Democrats & Liberals: Archives

You state a fact (about US losses) but fail to explain how exactly an UN force would have prevented that. Even if an UN force went in, US forces would form the overwhelming majority of it, and paid the highest costs —- just like now.

I fail to see how getting the UN’s bureaucratic rubber stamp would have helped anything.

Simple, at the end of the “major military campaign” the bulk of our soldiers could have pulled out and the U.N. stepped up its manpower to do what it has done reasonably well in the past, peace keeping and nation building.

At the end of the “major military campaign” our losses were less than half what they are now. But, if only a few American lives could have been spared, I guess, some would argue it is a fair price to pay for being able to “Bring Em On” and forego the patience for several more months to bring the U.N. on board.

The President wanted what he wanted and planned for well before 9/11 and he wanted it when he was ready, not when the U.N. was ready. But that is OK, it is not his money or sons & daughters dying and being maimed over there.

The UN has done “reasonably well” in the past a peace-keeping? Where? When? Bosnia? Chechnya? Africa? Middle East? They even refuse to enforce their own resolutions.

Jeff, how would you account for this President saying he did not believe the U.S. should be involved in nation building. Guess he now thinks we can do it better than anyone else. I can assure you a great number of people voted for him in agreement with his original position, who will not vote for him now that he believes he can do it better with our nations tax dollars and military lives.

Perhaps though we will be better at healing and unifying the rest of the world away from civil discontent and civil divisions since we seem to be doing so poorly at it here at home. Prior to Viet Nam, wars united Americans. Since, they have only divided Americans. There are many reasons for this and it is my opinion leadership qualities is one of them.

First, I think the problem in the Middle East is that both sides have committed their share of sins. The Israelis have illegally occupied conquered territory for quite some time. Of course, that would be the end of things, if it weren’t for one significant fact: the Israelis got that land beating back an essentially illegal war. So, no one sides with anybody else.

Chechnya is another interesting little problem, one which ties in appropriately enough with Bush’s current problem. Essentially, you have a situation where Chechnyans fought a war for independence, and won it through a variety of methods. But then, terrorist attacks plague the Russians, and they roll back in without much mercy at all. Again, we have an ambiguous problem, one we’re in no position to criticize, since the purpose of invading Chechnya, ostensibly, is TO FIGHT TERRORISM!

Rwanda presents other interesting problem in that it involved a civil war, something I’m not sure the UN has jurisdiction about, and also because it came so closely on the heels of that other humanitarian crisis. You know, the one in the Ridley Scott film about the helicopters.

Your people, Jeff, were not too kind to Clinton about that mission. Two years later, with them in power, what do you think the outcome would have been, if Clinton were to have suggested another intervention in a civil war, another humanitarian mission with American Soldiers’ lives on the line? Without American support, the UN probably didn’t have the military power to go in and intervene.

Bosnia was another issue, complicated by the religious/cultural divisions of the area. We went in on Iraq, but didn’t here. The joke that at the time was the Bosnians would only get help from us if they found oil. You must consider that Russia, with it’s veto power on the Security council was squarely on the side of the Serbs. Later on, though the UN would come in and do quite a bit of good. In the Kosovo crisis, they were indispensable.

I think in the end, the UN is only truly strong when people allow themselves to bound by international law. Otherwise, it can be fractious mix.

That is why Bush’s continual neglect of UN options does little to improve the situation.

The “no nation building” point is a complete non-sequitur. He made those promises before 9/11. Perhaps the events of that day changed his mind. They changed mine. I am one who was completely on board the whole “no nation building” thing and I will vote for Bush this fall.

The idea that we could have pulled our forces out and let the UN do the work is utter nonesense. It is not like the current insurgents are in love with the UN (and they have a way of showing it). So the UN would have to be in there slogging it out instead of the US, right? But that means UN soldiers. Well, the UN is not some foreign country with its own population of people. It would have to raise this impotent army from the populations of the member states and who do you think would bear the brunt of that? We would. The only difference would be that we would not be in command. I’ll take the current situation, thank you.

As far as our losses over there, they are of course tragic, as are the losses sustained by the UN and the Red Cross and the Iraqi people. I would say this is an example of the 80-20 rule: it applies to engineering, software development, and almost any other large, complicated project. It takes 80% of the effort to do the last 20% of the work. That would mean, if it were strictly mathematically accurate (which of course it is not) that if we say that the “end of major fighting” was 80% of the job, we could be expected to sustain four times as many casualties and be there four times as long.

I say, if it takes ten times as many casualties and it takes ten years and the result is a stable, prosperous, peaceful, democratic Iraq, that would be a bargain.

Jason, how long do we have to be control freaks? How long do we have to have things our way? This is the whole problem. Sooner or later we’re going to have to let go, and it’s going to be far more difficult for us to let go directly to the Iraqis, than to do so to the UN which then goes to the original goal.

Besides, once we let go, things are going to get out of our hands anyways. The question is whether the UN gets involved then, or now. I suggest now, because later might be more trouble.

As for the 80-20 thing, I’m not so sure we’re in the last 20 percent of this. It’s such an abstract opinion anyways, that I’d doubt either of us are saying anything conclusive.

Look, our problem is recreating some level of legitimacy for the war on terror. Iraq has dropped our stock in the international community, because of the failure to deliver the promised evidence of the causus belli, the continuing insurrection, and all that we disregarded to get our way.

Since we could not justify our WMD case to these people, we could not justify the pre-emptive war, and because we can’t do that, We’re sitting in pretty troublesome quagmire. What makes it worse is that we will have to eat crow in order to get some help, instead of the other way around (that is, getting help as something of an apology)

In essence, the reason why I want UN involvement of some type or another, is because Bush has managed to paint us into a corner, one not unlike Vietnam, where we were forced to go for peace with honor, rather than mission accomplished. (and I mean truly accomplished.)

I don’t want to be going into the term of the next president with us still in Iraq.

Jason, I would concede your point about a change of mind about nation building after 9/11 were it not for Afghanistan. Seems Bush is all for nation building if it sits upon a huge oil reserve but, alas, Afghanistan has only poppy’s and so not much nation building there. Seems to be pure hypocrisy motivated by an affinity for oil, a natural resource the Bush family and Saudi friends are very fond of. Bush had no problem with U.N. moving into Afghanistan to do the nation building. This at least is how I see it. I can’t know what is going on in Bush’s mind, it keeps changing to fast.

Let’s do steel tariffs: No let’s take that back. Let’s leave no child behind: No, sorry, no money to fund it. Let’s reduce the size of government and hold spending down: No, better we double the national debt and increase government beauracracy. Let’s cut back on waste, fraud and abuse: No, on second thought, I won’t veto all that pork spending appended to the appropriations bills, a little pork for each state will probably help my poll numbers.

These are reasons I don’t buy his change of mind for any noble reasons whatsoever. He came into office presented as a man of principle and honest to his word. In my opinion he will be leaving office as the greatest chameleon President in living memory.

Jason, I should qualify that if Dean is elected, I think based on what I have read so far, it will be a close race for the Chameleon Prize between the two of them.

It seems we’re having better luck here than there finding WMDs

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html

“But, if only a few American lives could have been spared, I guess, some would argue it is a fair price to pay for being able to “Bring Em On” and forego the patience for several more months to bring the U.N. on board.”

I saw no evidence that the UN was coming on board. A few more months and the UN still would not have been interested in an invasion. It wasn’t interested in 1991, it wasn’t interested in the 11 years since then, and it was far more interested in ending the sanctions regime so that France and Russia especially could trade with Iraq than it was it doing anything to contain Saddam. More UN time just means that Saddam would have held power indefinitely. I don’t mind if you want to argue that it wasn’t worth it for the US to get rid of Saddam. But please don’t argue as if the UN was going to get rid of him.

It wasn’t. Basing an argument on that premise is self-deception. With respect to Iraq the UN wouldn’t do much to support Clinton, a president with whom the UN was much more friendly. It absolutely was not going to deal with Saddam anytime in the forseeable future. In an argument about whether or not it was worth it for the US to rid Iraq of Saddam and the Ba’athists, I’ll gladly disagree with you. But an argument framed as US action against Iraq vs. UN action against Iraq has very little to do with the real world.

The U.N. wanted to support the U.S. in a majority to put an ultimatum to Hussein, Allow complete and unfettered access to palaces, or any other structures or places for the purpose of verifying WMD, or invasion will follow.

Bush plain lost his patience with Hussein and the U.N. and was no longer willing to wait once Blair came on board. I doubt your crystal ball is any clearer than mine when it comes to predicting what would have happened if Bush had been patient awhile longer and let Powell and the Ambassador do their work a bit longer. Let us not forget, Powell stated he believed the situation could be resolved without warfare. But, his boss wouldn’t hear of it.

Powell believed the U.N. would back invasion if anymore resistance occured as a result of renewed inspections. I would prefer to believe him over those who would no defend and justify the losses to American personnel to protect their President. To them, the very thought of a diplomatic solution or UN military action is not defensible. Those supporting Bush’s invasion saw the glass empty of alternatives, while those opposed saw the glass half full of options and alternatives to war.

Fact is we went without UN forces accompanying or UN sanction while those options had not been exhausted or denied, and that decision was made by the President and that makes him responsible for the American deaths that now occur, and a host of growing millions of Americans (according to polls around 40%) are holding him responsible while 52% of American still believe Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks - while the evidence of such a connection was refuted once by the President himself in a TV Q&A after a speech.

The charge was given in 2002, and the terms of it were violated repeatedly after that. Remember the threatened scientists? Remember the plane overflights for UN support that were denied? Remember the threatening of the UN’s U-2 plane? Remember the undisclosed and disallowed missiles? The undisclosed uranium centrifuge? Saddam was testing the UN. He was saying: you won’t go to war over JUST THIS? And every time he was right.

France said they would veto an authorization of war against Iraq no matter what. It really doesn’t get any clearer than that.

BTW, you are wrong about the ultimatum. It was never given. “French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.” They didn’t want an automatic use of force or an ultimatum because they knew Saddam would violate any ultimatum, no matter how watery. They weren’t going to war no matter what.

As for Powell, even he gave up on the UN in the end.

I said in the majority. France alone does not constitute nor represent the whole U.N. They were swayable, if the justification for imminent threat or denial of compliance with inspections occured. We failed to provide evidence of the fitst, and weren’t willing to work enforce the compliance for inspections with an ultimatum. Bush has shown how much power our economic trade has in international relations, but, he made not one attempt to use it sway the U.N.

Invasion was not a last resort, nor probably even necessary without the U.N. bearing a very much larger part of the cost and some of the military personnel losses. The argument that France wasn’t going to play ball does sustain the argument in my mind.

Stepping back a bit —- why is the UN spoken of as a sacrosanct entity whose blessing the US must get before doing anything?

Truth is, most UN members have an automatic anti-America position, no matter what. Their interest is not to better humanity or expand freedom (as ideally it should be), but check American power.

There is simply no practical (or moral) basis for the US to subject itself to the approval of a body that has become (according to Mark Steyn) a talking-shop for “third-world dictators and their European apologists”.

As for crystal balls —- the best crystal ball is the one that looks back, not forward. For twelve years, the UN’s behavior followed this pattern: resolution against Iraq, Saddam won’t budge, military muscle flexing by US and UK, inspectors let into Iraq for a couple of weeks, Iraq stops co-operating with inspectors, inspectors leave. Rinse and repeat.

After seeing this pattern of behavior repeatedly for more than a decade, no rational person would expect anything useful out of the UN.

One of the most beneficial side-effects of the war (aside from generally making the world a better place, getting rid of one dictator, making another one toothless etc) is that the UN has been marginalized.

The UN was viable as long as its toothless talk-shop was backed up by US action and muscle. It made no sense for the US to heed an organization that is used by others to hit it over the head.

“I said in the majority. France alone does not constitute nor represent the whole U.N. They were swayable, if the justification for imminent threat or denial of compliance with inspections occured. We failed to provide evidence of the fitst, and weren’t willing to work enforce the compliance for inspections with an ultimatum.”

France had a veto. That is majority enough to keep the UN from doing something. France absolutely refused to allow us to enforce compliance with an ultimatum. French words were not accompanied by matching action. You focus on the words, I focus on the action. Diplomatic words are cheap. French action did not exist. France took numerous steps to stop us from taking action. When faced with Iraqi intransigence, they were unwilling to force the issue. That is using ‘wait’ to disguise the fact that you are really saying ‘no’. Watch the actions. You watch Bush’s actions, so I know you are capable of distinguishing between actions and words. Try it on the French words.

Sebastian, there seems to be some confusion about France’s position. They were for enforcing inspections and against invasion without what they deemed just cause. Let’s face it, there wasn’t much evidence of WMD or imminent threat that was not at least 8 years old or older. The French despite our hatred of their fries, was founding democracy at around the same time ours was developing. They believe and act on the principles of democracy which require due process before depriving life, liberty, or property. The French believe this should apply to nations as well since nations are people when it comes down to questions of war.

Liberals still buy french fries and drink french wine so to speak because they by and large buy into the principle the French exercised in the absence of Bush or Blair being able to offer any proof or solid recent evidence of WMD or imminent threat.

I do indeed watch Bush’s actions contradict many of his campaign positions and a great many of the issues in the Republican platform of 2000. France, on the other hand, acted in accordance with its principles, and those of liberals everywhere who are unwilling to sacrifice the Constitutional guarantees of Democracy or international law, treaties or agreements, for the sake of security, fear, premonitions, hairs on the back of the neck, etc., etc. (to paraphrase Tom Clancy). Had we provided current or even recent evidence of WMD or imminent threat, instead of speculation based on outdated intelligence, I do believe the French would have been with us entirely.

As I see it this is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, especially the neo-conservatives on foreign policy. Liberals don’t believe in a world dominated and lead by a single nation, regardless of what nation it is. Conservatives support the idea of American dominance militarily, economically, and politically in the international arena. I remember the bullies in grade school, they believed in dominance too, as a defensive measure. In high school I learned first hand that the bullies were more afraid than I was (having been the object of their bullying).

One of them still known by my cousin still lives a life of fear some 40 years later. Having been a liar, thief and bully, he now carries a gun everywhere, suspects everyone else is lying and has more locks and alarms on his slum house than Fort Knox according to my cousin who is married to the bully’s brother.

Of couse he has spent a number of non-consecutive years in prison. And you see how the parallel fits? He was willing to break the law and fears everyone else is willing to in their dealings with him. Bush is willing to break international laws and even domestic laws in the name of defense which is just a mask for fear. And in turn sees threats from others that don’t even exist.

I grant that the old intelligence and Hussein himself promoted the distinct possibility that he still had WMD and therefore may have constituted a real threat. But that is just not the same as having proof and knowing there is an imminent threat. Blix could find nothing, that should have been weighed in the decision as to whether or not thousands of people should be killed and many thousands more injured and displaced.

Thankfully, domestically, we have a judicial system and a Congress that is finally catching up to some of Bush’s ill advised actions. I am sure his intentions were honorable, but, no matter how honorable the ends, a President sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution who dismisses it when inconvenient, is as dangerous a threat to this democracy as any Saddam Hussein elsewhere in my opinion.

Court blocks Bush “Dolphin Safe” label

Senate Votes to Overturn the Global Gag Rule

Court rejects Bush plea to overturn ban on ‘under God’ pledge

Courts Deal Blow to Bush on Treatment of Terror Suspects

Republican Blocks Bush Arms Export Plan

House Rebuffs the White House Over Rules to Limit Overtime Pay

Judge Strikes Down Bush Snowmobile Plan

I don’t accept the ‘imminent’ threat argument, but we’ve gone over that before.

“They were for enforcing inspections and against invasion without what they deemed just cause.”

No. They were not for enforcing inspections. They were for talking about enforcing inspections. They caved every time Iraq put up resistance. That is the exact opposite of being ‘for enforcing inspections’. When Iraq threatened the U-2 flights, they said it wasn’t a big deal. When Saddam threatened scientists they took no action. Saddam continued shooting at the no-flight enforcement planes. No action.

There is a pattern here. No action.

Saddam recognized the pattern. France enabled it. If you disagree, show me the action. Otherwise I may feel entitled to use Bush’s speechs to ‘refute’ your complaints about his actions. ;)

We both know that isn’t good argument.

Vivek, have you ever thought of why the UN might possibly want to check American power? Just grab a history book of the 20th century and do a little reading. Short of WWI and WWII, the US has not conducted itself admirably in other nations affairs so when the US gets itchy for war it probably is a better idea to stop said war from happening.

Then figure in that of all the reasons that were given, are being given, and will be given for going to war there is a more pressing example.

WMD: North Korea > Iraq
Human Rights: Uzbekistan > Iraq
Jobs to finish: Afganistan > Iraq

Oh wait, there is one…

Amount of oil: Iraq > all

Was Hussein a horrible person? Of course he was. But what about other issues that need to be resolved? The US government is not good on holding up claims and ideals so before going off and saying the UN is anti-American, think for a bit on why.

This is precisely why I have to keep questioning the Left’s patriotism. Why is the US always wrong? Or nearly always. Look fine, if you don’t like US policy that is your business, but that does not make us wrong. We are NOT perfect, I understand that. But when it comes to values and ethics and bravery and freedom and all the things that really count after all the accounting is done, there has never been a better nation. Why can’t the Left just admit that they prefer the policies of the UN over those of freedom, or the US? Be honest and debate openly with your ideals clear and out there. You prefer socialism… make the case for it. Don’t give me this I am conservative fiscally but not socially. That is a crock.

This discussion of the UN after all the smoke and mirrors are removed boils down to three options for the U.S. Isolationism from the rest of the world, Dominate the rest of the World, or Work with the rest of the World.

Options one and two will cost Americans as dearly as the Civil War if think through the consequences to the logical end. That only leaves option three in my mind as realistic, and that means working with the UN.

I think America gave a great number of nations headaches and heartaches enforcing our Cold War policies abroad. The motives were good, but sometimes we got too control freakish, and instead of trusting the people of other countries we often imposed terrible dictators on them, and supported them even while they wreaked devastating damage on their societies.

So, should they be anti-American? No. But do they have good reason to question our foreign policies? Oh yes. And we do to. Because if we allow the worse to happen in the name of our best ideals, we may end up tarnishing our reputations.

Three points:
Take the total homocides in California and New York over a six month period then compare it with the number of troops lost in Iraq. Now where is the indignation about that?

As for Nation builting; we did a pretty damn good job in Japan and PI all without the help of the UN. The Un is directly responsible for the problems in the Middle East!

And number 3; I was on the ground for three years in Viet Nam ‘66 thru ‘69. That conflict was run exculsivly by the Librals and to make sure that everyone knew they were in charge there were monthly visits by congressional librals. Now compare the loses over one year in Viet Nam to the current total in Iraq, then add the fact that we got our but kicked. Oh; that was supposed to be a UN operation..MY,MY,MY

>>Thankfully, domestically, we have a judicial system and a Congress that is finally catching up to some of Bush’s ill advised actions. I am sure his intentions were honorable, but, no matter how honorable the ends, a President sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution who dismisses it when inconvenient, is as dangerous a threat to this democracy as any Saddam Hussein elsewhere in my opinion.
Court blocks Bush “Dolphin Safe” label >
Senate Votes to Overturn the Global Gag Rule>
Court rejects Bush plea to overturn ban on ‘under God’ pledge>
Courts Deal Blow to Bush on Treatment of Terror Suspects
Republican Blocks Bush Arms Export Plan
House Rebuffs the White House Over Rules to Limit Overtime Pay
Judge Strikes Down Bush Snowmobile Plan

Bush is “as dangerous as Saddam Hussein” because some Appeals Court rejected his action, snicker, “Dolphin safe” labels and snowmobiles? Ha, ha, ha, surely you jest.

Bush has won the OVERWHELMING number of cases that involved national security. Even Democrats like Diane Feinstein have decried the Patriot Act has been distorted by her colleagues.(Though I oppose some of the act.)

It just amzaes me how liberals will brush off proof of links between Hussein and al Qaeda, our TRUE AND SWORN ENEMIES, then make incredibly silly accusations and claims against an honorable president like Bush.

Proof of links? Where?

Jack H. You forget that it was a conservative who made the decision to end the war in Viet Nam without victory. His name was Nixon. It was one of the handful of positive actions I commend his presidency for. Opening diplomatic relations with China being another that immediately pops into mind.

As for indignation about crime killing more than the Iraq war, you bet I am indignant. And for all the good it does I have expressed my indignation with Senators Cornyn, Hutchison, and Rep. Smith, regarding the third time offenders of pot sellers which requires making room for them in prison by letting first time murderers and rapists out early. This is incomprehensible to me.

If I know my history, the U.N. was not even in existence until well after WWII and so there was little choice. McArthur did a magnificent job of nation building in Japan, much of that rebuilding was accomplished with very liberal ideas including allowing the Emperor to remain, granting women the vote, using federal taxes for rebuilding local areas, universal free public education, and allowing the Japanese culture to remain Japanese with its traditions and culture largely intact. All pretty liberal ideas for the time.

As for Viet Nam being a U.N. action gone astray, it was purely American home grown decisions that made Viet Nam America’s “Wounded Knee”. And the conservative military industrial free enterprise complex was all for it, the war that is, and the longer it lasted, the better for them.

I remember demonstrations against the profiteering of Down Chemical as a major supporter and beneficiary of protracting the war in Viet Nam.

As for the Middle East problems, they can hardly be attributed to the U.N., as their history predates even this nation’s birth.

>>You forget that it was a conservative who made the decision to end the war in Viet Nam without victory. His name was Nixon.

That’s incorrect. Nixon’s policy of training the South Vietnamese to defend themselves, right down the village level, was working well. They did so successfully for two years. When the Viet Cong were unable to “wing the hearts and minds” of the South, they simply invaded. The Democrats in Congress cut off all funding for the South and forbid Pres. Ford to come to their aid, in violation of the promise Nixon had made. Cut off by their ally, morale quickly collapsed in the South.

It was LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who lost the war, not Nixon, who was out of office by then. Nixon was tough enough that he likely would have defied Democrats and taken the issue right to the Supreme Court.

>>It was one of the handful of positive actions I commend his presidency for.

And roughly half a million Vietnamese died as the direct result; executed, in gulags or lost at sea trying to escape.

>>If I know my history

You clearly don’t.

>> remember demonstrations against the profiteering of Down Chemical as a major supporter and beneficiary of protracting the war in Viet Nam.

Oh, geez, you’re kidding, right? Come on, tell us this is a joke.

Richard Clement, your guest privileges to WatchBlog have ended for failing to observe our policy of Critiquing the Message, Not the Messenger. You were cautioned by email, and have had personal comments deleted before. Your continued insistence upon non-compliance with our guideline is no longer welcome here.

To All,

The UN would not have condoned an attack on Iraq, under no circumstances, unless there had been a clear and imminent threat from Iraq. There wasn’t.

It’s not the UN’s task to remove nasty dictators from power, nor to promote “democracy” via “preemptive” strikes on sovereign countries.

The UN was created to prevent the very behaviour the US has shown in this crisis (or Iraq’s in the previous Gulf War). The UN was created to promote diplomacy as a means of solving problems between nations. The UN was created to avert war, not to wage it, except as a last resource and only if it goals were shared by an ample consensus of the world’s nations, and if it solved more problems than it created. This was not the case, sadly.

So rather that wondering if Mr Bush would have done well in waiting to obtain UN approval for his little oilfield adventure, consider that the UN was and is very unlikely to condone such acts of aggression, regardless of the country committing them, including the only superpower.

After so many dictators put in power by the US in the past, some of them being actively supported even today, it sounds slightly hypocritical, to say the least, to claim this war was waged for the sake of removing a monster from power. I don’t buy that, especially after the first two reasons (excuses, really) for war were proved hyped at best, cooked at worst. But then, I don’t watch Fox News.

At least we have a few winners: Halliburton’s shareholders, the GOP (they’ll get a lot of money from Halliburton, won’t they, masked as individual donations, of course) and Al Qaeda (you guys removed an Arab foe and rival and you had thousands of new recruits flock to them!!).

They all surely enjoyed the party. We “old Europeans” didn’t. But most of all, Iraqis didn’t either.

Regards,

Germán
Madrid, Spain

German, your last comments were eloquently and cogently spoken. And your description of the U.N.’s mission is on the money. Thank you.