want's to Marry a Millionaire."

B] Get over our bad selves and go in with sufficient force to ... stay there for as long as it takes; Pax Americana, though without Rhode's 5%, so only until we ruin our economies with yet the latest attempt to support a world war level of government spending forever.

C] Some other bad choice; like, the 'fig leaf' of toothless humanitarian aid indiscriminantly thrown at the region with the hope that the thugs in charge will give some to their victims, the mess that Rieff decries re' the 90's. This is just inneffective conscience money from afar, so we can produce and consume "For Love or Money" prosperity to our heart's content and convince ourselves that we are actually really doing something in the meantime to end genocide, murder on a mass scale, misery, tyranny, and inhumanity in the world. As if throwing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid into a festering, corrupt ****hole is ever going to actually get to the victims. Well, we can say, "Look, we did our part, we paid our humanitarian dues, it's not our problem."

If B is not a choice, that leaves A or C, and given that both are equally inneffective in actually helping anybody, then maybe we just get over our bad selves and turn up the volume on the TV.

Oh, yeah; there is a version of C that is a 4th choice: endless meetings and resolutions and wishes on paper on East 44th street, followed by $400 dinners at the Four Seasons.

A community without a sheriff has no need of unenforceable law, and is soon a lawless brutal place, unless the locals provide their own enforcement of the peace. The same applies to the world community. This basic fact has not been repealed, though attempts are being made to ignore it.

It's just that, we don't want to be it, and nobody want's us to be it, either. Yet, see anybody else stepping up to the plate?

So comes the irrational big headed puppet parades. Say it isn't so; universal enlightenment is just around the corner, say, the next election. aka, real soon now. Sure, answering unanswerable questions is a job for geniuses, well ... anybody but Bush.

Say, why can't the world just run in peace? The answer to that is usually, because Americans drive SUVs. If only we all rode bicylces, the world would be one huge harmonious utopia of children singing kumbaya all day long.

Christ, no wonder Rieff is such a cynic; nothing but dirty naked apes as far as the eye can see.


You have a point, how can we shape the world into what's 'right'. It is absolutely true that we can't clean up every ****fight in the world, but, and this is just my opinion, the more often we try, the less often we'll have to angst over whether to try or not. In a world where those who can are seen as never doing, the worst among us act with impunity. It is a much different world with even a hated self-righteous bully who might try then one with a merely despised/scorned and still hated with contempt coward who won't. Unless, of course, you believe that the US was universally loved 3 years ago, pre 9/11, pre-Afghanistan, pre Iraq, pre whatever Bush decides is next, and the world was at peace. IMO, we weren't, we aren't and in part, it was our inactivity and cowardliness in the face of direct and obvious confrontation which fed the contempt of those that today hate us, and the complicity of those that also hate us.

Bush is either expensively changing history, or ignoring it, or both; the jury is out. It's his decision for as long as we use our freedoms to give him that office. He is the only one with full access to the necessary resources, and it is his decision to make, based on those resources.

We can, the question is, should we travel to Africa et al., and defend the weak from the strong who would eat them?

The more we show our resolve to try, the less we will have to prove our resolve to do. Conversely, the more we demonstrate our willingess to finesse with words like 'only genocide-like' as an excuse to turn our backs after having recently cut and run, the more opportunity we will provide ourselves for facing and failing that decision.

And indeed, the parallels between British Empire and Pax Americana Lite are significant. Freshly stripped of the American colonies and the trade triangle, Britain suddenly and jarringly went on a holy military campaign to rid the world of slavery in the 1800s, against those mostly Muslim nations that were the wholesalers, and in so doing, expanded the British Empire. And there is no doubt, examining the very words of Cecil Rhodes when he cynically though honestly observed "Colonialism is philanthropy, plus 5%" that imperfect, naked sweaty apes will always have their rea$ons.

Yet, with all of that, is anyone arguing that slavery is a good thing, or that ridding the world of it was not a good thing? Ditto torture and brutality under totalitarian Stalinist regimes. Is anyone arguing that the world should have a higher % of its people governed and/or threatened by these people eaters?

 

[edward]

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION BLAH BLAH BLAH
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers ResolutionPublic Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Democrats who voted yea:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

This only proves that the Bush administration's WMD disinformation propaganda worked. THERE WERE NO WMD.

 

[mathwonk]

i think the wise motto: "never try to teach a pig to sing", should suffice to advise everyone to stay out of this discussion.