June 26, 2005
Idiocy
Dr. Rice says the dumbest things. She was in Brussels recently, insisting that “Terrorism can be defeated in Iraq, it will be defeated in Iraq. When it is defeated in Iraq, at the heart of the Middle East, it will be a death knell for terrorism as we know it.”
That's even more idiotic than when she insisted Iraq's new government - dominated by the same type of Islamic extremists who staged the 9/11 attack - was a good thing.
The Bush administration still doesn't understand what they're fighting. Al-Qaeda is a network; it's a movement. Al-Qaeda couldn't give a rat's ass who wins or loses in Iraq; they're not playing a ground acquisition game. The al-Qaeda movement transcends borders.
For al-Qaeda, Iraq is merely a place where it's easy for the pissed-off Muslim faithful to attack American targets. It's a recruitment pool and live-fire training ground for new terrorists. It's a great place to try out new tactics and weapons for use elsewhere in the world.
Anybody who believes President Bush when he insists, we're fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home, is dreaming. While we've been fighting them in Iraq, al-Qaeda terrorists have been freely operating all over the world - even inside the United States. While al-Qaeda's "strike force" was decimated in Afghanistan, its financial, political, and educational wings are still free to operate wherever they desire, and its affiliate terrorist networks still operate world-wide.
Given the administration's failure to achieve its goals in Iraq (no WMD/terrorist nexus found, a government dominated by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, no democratic domino effect, and - according to General Abizaid - a growing insurgency), about the only option left for peace with honor there is swift Iraqification.
President Bush says his plan is to train Iraqi forces ASAP so they can replace our troops. Yet, oddly, he and the Pentagon are dragging their heels getting Iraqi officers properly trained. Even Republicans are finally speaking out,
"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." - Sen. Chuck Hagel
And even if we win in Iraq, it's by no means "a death knell for terrorism as we know it." Al-Qaeda's goal is to convince Americans that interference in the Middle East is not worth the price, and to isolate and erode international support for US counter-terrorism efforts. At every turn - from Iraq to Guantanamo - President Bush and his administration have unwittingly helped them achieve their goals. Al-Qaeda even acknowledged that when they publicly endorsed President Bush for re-election last year.
President Bush should be strengthening our international alliances against terrorism. Instead, he's nominating a contentious UN ambassador, and because of his policies, China is now viewed more favorably around the world than the United States. President Bush should be taking firm action to unite Americans in our struggle against terrorism. Instead, we're bitterly divided over Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and extra-judicial detentions at Guantanamo.
As a leader, President Bush failed to rally America against the threat of terrorism. In fact, he and his political operatives cynically use terrorism as a wedge issue to divide this great nation for their political gain. That's just wrong, yet no one is being held accountable for even the most obvious idiocy.
Quite Right, AP. Terrorism has been with mankind as long as mankind has had bullies who would prey on the weak or unsuspecting. The idea that we will win a war against terrorism is the same as saying we will win against the negative side of human nature.
Now if I thought Bush and Rice really believed what they are saying, I would be even more worried. But, the fact is, they know they are on stage, they know they are playing to an ignorant and somewhat uneducated audience, and they know that such lies and misrepresentations will have appeal.
It’s politics as usual. And it is precisely because critical analysis of their rhetoric demonstrates its lack of veracity, that the critical onlooker must seek alternative explanations for what the administration is doing in Iraq. Terrorism was never the objective, and it still isn’t. The terrorism in Iraq today is a consequence of our invasion.
Nor was our goal to protect Americans here at home. For if that were the goal, in the nearly 4 years since 9/11, we would have by now secured our borders against undetected intruders. Fact is, no such effort was ever put in play.
CIA announced this week there is a 50/50 chance of a radiological attack within the US over the next 5 years. This administration is inviting it to occur. Failure to secure our borders is an open invitation. It takes a pretty obtuse person to fail to recognize that fact. But, my fellow Americans seem to be getting more obtuse with each passing year.
The wife and I are again discussing joining the 7.2 million other Americans who have decided to take up residence outside US borders, for our daughter’s sake. When the CIA starts issuing such warnings, I would be a pretty damned irresponsible parent to not consider it in terms of my daughter’s welfare for which I am charged responsibility for.
I have written my Congresspersons, they don’t want to hear about securing the borders. Must be collusion, delusion, denial, or just plain stupidity. Whatever the reason, they are making America unsafe for parents to raise their children.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2005 04:56 AMIt will be a sad day if a radiologic attack does occur in the US and Republicans follow the prescription described in the Red column, “Never Complain, Never Explain, Never Apologize”. One helluva a political mantra isn’t it?
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2005 05:02 AMPeople want to hear good things. It is true that US Soldiers in Iraq keeps the bulk of the cannon fodder terrorists from coming here. The bravery of these GIs in allowing themselves to be walking bullseyes is remarkable. They literally take bullets meant for the US Homeland!!!
It is amazing that THIS Bush Plan should work. Too Bad we are running out of volunteers to go to Iraq…
Posted by: Aldous at June 26, 2005 05:50 AM The U.S. will seek and fight terror untill a
lefty is in the white house. Then we’ll look the
other way and play kiss ass. Good luck, boys.
Do you really think defeating terrorism is what is really on the Bush agenda? Even as stupid as he comes acrossed sometimes, he can’t be so stupid to thinks that’s possible the way he is going about it. Have you forgotten so quickly where his roots are? Oil and Power. He could give a rats ass about the american people except that they are sheep to be sheared. his father as head of the CIA for many years covertly and sometimes not so covertly made inroads into the middle east to shore up their common goal of oil and power. Subverting governments when they could and replacing them with thier own puppets, or so they had planned. hence Sudam Husien. It has nothing to do defeating terrorism except another way to control the american people with fear.
Posted by: Dane at June 26, 2005 08:42 AMIf you continue to believe that the average American is too stupid to understand what is going on while endlessly criticizing the current policy while offering no alternative, the left will not win any election any time soon. Please put forth a coherent alternative to the current policy and give the average American due credit, they are more informed then you realize. This administration has kept America safe since 911, has made progress in Afghanistan, Iraq and with the Israeli’s and Palestinians. Is it perfect? No. Is it taking maybe longer then our average sitcom does to resolve problems. Yes, but it is progress nonetheless and since the 1972 Munich Olympic games, we all realize the horrific problem the Islamic extremists pose to a civilized world. Let’s unite, offer alternatives and constructive criticism and let’s win this battle.
Posted by: Jay at June 26, 2005 10:33 AMAP,
Very nice article and certainly thought provoking. One might conclude that no positive result (save the preservation of life, etc.) will accrue to the US irrespective of the outcome of the war. You infer that these are “war games” for our true enemy, terrorists and insurgents.
David,
What country do you feel will provide you and your family the greatest opportunity for safety in view of the fact that depending on your choice, you will likely be sacrificing freedoms.
With respect to the 50/50 chance of a radiological attack in the next 5 years, I would offer that no place will be safe as there will be “bombs bursting in air” worldwide.
Posted by: steve smith at June 26, 2005 10:42 AMThe Bush Administration created a significant change in U.S. policy. This policy is transformative. Bush and Condoleeza Rice are emphasizing human rights and democracy more than any other administration (including Jimmy Carter, who had great rhetoric but sometimes less effective follow through.)
This is a risky, but necessary departure. For more than 50 years our policies were designed to create stability and freedom, but we favored what we thought was stability over freedom. Now the balance has shifted. It is not a black and white shift, but consider the examples of Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. In all those cases, the default course of least resistance, the expedient course and the usual course for us would have been to let it be. Instead we stood with the people and took flack from the Russians and W. European leftists.
Right now, we are in a struggle about Uzbekistan. We are torn between the expedient of our military needs and the ideal of supporting democracy. The fact that we are torn is something new. Under any administration until today, we would have cried about the lack of democracy (President Clinton would have felt the pain) but we would have let it slip back. It looks like the pro-democracy guys in the U.S. government are winning this battle too. Our policy is something to be proud of. When the histories are written, we will look good.
BTW in Muslim Uzbekistan the U.S. has more than an 80% approval rating among the people.
Iraq I know less about. But I do know that Saddam’s Iraq was one of the most oppressive and dangerous regimes in an oppressive and dangerous region. His history or aggressive was exceptional. We are currently in a tough situation. We don’t know what the situation would have been. Robert Kagan in the Washington Post does a better job of explaining this than I could. Follow the link.
Too many still beleive what the administration is saying is what they beleive. Read between the lines. Has Bush done anything positive for the enviroment besides retoric? Has he done anything for healthcare besides retoric and helping make his pharmacutical cronies richer? I could go on and on. The truth is, if we leave the middle east COMPLETELY alone, terrorism will go away. If you had bothered to read what Bin laden publish when he made his declaration of war his fight has EVERYTHING to do with us leaving the middle east and letting his people develope their own governments and economys at their own pace. If the situation were reversed and they were meddling in our affairs, wouldn’t we fight back any way we could, even with the limited resources that we would have being in their shoes? They are protecting their way of life just like we would. Here is a very credible alternative to our administrations agenda (If it were really about defeating terrorism, and it’s not) GET THE HELL OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS!! To paraphrase Clinton….. It’s the Oil stupid, Oil and Power.
Posted by: Dane at June 26, 2005 11:08 AMJack said: “Bush and Condoleeza Rice are emphasizing human rights and democracy more than any other administration “
Yes, Jack, the same way a guilty criminal professes innocence with all his being - knowing the truth, what alternative does one have but to cover it up in the most adamant way possible?
Emphasizing human rights? As in exempting our troops from observing them while claiming to be invading other nations to install them? War is the greatest affront to human rights, Jack, you know that. The 9/11 attacks were an affront to human rights. And we replied in kind with an invasion in an oil rich nation which had nothing to do with 9/11, also an affront to human rights. How you can defend the likes of Bush and Rice and swallow their spoon fed propaganda is beyond me. You are a rational person. Simply amazing.
There is no democracy in the military, Jack. You should know that even if you have not been in the military. You really think democracy exists in Iraq? Democracy can’t exist in a country run by martial law. Elections do not make a democracy. Saddam Hussein was elected. The Chinese politburo is elected. Martial law is antithetical to democracy. Democracy may come to Iraq one day, but, that day is a very, very long way off.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2005 11:17 AMDane,
Are you serious? Just “leave them alone” and they will “go away”. Are you really serious?
Just ignore it and it will go away…
riiiiiiight.
David
I am not talking about Iraq (although my opinions are like Kagan’s) In FSU we are doing good the way I have not seen since the 1980s in Poland.
Posted by: jack at June 26, 2005 11:33 AMAp,
First of all, Welcome home.
2nd, I wish someone in the left wing of congress would state how the would kill these terriorists ? I agree that they are hiding in countrys allover the world. Do we send in covert seal teams to kill their leaders wherever they may be?
If we do that we’ll have to not anwser all of Ted the swimmer Kennedy’s questions about exactly what and where we’re doing something, so he can debate it on c-span before we get there.
Is anything acceptable to the left, besides throwing money around here at home in the form of political pork?( I agree THAT pork gets used by both sides in that manner).
Posted by: Beagle at June 26, 2005 11:41 AMAbsolutely I am serious, Have you bothered to read the reasons Bin laden states as why they are at war against us? It will open you eyes
Posted by: Dane at June 26, 2005 12:25 PMDane:
If you refer to the message where OBL endorsed Bush Junior, then yes. I found it a very direct statement of objectives and motivations. OBL also made a great case on why he supports Bush.
Posted by: Aldous at June 26, 2005 12:41 PMThis policy is transformative. Bush and Condoleeza Rice are emphasizing human rights and democracy more than any other administration
I think it’s true that Prez Bush is emphasizing democracy more than any other adminstration. I hope that will bear some fruit in coming years. Bush should get more credit for that both at home and around the world, especially from the left. My hat is off to him on that score.
But it’s also true that the Bush adminstration has been dangerously inept both politically and militarily. The war in Afghanistan was brilliantly fought, I thought, but it led to hubris and a belief that Iraq could be liberated and democratized with relatively few boots on the ground. There was “idiocy” involved in the lead up to the war and in post-war planning, and this has led to an alienation of huge chunks of the globe. Mr. Bush, who is already a lame duck on the domestic front, should put his considerable energies into repairing the damage that’s been done to the U.S. reputation. I just don’t think the whole Texas swagger thing will allow this, thus placing all of us in greater danger.
CIA announced this week there is a 50/50 chance of a radiological attack within the US over the next 5 years. This administration is inviting it to occur. Failure to secure our borders is an open invitation.
Yes, that should be viewed as utterly unacceptable. It’s great news - and Bush should get some credit for it - that the U.S. (knock on cyberwood) hasn’t been hit with another major terrorist attack since 9/11. Perhaps the netwar, which understandably gets little press coverage, is going better than expected.
That said, the battle against proliferation is obviously being lost. If there is another major attack, it’ll look just horrible that we didn’t do a better job of securing our ports, our chemical plants, and our borders. And we’ll have few excuses.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 26, 2005 12:45 PMIraq War Fatalities: a Flash animation of coalition fatalities in Iraq since the start of the war.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 26, 2005 01:06 PMBe obtuse if you like, it doesn’t help anything. The middle eastern people are being controlled by the west must like our original 13 colonies were conntrolled by the British. We fought back the only way we new how then and they eventually went away. If they would have left us alone, we wouldn’t have had to fight them. We declared our independence from Britan. Bin Laden declared war on us cuz of what we are doing in the middle east, they are fighting us the only ways they know how. The art of war has changed dramaticly over the last few hundered years so tactics must change. If you think we can wipe out the so called ‘terrorist’ by killing everybody in Iraq or where ever we find them, then you didn’t learn anything from Vietnam or any of the other wars we have fought the so called reds, or insugents or what ever their name is at the time.
Posted by: Dane at June 26, 2005 01:53 PMIt’s one thing to SUPPORT democracy. It’s another thing to try to cram it down any country’s throat by force.
The US plays way too much in the politics of other countries and doesn’t pay enough attention to our own country.
Posted by: Ruth at June 26, 2005 03:33 PMIt’s one thing to SUPPORT democracy. It’s another thing to try to cram it down any country’s throat by force.
Ruth, I agree. The war is Iraq was not be best way to spread democracy. I disapproved of it, but now we have an obligation to try to make it work. Still, Bush has been pushing for democracies in other parts of the world as well, and he deserves credit for that, I think.
Bin Laden declared war on us cuz of what we are doing in the middle east
Dane, I agree that OBL had a strategic reason for attacking the U.S., and we have, to a degree, played into his hands. I would also agree that our lousy policies in the Middle East partly inspired the attack.
But you’ve got to realize OBL is an ambitious religious fascist and a slaughterer of innocents. If he had his way, the entire Muslim world would share the same ideology. His movement does need to be fought, sometimes with bullets and other times with ideas. My concern is that we don’t seem to be fighting that war well enough.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 26, 2005 04:09 PMI think it’s true that Prez Bush is emphasizing democracy more than any other adminstration. I hope that will bear some fruit in coming years. Bush should get more credit for that both at home and around the world, especially from the left. My hat is off to him on that score.
I would give him credit for this if his actions backed up his words. I stopped listening to the words coming out of his mouth years ago (he never says anything new anyway). His actions, however, tell a different story entirely…that he only supports democracy when there is something to be gained from it.
It’s great news - and Bush should get some credit for it - that the U.S. (knock on cyberwood) hasn’t been hit with another major terrorist attack since 9/11. Perhaps the netwar, which understandably gets little press coverage, is going better than expected.
I also can’t give him any credit for this. I’ll refrain from discrediting him just yet, but the signs don’t look good. The fact that we haven’t had another large terrorist attack in less than four years means nothing, considering it normally takes years for such an attack to be planned and implemented.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 26, 2005 04:30 PM
Those people got a fighting chance to have something they have never known. Something worth
having. Their own free country. GWB gave them that
gift. I pay taxes just like all of you. I look at
this endevor as an investment. It’s a roll of the
dice, sure. Most things that are hard, are.
Trash Bush all you want. History will decide.
Dane, I respect your passion but strongly disagree with your conclusions. Remember the 1972 Munich Olympic games, muslim extremists killed 13 Israeli hostages for nothing, that is as far back as I can remember these extremists thrusting themselves on the world stage and it had nothing to do with US policy. The “US policy” excuse is just that, an excuse to continue their murderous ways. While not excusing America’s reach entirely, I believe many Muslims join the extremist faction in large part due to their own oppressive governments. Their leaders live in mansions and couldn’t care less about their own people. Muslims have killed more Muslims then any American ever has. While not directly related to 911, Saddam had his tentacles all over terrorism, giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers is just one example and he needed to be taken out. The good people of Iraq will win this war, it will just take a long time and sadly, many more lives.
Posted by: Jay at June 26, 2005 05:03 PMWhile not directly related to 911, Saddam had his tentacles all over terrorism, giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers is just one example and he needed to be taken out.
If this is a good enough reason to engage in a preemptive war, then why aren’t we “liberating” Saudi Arabia right now? They are supporting far more terrorism than Saddam ever did.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 26, 2005 05:45 PM
The Saudi’s have to explain to their subjects
why the people in Iraq can pick their own leaders.
The fire is lit.
Dane,
I agree completely but you forget the other reason why UBL has waged war with the United States. It is our strong support for Israel and the Jews.
Here are some facts about Israel
Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel.
Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
A: Israel.
Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
A: Israel.
Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
A: Israel.
Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
A: Israel.
Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
A: Israel.
Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
A: Israel.
Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses? A: Israel.
Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?
A: Israel.
Q: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
A: Israel.
Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
A: Israel.
Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international waters, killing 33 and wounding 177 American sailors?
A: Israel.
Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?
A: Israel.
Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?
A: Israel.
Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?
A: Israel.
Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?
A: Israel.
Q: What country is the United States threatening to bomb because “U.N. Security Council resolutions must be obeyed?”
A: Iraq
With that being said, why in the world have we not waged war against Israel? They are God’s choosen people, of course. What a bunch of hunk.
Professor Easley:
I like what you posted. But do you have the sources available?
Posted by: ant at June 26, 2005 08:26 PMWhat I find interesting is that we’ve actually seen our country make inroads against terrorism. We have a country that views America in a more positive light, that views Osama Bin Laden in a more negative light, whose populace is moving against the uses of violence against citizens, and the corruption of their religion towards violence, and have increasingly raised their voices towards more peaceful solutions.
Who is this country? It’s Indonesia.
Indonesia has had spectacular changes in poll results since our military engaged in a rapid response mission the Tsunami, (and since we responded with 1 billion dollars to the Tsunami).
Hmmm. 1 billion dollars waging a “shock and awe” humanitarian campaign in Indonesia netted amazingly positive results.
150 billion dollars, thousands of dead soldiers and civilians, and an overall worsening of opinion on America by Iraq’s neighbors.
How would we rather spend our treasure? How would we rather spend the might of our military?
The right talks about heroes, and honoring our fellow men in uniform. I’ll tell you this, we have never been better represented as a country, than we were by the men and women of the USS Abraham Lincoln when they responded with amazing swiftness, and professionalism, to the tsunami in Indonesia.
1 billion dollars in kindness goes a lot farther than hundreds of billions of dollars in war. Just look at the results.
Posted by: Julia at June 26, 2005 10:10 PMWell spoke, Julia. But it doesn’t do crap for the military-industrial-fossil fuel complex which is the basis of real power according to Republican leadership.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2005 10:41 PMTed-
I will not base my opinion of this war on some speculative notion that it’s reputation might improve over time. If so, so be it, but I’m not going to wait for that. I want things done right now, paid attention to now. Recklessness and good intentions do not a successful policy make.
Adrienne,
Great post! We spend $1 billion in humanitarian aid, helping people in need, and the results are everything we could have hoped for, just for doing the right thing- this, in the country with the largest Muslim population in the world.
We spend $300 billion invading & occupying Iraq. We resort to force, and the results couldn’t be in starker contrast.
Imagine the better uses that $300 billion could have been put to… enough, it’s hard to continue.
Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2005 11:54 PMThe Bush administration still doesn’t understand what they’re fighting. Al-Qaeda is a network; it’s a movement. Al-Qaeda couldn’t give a rat’s ass who wins or loses in Iraq; they’re not playing a ground acquisition game. The al-Qaeda movement transcends borders.Last time I checked we weren’t fighting just Al-Qaeda though. The war in Iraq is a subwar in The War on Terroism. If they didn’t at least know that Al-Qaeda was a network ,then why would they once say that there may have been a link between Iraq and this terroist group? Al-Qaeda was orignally a Afghanastan group, that indeed networked. This is why we’ve been looking and finding memebers of this group and other terrorist groups in the US. I’m sorry, but I just don’t like this particular article. It’s not very informative. Posted by: Celest A. Crystal at June 27, 2005 01:07 AM
David, it pains me to see you don’t take what Bush and Rice say at face value. Especially in this special case where their actions are aligned with their rhetoric. These guys are clueless.
Bush and Condoleeza Rice are emphasizing human rights and democracy more than any other administration (including Jimmy Carter, who had great rhetoric but sometimes less effective follow through.)
I don’t know, Jack. I’d say Carter was more effective. Carter lost Iran and Honduras through his Bush-like humanitarian policy. Bush lost Iraq and the rest of the world through his bungling.
To imply that no other president had a pro-democratic policy is just wrong. Between Bush Sr. and Clinton, the world gained about a hundred new democracies. Both presidents supported democracy movements where the most likely outcome was a pro-US government. Bush and Carter went one further and supported anti-dictator movements when the most likely alternative was an anti-US Islamic fundamentalist government. That’s a cock-up in my book.
Dane, we just can’t pull out of the Middle East. Oil is absolutely vital to the security of our country. Of course, if it wasn’t, we’d have a bunch more options…
Bush has been pushing for democracies in other parts of the world as well, and he deserves credit for that
Reed, that’s like congratulating Bush for making it to the morning briefing every day. It’s his job. Every President since Wilson has pushed for democracies. As Jack pointed out, the trick is to be effective. Bush is not.
Jay - I completely agree with your post concerning the average American’s intelligence. I also agree that instead of constantly blaming and attempting to “hot fix” the problem, we should be thinking long-term and constructively.
War is the greatest affront to human rights, Jack, you know that.
No, Saddam’s torture chambers where everyone from his own people to unreported American POW’s were tortured is the greatest affront to human rights. The rape of Nanking was one of the greatest affronts to human rights. Rwanda was one of the greatest affronts to human rights. None of these “incidents” are wars; they are the mass extermination and atrocious treatment of humans, usually by the legally installed government, or in Nanking’s case, an atrocity disguised by a war. War, in itself, is an armed conflict. It is how a nation fights a war (as in Nanking), or the guise a government uses to murder its own people that is an affront to human rights. It is the difference between how Americans fought in Operation Desert Storm and how the Japanese fought in World War 2.
They are both wars, but are completely different. It’s time for you to realize that and stop speaking in generalities.
Dane - as many have responded in like-kind: How can you possibly think that there wouldn’t be terrorism in the Middle East if we simply left? Terrorists don’t want things like stability, freedom, or human rights; they want power. Power over their fellow man. If we had let the Middle East alone, they would have done what they have been doing for thousands of years - war with each other for power.
First of all, Welcome home.
Thanks, Beagle. It’s great to be back!
2nd, I wish someone in the left wing of congress would state how the would kill these terriorists
Beagle (and Jay), Kerry made that clear during the campaign. Democrats have two major pieces of legislation pending that will more effectively target terrorism. Democrats pushed for analyzing the 9/11 attacks over Republican obstructionism so we could learn some lessons for the future. Democrats pushed for investigating our intelligence failures and reorganizing our intelligence community over Republican obstructionism. Democrats pushed for effective homeland defense over Republican obstructionism.
To continue with the fiction that Democrats aren’t offering alternatives is kinda foolish.
Also, Democrats have been steadily beating the drum for building and leveraging soft power, which Julia points out was effective in Indonesia. We need to do that everywhere - and in most cases it only involves listening and being respectful.
I have to plug Col. Hammes’ book again. “The Sling and the Stone”, along with “Imperial Hubris” by the CIA officer who was in charge of the Bin Laden division, are required reading for understanding the type of war we’re waging and what our enemy wants. If you want a comprehensive Democratic plan to beat terrorism, pick up “The Pentagon’s New Map”.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 27, 2005 02:28 AM—-
No, Saddam’s torture chambers where everyone from his own people to unreported American POW’s were tortured is the greatest affront to human rights.
—-
1 - Why to REPS always bring up Human Rights issues to support what they want to do, but when it comes to actually following through with human rights issues (tsunami relief… $15M initial offer… Pathetic, Sudan, GITMO, Abu Griab… I’m thinking my spelling is wrong here…)
2 - People love to talk up Sadam’s ‘Rape Rooms’ and ‘Torture Chambers’ because it’s the only standing reason to have attacked Iraq. (Rape Rooms… can you get more PR’ish than that???! I like the ‘unreported American POWs’, nice touch without having to prove anything…) But honestly, why do REPS only talk about the vicious dictators that have oil, but continently forgot the more ruthless ones without it?
3 - Human Rights is a cause, not an excuse.
Posted by: tony at June 27, 2005 07:36 AMAP,
I’ll try again..
“2nd, I wish someone in the left wing of congress would state how the would kill these terriorists”
The key word is KILL them, the hearts and flowers was used for years, it dont work with the leaders of those groups. If we give them a billion they will use the money to kill Americans.
Kill all their leaders and the rest will go back to raising dates or shoing camels or whatever. I’m not saying kill all the people in any country, just the ones that jump on a stump and preach “death to America” and try to organize groups to kill us.
“Stump speach” could take on a whole new meaning.
Beagle,
I’m not sure why it is so necessary to push killing. I understand that being a conservative often means a lack of respect for lengthy debate and a sometimes damaging insistence on action, even if it is too hasty, but to say we need to kill anyone is wrong. It is obvious that the main problem with the way we look at the terrorists is to think of them as some sort of animal. They are human beings and think like humans, no matter what their upbringing. Most of the things that motivate this nation are the same things that motivate leaders of terrorist organizations. Money, power, independence, freedom from external control, these are all things that every nation and group seeks.
Everyone on here with the exception of Dane seems to think that the terrorists hate us for some inarticulable loathing of our freedom and democratic system (such as it is). What ignorance. Perhaps the Middle East would still have wars if we removed our iron fist from the throats of most of the nations there, but surely it is obvious that their war would not be with us? There is no REASON to fight us if we are not doing anything wrong to them. And yes, they are capable of using reason, at least the educated leadership and to some extent every citizen of the Middle East, including the terrorists.
So then, we HAVE to ask ourselves why they hate us so. I understand that conservatives love to see the world in terms of black and white, good vs. evil, and similar idiocies, but even in that case, let us look at the facts. We have an inordinate amount of influence, both political and economic, in these nations. Increasingly, our military presence is to be found as well. How would WE react to such a situation on our own soil? We would resist, just as they are. So although it is impossible to condone the means of their resistance, the very fact that the terrorists are resisting us in unsurprising. I’m not saying we deserved 9/11 or anything, but its pretty clear that the resentment to our foreign policy was the root cause of it. Now, the question is, where do we go from here?
There are several options. We can continue our economic and political exploitation of smaller, weaker nations and thus create the kind of resentment that breeds hatred and terrorism, and suffer casualties because of it. We can flee from the Middle East, leaving it to its own devices. Or, we can act like an objective neighbor. A trading partner. Someone willing to help out if disaster strikes. Someone perfectly willing to defend their citizens in those nations with force, but not their interests. We simply do not have the right to force anything upon these people as we have up until now, and they hate us for this coercion. We can lead by example, not by dictat. We can show them our ingenuity, economic prowess on an even plain, and refrain from killing to support our economic interests abroad and strengthening police powers at home.
Posted by: Libertyman13 at June 27, 2005 10:37 AMDane,
You honestly think that if we had stayed out of the middle east it would work it self out?
In a way you are correct. As the professor pointed out the only country that has nukes would have used them a long time ago, making all
that oil useless.
Had the U. S. not kept Israel on a leash the entire region would be a different place, as pointed out by the professor, Israel has no problem violating the worthless policy’s of the joke called the UN
brian
Posted by: brian at June 27, 2005 10:57 AM—-
The key word is KILL them, the hearts and flowers was used for years, it don’t work with the leaders of those groups. If we give them a billion they will use the money to kill Americans.
—-
OK, so why is it that the ‘hearts and flowers’ method we used prior to the invasion on Iraq (most intelligent people call it containment) was working. Notice that ALL intelligence has pointed to the fact that Sadam’s nuc., bio and chem weapons programs had been disabled. Sadam was grandstanding and taunting us - and our gun-slinging President fell for it.
I know REPs hate to admit being wrong, but there is not one item remaining in the pre-war justification for attacking Iraq. ‘Guts-and-glory’ make for great movies, but they rarely work in the real world. You can not beat people into supporting you… and ‘KILL KILL KILL’ usually creates life-long resentment.
From what I’ve seen work best, we should’ve invaded Iraq with Jiffy Lubes and McDonalds - by now we’d probably own most of Iraq and we’d be talking about building a Disney resort there rather than still trying to get water and electricity restored.
Posted by: tony at June 27, 2005 10:58 AMLibertyman,
Great speach, and spinning it into just killing everyone was a nice touch.
How the hell do you propose that we debate with terriorists like Bin laden, when the only thing that would satisfy them is to nuke Isreal and transform America to a radical islamic nation?
I’ll bet you had your lunch money stolen every day in school?
Posted by: Beagle at June 27, 2005 11:10 AM—-
How the hell do you propose that we debate with terriorists like Bin laden, when the only thing that would satisfy them is to nuke Isreal and transform America to a radical islamic nation?
—-
We could start by not training more like him. (see Afg. 1980s.) As far as what they are after, you need to listen and understand more of his speeches to grasp what his group (and others like him) are after… reading up on your Middle East history might help as well.
Don’t kill them, sheesh!
When they commit an act of war against us, we should say WE are sorry, it’s all our fault and then give them a great big hug and pretty flower.
True patriotism and love of country comes from feeling guilty and putting every other country before your own.
They aren’t terrorists, they are “freedom fighters” now, defending their country against an attack by the evil US.
The US defends herself from these “freedom fighters” and now we are the terrorists?
Idiocy is turning the other cheek and doing nothing while you are being attacked.
Thank whatever god you want that I was deemed to dumb to be an editor on here cause I sure as hell wouldn’t be posting mandatory hate Bush and hate America stuff we read in the yellow column now.
Kum by ya!
Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2005 11:25 AMTony,
Nice try, but I didn’t say invade anyone, just whack the ones preaching death to Americans.
Just the leaders of those groups.
Without a head they are a snake with two tails, not liable to bite anyone.
kctim
I love the reference to ‘freedom fighters’: It hits on what Bin Laden and his group were referred to (Mujahidin) when they were being trained, armed and supported by the US back in the 80s. It also makes a great reference to the Taliban, who were put into power in Afg. by the US - when we removed the group in power that we hated then (Northern Alliance ?) who we ended up using to remove the Taliban after 9/11.
—-
Idiocy is turning the other cheek and doing nothing while you are being attacked.
—-
I hope you’re not referring to Iraq… btw - how do you define idiocy when you are the one doing the attacking?
Posted by: tony at June 27, 2005 11:41 AMtony, interesting point. Had we supported the USSR in its war in Afghanistan, it is very possible 9/11 would never have occured. But, what good is hindsight in changing history - zilch.
The lesson here is that there will never be a foreign policy equal to an effective homeland security design. The greatest errors in thinking and action by this administration was in its refusal to pour money and manpower spent in Iraq, into homeland defense. Their greatest error was in seeking revenge against Saddam for a personal vendetta rather than put the safety of the American people first and foremost.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2005 11:49 AMKctim,
I’m not saying we should apologize. Did you read what I wrote or did you just speak out in a typical, lack of thought, emotional response? If what we want, in this country, is to pursue these kinds of goals, it is certainly an option. However, if we do, we cannot expect people to roll over and accept it. We certainly would not.
Let’s put my point this way. Let’s say you rent a house. I go on your property and start digging for gold. You don’t like it, and neither do your neighbors, but your landlord had told me that it was ok. I ignore your protests and shrug off your complaints. I keep digging, making a racket, and taking all the gold and valuable resources I find there. Then I build a processig facility in your backyard. You get sick of it all and shoot a whole bunch of my workers. Are you justified? No. But should I be so damn surprised that you did? No to that as well.
I’m not apologizing for the terrorists. They are guilty of murder and should be brought to justice. However, I AM saying that we should reexamine our often shady and less-than-exemplary foreign policy. We shouldn’t be trying to make more enemies, or ignoring the complaints of the people in the nations that we are trading with or have outposts in. Otherwise, we will have learned nothing from this attack.
True patriotism does NOT mean putting every other country before your own. It means that you should be realistic and unafraid to truly see what has happened and to weigh all possible explanations. In order to protect our own country, we need to understand that our actions have repercussions, whether you conservatives like it or not. George Washington told us to avoid foreign entanglements. We have not heeded his advice.
I believe that the United States, instead of stamping out opposition (an impossible feat in reality, as violence often breeds more violence), should act with force only when absolutely necessary to bring the culprits of 9/11 to justice. We should not be invading other countries and breeding resentment and opposition. The U.S. is the greatest country in the world not because of jingoism and military prowess (although a strong military IS important). We are the greatest country because of our freedom and ingenuity, our work ethic and economic prowess. There is simply no reason why we cannot use those things to show our countries why they should want to be like us, instead of killing some of them and forcing others to our will. An even playing field will allow our nation to still beat out others while also providing a shining example of a peaceful, prosperous, democracy.
Posted by: Libertyman13 at June 27, 2005 11:53 AM—-
Just the leaders of those groups.
Without a head they are a snake with two tails, not liable to bite anyone.
—-
And give these religious zealots martyrs to spur them on? If Bin Laden is killed, then he becomes a ‘saint’ to them. It’s a religious thing, and death rarely works to your advantage… look how mush was accomplished by killing Jesus (from the perspective of those who persecuted him.)
Give these people Bin Laden tried to recruit a happy home and something to loose - and offer up something that contradicts what he is preaching about the US, and you might stand a chance of dissuading his followers. Use violence, and we become the proof that we are who he says we are. Maybe you’d like to go up against these people – tit-for-tat, but they’re way too committed for my liking.
Posted by: tony at June 27, 2005 11:54 AMAP:
Welcome back. As a side bar, did you have any difficulty travelling?
Great article. The quantum difference between policy and action from this administration has been a burr under my saddle. At best I am dissappointed. To preach at least fiscal conservatism, and to display anything but is what keeps me awake at night.
David R. Remer:
The wife and I are again discussing joining the 7.2 million other Americans who have decided to take up residence outside US borders, for our daughter’s sake. When the CIA starts issuing such warnings, I would be a pretty damned irresponsible parent to not consider it in terms of my daughter’s welfare for which I am charged responsibility for.
This frightens me. As many times as I have been pissed off at any administration for provoking potential retaliation, I have never considered leaving the US. I am surprised and saddened at the prospect. I have developed respect, though not always agreement, for you and your opinions, but this one has me scratching my head.
The lesson here is that there will never be a foreign policy equal to an effective homeland security design. The greatest errors in thinking and action by this administration was in its refusal to pour money and manpower spent in Iraq, into homeland defense. Their greatest error was in seeking revenge against Saddam for a personal vendetta rather than put the safety of the American people first and foremost.
I, and many other conservatives and liberals, have been screaming this at the top of our lungs since 9/11. We can never be secure unless we start at home. This should have been step one, not three.
Tony
We also supported saddam and many others, big deal. I don’t care if its the mujahidin, afghan’s or the african pygmy tribes, when they attack us, they need to be killed.
“I hope you’re not referring to Iraq…”
Iraq now, not what lead up to it or our reason for doing it.
If anyone draws a weapon and points it at US troops, they need to be terminated.
“btw - how do you define idiocy when you are the one doing the attacking?”
By not finishing the job because of political reasons!
BTW - WE are not the ones attacking now. We won and are rebuilding that country and now they are attacking us.
Actually the solution suggested that I prefer (and I don’t really care to label it by a political platform), is the upgrading of capabilities by the FBI and CIA in order to pursue financial and business links of terrorist activities, and an emphasis on information sharing between international agencies that are involved in finding terrorists.
Also, the real problem we face in the Middle East is extremist fundamentalist education systems (the madrassas). IMHO, the best way to defeat madrassas is to provide an alternative to them.
Pretty much every country has a problem with parents trying to indoctrinate their children into an extremist fundamentalist way of life. How do we approach this problem in the South? Well, integration of schools didn’t work so great. But the programs that did involved targeting community leaders, introducing them to individuals across the isle, and getting the two groups to work toegether towards solutions that furthered the interests of their community.
What the middle east really needs right now is a concentration on bringing people together, cooling down the rhetoric, and re-focusing on the real problems at hand.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of a country less capable than us to do this right now. We can’t even figure out how to cool down the rhetoric on watchblog and “reach across the aisle”.
Indonesia WORKED. But it worked because we responded rapidly, efficiently, and with a focus on making things better.
We had a golden opportunity after 9/11 here in the U.S. The will of people, after tragedy, is to sacrifice and “do unto others”. When we demolished Fallujah, we had a window of opportunity to be seen digging ditches beside the people who returned, and emphasazing our dedication to REBUILDING.
But we didn’t. Iraq, compared to Indonesia, has not once seen a rapid re-construction response. And neither has Afghanistan. It flabbergasts me.
Community-oriented leadership integration that concentrates on achieving local goals. That’s the answer. It’s the answer to OUR problems. It’s the answer to theirs.
Posted by: Julia at June 27, 2005 12:08 PMAnd taking a year to organize and execute those programs just doesn’t hack it. It has to be a RAPID RESPONSE.
Posted by: Julia at June 27, 2005 12:11 PMTony,
If they wanted to be a maryter they had their chance.
Sodamn-insane hid in a rathole, and bin laden hid in a cave. They don’t even belive the crap they spew, they want power, thats it.
If someone vows to kill my family(Americans), there is little more to debate, I’ll cancel their ticket.
Posted by: Beagle at June 27, 2005 12:27 PMphx8
“Adrienne,
Great post! We spend $1 billion in humanitarian aid, helping people in need, and the results are everything we could have hoped for, just for doing the right thing- this, in the country with the largest Muslim population in the world.”
Actually 8, you have to give Julia all the credit for that excellent post. But I agree completely - great points, Julia!
AP, very happy to have you back!
You wrote:
“Dr. Rice says the dumbest things. She was in Brussels recently, insisting that “Terrorism can be defeated in Iraq, it will be defeated in Iraq. When it is defeated in Iraq, at the heart of the Middle East, it will be a death knell for terrorism as we know it.”
That’s even more idiotic than when she insisted Iraq’s new government - dominated by the same type of Islamic extremists who staged the 9/11 attack - was a good thing.”
These kind of statements are a good example of how this administration addresses everything — like they’re still on the campaign trail.
These Neocon’s love waging war, but have proven that they are complete failures at waging it. But no matter, every instance of harsh reality that is at odds with their agenda will never be allowed to get in the way of their relentless self-promotion. Idiocy? Oh yeah, but I’d go even further — I think they’re all Insane. Honestly, what else could explain what they’ve been doing? What else could explain their failure to protect us from the likelihood of another terrorist attack as David was describing?
I agree with everything you wrote about Al Qaeda.
“President Bush says his plan is to train Iraqi forces ASAP so they can replace our troops. Yet, oddly, he and the Pentagon are dragging their heels getting Iraqi officers properly trained.”
Does anyone even know how many have actually been trained? They’ve exagerated that figure so many times, maybe they don’t even know what the true number is at this point.
As for our troops being “replaced”, the fact that we’ve built those fourteen permanent bases tells me that whether they ever get around to training large numbers of Iraq forces or not, they certainly aren’t planning for our soldiers to leave the region any time soon.
AP,
Thanks for the reading tips!
Recently I read “Banking on Bagdhad” by Black, which has a subtitle something like ‘a history of 7,000 years of conflict in Iraq.’
In the last century, the British ran into considerable trouble with their occupation. They finally resolved it the old-fashioned way, with money. Basically, they co-opted the enemy, gave them power & a cut of the oil revenues, in exchange for selling out the fanatics. It worked to the degree that Iraq remained a relatively peaceful colony until the end of World War II.
Personally, I was glad to see the testimony where Rumsfeld noted the US is attempting to meet with heads of the insurgency.
The Mongols settled the Mesopotamian’s hash in a very thorough way. However, most of us would rather not go that route.
Rather than seeing the problem through the American lens of perception- ‘they hate us for our freedom,’ etc.- why not attempt to see it through their eyes, the eyes of the Iraqi Sunni insurgents? (Not the foreign jihadists, the Iraqi insurgents).
Do they want the US to cease its occupation? We can work that out. Do they want a country independent of the Shias & Kurds? OK, how about a loose federation, a degree of autonomy. Co-opt the Sunnis, and the foreign jihadists become relevant.
Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2005 12:45 PM—-
Iraq now, not what lead up to it or our reason for doing it.
If anyone draws a weapon and points it at US troops, they need to be terminated.
“btw - how do you define idiocy when you are the one doing the attacking?”
By not finishing the job because of political reasons!
BTW - WE are not the ones attacking now. We won and are rebuilding that country and now they are attacking us.
—-
My point is that we need to learn from our past mistakes and try to avoid them in the future. We’ve missed the boat with both Iraq and Afg. Also, because of our willingness to resort to violence without validating our suspicions, we have now becomes an aggressive military force occupying a foreign country. In that case - it’s hard for me to argue against the insurgence. If the situation was here, not in Iraq, I would be in the streets fighting along side the others in the insurgence.
It’s hard to for me to see fighting for your own country against an aggressor as anything but being patriotic. (Yes, you can be patriotic and not be American.)
Posted by: tony at June 27, 2005 12:51 PM“Did you read what I wrote or did you just speak out in a typical, lack of thought, emotional response?”
Hmmmm? Read it in all of its typical, lack of thought and conservative bashing meaning.
“we cannot expect people to roll over and accept it”
And if they don’t accept it what do they do? They KILL Americans. If they kill Americans, they need to be killed first.
You give them a hug and I’ll give them a bullet and we’ll see who becomes the next vid clip on the internet first.
“Let’s put my point this way”
I got your point, you don’t get mine.
Take your little scenario and say I start picking off your family one by one. Are you going to start making excuses justifying what I am doing and start blaming your own family for what I am doing? No. So why do that for terrorists?
“I AM saying that we should reexamine our often shady and less-than-exemplary foreign policy”
We’ve needed to do this for a 100+ years, not just now.
“We shouldn’t be trying to make more enemies”
Our own people also shouldn’t encourage or promote this either, but they do. All in order to get their guy elected president.
“In order to protect our own country, we need to understand that our actions have repercussions, whether you conservatives like it or not”
I don’t really know if conservatives like it or not, don’t really care either.
But if we quit making excuses and blaming America first all the time, then those repercussions would be minimal.
“George Washington told us to avoid foreign entanglements. We have not heeded his advice”
As long as you complained about Bosnia and somalia, then I agree with you on this one.
“An even playing field will allow our nation to still beat out others while also providing a shining example of a peaceful, prosperous, democracy”
Ah yes, everything and everybody MUST be equal and playing on an even playing field.
Take everything you mentioned about why we are the greatest country in the world and throw it out the window because now we must feel guilty for all of our success that we have done as a country.
Use that guilt to force Americans to support YOUR ideas of peace and harmony with THEIR money they have worked for and earned and give it to those countries who hate us.
Yes, I understand where you are coming from. As long as the other side is in control, America is evil, America is wrong and America must be blamed for everything, that is, until your side is back in power than the errors can be justified.
PS
While we act as a democracy now, our country was never intended to be one. We used to be a Constitutional Republic but now this UN-American version of govt called democracy has taken over, which explains the sorry state of our union today.
“it’s hard for me to argue against the insurgence”
This must be why we can’t see eye to eye on this then.
I find it hard to argue FOR anyone who is killing US troops or civilians.
“It’s hard to for me to see fighting for your own country against an aggressor as anything but being patriotic. (Yes, you can be patriotic and not be American.)”
Sure you can.
But you cannot be a Patriotic American by rooting for the other side who is killing Americans.
The aid for Indonesia was a great waste of $ one billion, they refused to allow our ships to enter their waters( troups lost their lives because of that), before we were finished HELPING them they demanded we leave.
All the people running around with bin laden T-shirts was iceing on the cake, loved that!
The next time they have a flood or whatever, we can chalk it up to ” the sharks/fish must eat too”.
Posted by: Beagle at June 27, 2005 01:13 PMI don’t think anyone is blaming America first all the time. What I and others like me are doing is considering the reality of the matter. I am not blaming America for 9/11. Nothing we have done deserves that attack. All I suggest is objectivity, not emotionally-driven responses.
You’re right that we must protect America, of course. But your logic is quite circular on the whole killing of Americans point. So, your rationale supports the assertion that if we were to kill a person’s family in Iraq (perhaps an innocent person who lost their siblings or spouse in a bomb gone astray) that then they are justified in killing Americans before we can kill ay more of their people. All that sort of logic does is provide justification for both sides to engage in a downward spiral of slaughter. You try to argue that I am justifying the terrorist actions, while I am arguing that our “shoot first, ask questions later” response is merely providing justification in their minds to kill us. This cycle of slaughter is only going to provide more fodder on both sides to drum up support for more killings.
I do understand your point. What I disagree with is your perspective. You say I am putting the terrorists before concern for our people and families. Not true. I am arguing that the best way to protect our citizens in the future is to stop perpetuating hostilities. I am not arguing that we cannot defend ourselves or try to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. I am arguing that killing people only leads to more killing, especially in the sense of pre-emptive warfare.
Objectivity in this situation is certainly very difficult. It is easy to get pissed off and scream for blood. But can’t you see that the other side does the same thing when they take casualties? We’re leaving orphans who will grow up with an intense hatred of our nation. Sure, we can try to stem the present threat, but at the cost of perpetuating further threats down the line. The problem is, you can’t simplify the situation. It is very complex. You cannot look at it as “us versus them.” Nothing is really like that in this world, as much as you and I would like it to be.
I did complain about Yugoslavia and that NATO action there. I wasn’t old enough during that first round in Bosnia to have formed much of an opinion at the time, and ditto for Somalia.
I am not arguing for any commie shit, like you have attempted to put into my mouth. I am far from a socialist and my economic standpoint is something like conservative or marginally libertarian. My point is that enforcing an unequal bargaining position through military means results in a situation in which our interests come at the expense of other’s interests. Therefore, the interests of our nation will never coincide with those of the nation at the end of our gun barrels, and they will resist us. My suggestion is to make it profitable for these nations to cooperate with us, instead of cramming a serf-like status down their throats. By an equal playing field, I mean a playing field where American companies compete freely with those of other nations, where crony capitalism is fully absent, and where resourcefulness and merit lead the way, not cruise missiles and assault rifles.
People, if given half the chance, will act in their own self-interest, and rightly so. Enabling our “enemies” to benefit from us and having us benefit from them is the only way that we will ever see peace.
Where did you make these inferences about giving money to anybody? Don’t give them money unless we get something in return. But we shouldn’t put a gun to their head to get a better deal.
I do not make excuses for either side. I am not a part of either the Republican or Democratic parties, indeed I am an independent. I critizied stupid Democrats when they were in power. I criticize stupid Republicans now. It doesn’t matter who is in power if they follow a path of folly.
I am fully aware of the status of our nation as a republic. There are no democracies in the world, and there never really have been. You are absolutely right that demagoguery has been the sickness of our nation, however. I certainly agree with that.
Beagle,
The aid for Indonesia was a great waste of $ one billion, they refused to allow our ships to enter their waters( troups lost their lives because of that), before we were finished HELPING them they demanded we leave.Posted by: Julia at June 27, 2005 02:20 PMTroops lost their lives? In the Tsunami relief mission? Really???
And so what if they demanded we leave. It was the best 1 billion we’ve spent in a long time. a 30% positive opinion change TOWARD america and against terrorism? The goodwill we generated in Indonesia has been phenemonal.
Yes, in the short term, there were plenty of Osma t-shirt wearers and ungrateful, corrupt, human beings around. But the result was that we did the right thing, the gracious thing, without expecting anything in return, and the final word is that Indonesia is THE ONLY MUSLIM COUNTRY that has a more positive opinion of us since 9/11. In fact, because Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries reacted so slowly and so stingily, the Indonesians had a drop in opinion about their Muslim neighbors. Americans may argue with themselves about how it doesn’t matter that “they hate us”. Because they do. Except in Indonesia.
Indonesians should be considered fish food?
Yeah, with comments like that, I’m sure their main reason for disliking us is “our freedom”. (I doubt I’d ever see an Indonesian comment that the 9/11 victims died because the ground needed fertilizer from their corpses).
You’re outdoing yourself Beagle.
Libertyman,
I disagree that we should only spend our money when we expect to get something in return. The Marshall Plan worked because it was an undeserved grant. And it was a luxurious undeserved grant. And the Indonesian relief effort was the same. Straight-up kindness really does change the world.And for all of you fundamentalist bible-thumpers, I think you’d remember that was what Jesus was all about. Transformation of the world through loving kindness. If that’s the reason why we’re a great country… then shouldn’t we be acting that way? Or is a country under Jesus, a country that first-and-foremost pursues terrorists to blow their heads off.
Be respectful. Do unto others. Is this too complex for American policy?
(Correcting blockquote)
Beagle,
The aid for Indonesia was a great waste of $ one billion, they refused to allow our ships to enter their waters( troups lost their lives because of that), before we were finished HELPING them they demanded we leave.
Troops lost their lives? In the Tsunami relief mission? Really???
And so what if they demanded we leave. It was the best 1 billion we’ve spent in a long time. a 30% positive opinion change TOWARD america and against terrorism? The goodwill we generated in Indonesia has been phenemonal.
Yes, in the short term, there were plenty of Osma t-shirt wearers and ungrateful, corrupt, human beings around. But the result was that we did the right thing, the gracious thing, without expecting anything in return, and the final word is that Indonesia is THE ONLY MUSLIM COUNTRY that has a more positive opinion of us since 9/11. In fact, because Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries reacted so slowly and so stingily, the Indonesians had a drop in opinion about their Muslim neighbors. Americans may argue with themselves about how it doesn’t matter that “they hate us”. Because they do. Except in Indonesia.
Indonesians should be considered fish food?
Yeah, with comments like that, I’m sure their main reason for disliking us is “our freedom”. (I doubt I’d ever see an Indonesian comment that the 9/11 victims died because the ground needed fertilizer from their corpses).
You’re outdoing yourself Beagle.
Libertyman,
I disagree that we should only spend our money when we expect to get something in return. The Marshall Plan worked because it was an undeserved grant. And it was a luxurious undeserved grant. And the Indonesian relief effort was the same. Straight-up kindness really does change the world.
And for all of you fundamentalist bible-thumpers, I think you’d remember that was what Jesus was all about. Transformation of the world through loving kindness. If that’s the reason why we’re a great country… then shouldn’t we be acting that way? Or is a country under Jesus, a country that first-and-foremost pursues terrorists to blow their heads off.
Be respectful. Do unto others. Is this too complex for American policy?
Posted by: Julia at June 27, 2005 02:21 PMJulia,
I do agree with you that kindness can be good and useful. The Marshall plan was a foreign policy success. What I was responding to was the accusation that I promote the wholesale gift of our money to other nations, which i do not. However, helping others is usually in our interest. Building up a nation from the ashes (a la Japan) provides new production and consumers for our goods, increasing trade, thus increasing contacts and allowing our freedom to spread. However, we should not be doing these things willy-nilly of course. Throwing money at something doesn’t always fix it. However, getting something in return doesn’t have to be goods or services, it could just be good will. I would hardly suggest giving money to a dictatorial nation would be a good policy. Actually providing aid, such as sending people with food, would be a better choice in those areas.
But I believe that promoting trade and commerce can only have good results (with the possible exception of negative environmental impact). I want to have people look at the long-term benefits, not just the short-term.
Posted by: Libertyman13 at June 27, 2005 02:30 PM“So, your rationale supports the assertion that if we were to kill a person’s family in Iraq (perhaps an innocent person who lost their siblings or spouse in a bomb gone astray) that then they are justified in killing Americans before we can kill any more of their people”
No. My rationale says that they are justified in their actions by other Iraqi’s and should never be given any benefit of the doubt by any American.
And when that Iraqi takes up arms against the US and we kill him, it should not be the US who is at fault. Sadly, at least half the country believes it is OUR fault.
Too many American’s hope for and try to find anything bad in this just so they can use it for political purposes.
“I am fully aware of the status of our nation as a republic”
But yet, just as our presidents, elected reps, media orgs and others on this site, you still refer to us as a “democracy.”
Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2005 02:33 PMWhat do Hussien, Bin Laden, and the Al quaeda all have in common. Well they have all been responsible for the slaughtering of countless innocent people with the use of United States money.
It seems that the American people all have severe problems with amnesia. How could we forget that Bin Laden and the Al quaeda were granted
$3 Billion dollars of U.S. cash in order to kill those damn Athiest Soviets. I guess we were just one group of religious extremists helping out another, how sweet. Or how could we forget that Saddam Hussien was given a ridiculous sum of money to kill Iranians during that particular conflict.
I guess it all comes back to how easily we forgot the original reason for going to the current war in Iraq. I mean there was no weapons of mass destruction(as promised), and all of a sudden our objective is no longer uncovering nukes or Biological weapons, it’s to spread the beautiful ways of “Freedom” and “Democracy” to a people previously oppressed by a tyrranical regime. Like Bush is the Johnny-apple-seed of democracy all of a sudden.
So the question is, How are the people of America so quickly made to forget the actions of our leaders. Is it a case of mass A.D.D., is it a result of too much sugar in our diets growing up, is it just plain stupidity, or perhaps it’s just a good ‘ol fashion case of denial. Maybe we just can’t stand to think we’ve been lied to, taken advantage of, and played like an out-of-tune instrument by the powers above. Well we have, and the only way to improve the lives of the American people as well as the foreign civillians touched by our “foreign policy” is to WAKE UP from this slump of memory-loss and take responsibility for our government’s previous and present actions.
kctim,
Again, you seem to be saying that logic holds for citizens of our country but not citizens of another? That just isn’t a position that can be maintained. Logic, at least, is universal. If we are justified for killing them in self-defense, they are justified in doing the same. If we are justified in killing them in revenge for the deaths of others (though, since it is Iraq, it is not revenge against the perpetrators but simply people that share their religion and ethnicity), they are justified in killing us in revenge. You simply cannot make an assertion that says because we are Americans we are justified, but because they are Iraqis they are not justified.
I don’t understand the basis for this argument. You cannot assign moral values to a person just because of their ethnicity or nationality. That is the root of racism and bigotry.
Posted by: libertyman13 at June 27, 2005 02:43 PM“It was the best 1 billion we’ve spent in a long time. a 30% positive opinion change TOWARD america and against terrorism?”
Yeah, we all know that what other people think of us is much more important than using that billion on our own people.
It’s like a giant gossip fest. We can’t do this because the world won’t like us. We can’t do that either. The only thing we can do is give more and more money to those who hate us and hope to buy their approval. At least until the money is gone that is.
World opinion trumps America yet again.
LM13
“You simply cannot make an assertion that says because we are Americans we are justified, but because they are Iraqis they are not justified.”
American troops are justified in their actions by Americans and Iraqi’s, terrorists, whatever, are justified by their people in the same way.
Your right, its cyclic and ends up with more killing, but that is how the real world operates. Survival of the fittest.
I will not sit back and defend others who are to kill my fellow Americans and the only way to deal with them is to kill them.
But “its our fault they are poor” or they are just “defending their country.” Whatever excuse people come up with to defend or excuse any scum who takes up arms against the US does not work.
If you fight against the US or support those who do, you do not deserve to be an American.
Our biggest problem is that at least half the country would rather justify the enemy at the expense of their own country and troops, all in order to get their guy elected.
All this while trying to make others believe they support America or her troops.
—-
But you cannot be a Patriotic American by rooting for the other side who is killing Americans.
—-
Yes I can… anytime you oppose tyranny and oppression, you are being a Patriotic American. The moronic idea that patriotism goes hand in hand with violence… I know that goes against the MAD COWBOY mentality… whatever…
—-
And when that Iraqi takes up arms against the US and we kill him, it should not be the US who is at fault. Sadly, at least half the country believes it is OUR fault.
Too many American’s hope for and try to find anything bad in this just so they can use it for political purposes.
—-
And the continuous chorus of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 has nothing to do with politics? It’s absolutely grotesque how this administration has bathed itself in the blood of 9/11 to avoid any and all questions about it’s obligation to running this country in the best interest of the people.
First, we have attacked without provocation - and just because we are the biggest now, does not mean that this was in our nation’s best interest. It sure as hell netted Halliburton a cool $9B, as well a quite a few others who financially supported the Bush Administration, but the rest of us gained $300B debt, 1700+ lives lost and generational hatred of our country.
Second, you think that dissention with our leaders is somehow unpatriotic… un-American. This is exactly what our Constitution instructs us to do. Tyranny is not an American value. As far as I can see, the Bush Administration is the specific example of the ‘government we should rise up against.’
kctim,
Yeah, we all know that what other people think of us is much more important than using that billion on our own people.
Yes Kctim. That comes from someone who doesn’t believe in any form of social programs or wealth redistribution, ergo: “survival of the fittest.”
Thank you for landing an F in foreign policy and a 0 for lying and changing your positions to gain ground in a debate. On a sidenote, the fact is that the government has grown under the Bush Administration. You can’t possibly sit there with a straight face and call yourself a libertarian. Face it. If you are a libertarian, you do a fantastic job for spitting neocon rhetoric. I’ll give you an A+ for that.
kctim,
I would never support such an Amendment but anyone who burns our flag is not a real American and should be big enough to accept the aftermath of such actions. You have a right to do it and I should have the right to kick your ass for doing it, that is afterall, how I “express” myself to people that hate all that is America.
In my eyes (and your words) you are the one who is not a real American. Defending a symbol by kicking the ass of fellow Americans who are merely trying to get the attention of a government that has stopped listening to their grievences — that does not sound very patriotic to me.
Also, same argument as for tire burning… I accept the fact that ignorant and hate-ridden people will try to kick my ass for burning a flag, even though flag burning currently IS legal. However, I also reserve the right to sue their ass for assault, because that is NOT legal. People who talk about kicking the ass of other Americans sound like those people who were throwing rocks through the windows of Arab Americans right after 9/11…all for the sake of “patriotism”.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 03:48 PMSorry about that last post, it was meant (and has also been posted) under this topic: Why not a meaningful Amendment to the Constitution?
I was having trouble getting the post to go through there, so I had a second window open waiting for it to work out. Unfortunately I ended up posting it again…and picked the wrong window to post with.
Posted by: Charles Wager at June 27, 2005 03:52 PMYeah, we all know that what other people think of us is much more important than using that billion on our own people. It’s like a giant gossip fest. We can’t do this because the world won’t like us. We can’t do that either. The only thing we can do is give more and more money to those who hate us and hope to buy their approval. At least until the money is gone that is.
I believe the topic was defeating terrorism. We’ve spent over 200 billion dollars in Iraq (supposedly to “defeat terrorism”) Are we closer? We spent 1 billion dollars in Indonesia on someting completely unrelated. And I would say we’re a lot closer to wiping out terrorism and terror-creators there.
The goal is the safety of our country, correct? You wanted us to come forward with solutions on how to do that, correct? I’m showing you Indonesia, where we’ve come upon a solution that appears to work.
Isn’t the foundation of terrorism the willingness to commit terrorism? And isn’t it REAL IMPROVEMENT when millions of people who supported terrorist activities change their mind and say it’s wrong?
Until the money is gone? We could have done this 200 times and we aren’t approaching the cost of the Iraq war.
You aren’t willing to spend the money on kindness that works (because they “don’t deserve it”), but you are willing to spend it on killing that doesn’t (because they do “deserve it”)
I’d love to spend the money here at home. That’s why I’m called a liberal. Spend it on our schools. But since that option has been closed, then I’d like to spend our money efficiently.
And honestly.
Posted by: Julia at June 27, 2005 04:09 PMTony
“anytime you oppose tyranny and oppression, you are being a Patriotic American”
Absolutley. But how are you opposing that by supporting those who kill Americans?
“And the continuous chorus”
I agree with this paragraph Tony.
“First, we have attacked without provocation - and just because we are the biggest now, does not mean that this was in our nation’s best interest.”
Amen!
“Second, you think that dissention with our leaders is somehow unpatriotic… un-American.”
Nope. I threw away 10 years of military service because of clinton.
“This is exactly what our Constitution instructs us to do.”
Yes it does. But it does not say to put other countries before our own.
Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2005 04:46 PMkctim,
Yes it does. But it does not say to put other countries before our own.
Actually, the constitution doesn’t have anything protecting us from PAC’s or foreign special interest groups such as AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee [which drives so much of our foreign policy, especially war.])
Prof
“Thank you for landing an F in foreign policy and a 0 for lying and changing your positions to gain ground in a debate.”
UH, thanks. A foreign policy of not kissing the worlds ass and putting America first does tend to pee off many libs.
Lied and changed my position? I apologize, please explain where and I will gladly take the time to explain myself.
“On a sidenote, the fact is that the government has grown under the Bush Administration.”
Yep.
“You can’t possibly sit there with a straight face and call yourself a libertarian.”
Although I tend to agree with them more than other party’s, I am not a libertarian. In fact, many say I make libertarians look like liberals.
“Face it. If you are a libertarian, you do a fantastic job for spitting neocon rhetoric. I’ll give you an A+ for that.”
Thats only because if it doesn’t bash Bush for everything, you assume its neocon rhetoric.
I know you all can’t understand it but not everybody is yellow column and blames EVERYTHING on Bush nor are we red column and make excuses for him.
Julia
“You aren’t willing to spend the money on kindness that works (because they “don’t deserve it”)”
We both know it won’t last. As soon as the money is gone and the freebies stop, they will start placing all the blame on us again.
“but you are willing to spend it on killing that doesn’t (because they do “deserve it”)”
Actually I don’t. I don’t believe we should be in Iraq right now and that our troops need to be flown home ASAP.
“I believe the topic was defeating terrorism”
It was and I was a good boy and kept quiet up until people started making excuses for the terrorists and insurgents.
“I’d love to spend the money here at home”
I know you would Julia, I have a pretty good idea of where your heart is :)
Posted by: kctim at June 27, 2005 05:13 PMProf
Let’s not get started on Israel and all that stuff. I would probably get banned :)
—-
“This is exactly what our Constitution instructs us to do.”
Yes it does. But it does not say to put other countries before our own.
—-
I’m not putting other countries before mine. I am saying that we have failed the cause of democracy and freedom by forcing our views on others and attacking another country with nothing but the thinnest veil of reason. I do think that Iraq, in many ways, brought this on itself… but that does not excuse our actions.
I want the soldiers home safe, but I also understand that you can’t just walk away and expect anything put worse things to happen in place of what we removed. Also, in this specific case, something positive might come out of it… but you have to admit we have created a generation hated of United States - not from some insane reasoning as ‘freedom haters’ and ‘killers’ mentality. We have screwed that region of the world over some many times it’s hard to keep up with cross over between friends and enemies.
I am not suggesting we take a back seat to another country, but this mess is our responsibility, and until we see things as they really are, we will continue to promote our true enemy’s cause.
Posted by: tony at June 27, 2005 06:30 PMkctim,
UH, thanks. A foreign policy of not kissing the worlds ass and putting America first does tend to pee off many libs.
Lied and changed my position? I apologize, please explain where and I will gladly take the time to explain myself.
That’s why you get an F. Foreign policy isn’t about kissing everyone’s ass nor putting America first, per se. Foreign policy is speaking kindly and gently with the leaders of other countries, understanding their position, listening to their position, grasping their interests and convincing them that the US interests correlates with their interests. I know that is a lot for you to sink in but the “Western cowboy” version of foreign policy means no policy at all. If you ever visit outside of this country, you’ll realize that.
You said, “Yeah, we all know that what other people think of us is much more important than using that billion on our own people.” Well, considering how you have a Social Darwinism theory of domestic spending; you undermined your own stances to get an edge in the debate between yourself and Julia; thus, you were most likely being dishonest. That earns a 0.
Although I tend to agree with them more than other party’s, I am not a libertarian. In fact, many say I make libertarians look like liberals.
Please don’t flatter yourself by thinking you are some far right intellect.
Thats only because if it doesn’t bash Bush for everything, you assume its neocon rhetoric. I know you all can’t understand it but not everybody is yellow column and blames EVERYTHING on Bush nor are we red column and make excuses for him.
Your concept of foreign policy correlates very well with neocon rhetoric of the “tough cowboy out in the west.” That doesn’t work, thus, you bought the spin.
Let’s not get started on Israel and all that stuff. I would probably get banned :)
Fair enough, but I uphold the position that Israel is the enemy.
Posted by: Professor Easley at June 27, 2005 07:24 PMBush has been pushing for democracies in other parts of the world as well, and he deserves credit for that
Reed, that’s like congratulating Bush for making it to the morning briefing every day. It’s his job. Every President since Wilson has pushed for democracies. As Jack pointed out, the trick is to be effective. Bush is not.
AP,
Oh good lord, you’re going to force to defend Mr. Bush? I thought that was Jack’s job. Here goes:
Bush has been good at highlighting the spread of democracy in his rhetoric, as in his second-term inaugural. I’m guessing you’d agree with that, and I agree with you it’s his job. Now, as to his effectiveness, I don’t know. On one hand, I’ve little doubt that he has perhaps tarnished the notion of democracy by his invasion of Iraq. And here’s a bit of evidence from Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development, University of Maryland, as quoted in Middle East Policy magazine:
“I do public opinion polls in six Arab countries: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. I ask questions about political issues and foreign policy, the United States, the role of the media. In 2004, which is the last one I took, we asked people in those six countries: do you believe that the Middle East is more democratic or less democratic than it was before the Iraq War? The vast majority of people in every country believed the Middle East had become less democratic than it was before the Iraq War.”
Of course, this may have just been a rhetorical reaction against the hated Bush, but Telahami argues that, at least in the short term, government really did have to crack down on democratic activists because, by strategically supporting the war, those governments became less popular than ever.
On the other hand, points out Saad Eddin Ibrahim of the University of Cairo, we do have the example of thousand of people rising up against Syria in Beirut. There were the Palestine elections, a Saudi election (I know, very far from a democracy) and there have been demonstrations in Egypt in favor of free and fair elections. And Bush’s rhetoric has given some of these people cover. How much credit should Bush be given for all this? I don’t know, but at least the language has been right.
But then there’s Uzbekistan which, oddly enough, Jack alludes to as loving the U.S. I’m not real knowledgeable on this, but isn’t this one of the nations we’ve pretty much screwed over recently in terms of democracy?
Here’s how the right-leaning National Review reported it: “No sooner had Bush left Tbilisi … than a crisis erupted in Uzbekistan that presented him with a dilemma similar to that presented at Yalta [where, of course, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill decided the fate of Europe after WWII]. Security forces loyal to Islam Karimov, the post-Soviet Uzbek dictator, massacred hundreds of demonstrators. Even friendly critics of the Bush democracy project are now demanding that he take action against Karimov or face the charge of ‘hypocrisy.’”
The also right-leaning Weekly Standard reports, “U.S. secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who values our military base in Uzbekistan, has apparently (so far) blocked attempts by others in the U.S. government to insist on an investigation of the massacre, or to withhold U.S. aid….Combine our inaction with respect to Karimov with our passivity in the face of crackdowns in places ranging from China to Zimbabwe to Saudi Arabia in the past couple of months, and there is a real danger that the democratic momentum from earlier this year could be lost.”
So, even the right-wing vehicles are pointing out that Mr. Bush is not the consistent in terms of his support for democracies. That’s not much of a defense, I know, but I’ve tried to be fair-minded about this. In summary, Bush has talked a good game and his actions may or may not have paid off in the Middle East, but he has back slid recently, largely for the reasons his predecessors did: real politik.
Tony, the most obvious of all reasons to invade Iraq are still, and always will be, on the table. 17 UN cease-fire resolutions violated. If the UN is unwilling to back up their own resolutions, they become irrelevant.
Posted by: Jay at June 27, 2005 07:51 PMJay,
So when UN Inspector Hans Blix did not find WMD’s, we were obliged to invade because… help me here, Jay. Please explain your logic in light of the UN weapon inspections.
And when Israel violates UN resolutions, what is the appropriate action? Do you support the UN at all times, or only when expedient?
—-
Tony, the most obvious of all reasons to invade Iraq are still, and always will be, on the table. 17 UN cease-fire resolutions violated. If the UN is unwilling to back up their own resolutions, they become irrelevant.
—-
OK… I agree with phx8… the UN resolution was specific to WMD. There was no UN resolution violation, but we asttacked because of a false sense (projected sense?) of guilt. Who is the international criminsl here?
“If the UN is unwilling to back up their own resolutions, they become irrelevant.”
Jay,
The mandate of the United Nations is world peace. Nowhere in the charter is there a clause that allows the UN to achive that through the use of force.
We, America, are the only member that is accusing the UN of “irrelivence”.
And we are amoung the very few that belive that peace can be spread at the end of a gun.
Beagle, I’ll try again…
Among many other things, Democrats want to train 2,000 more special ops troops and helicopter pilots to debate bin Laden.
Seriously, the leaders need to die, but don’t think that’s going to end terrorism. Al-Qaeda in particular is a network. It’s not a heirarchical organization. Operationally, it doesn’t have a head. Killing bin Laden would be purely psychological - and worth it for the hit to their morale and recruiting efforts. But it won’t even put a dent in their day-to-day operations. We’re going to win by stoppoing the flow of new terrorist recruits - and we’re not going to do that by causing “collateral damage.”
Welcome back. As a side bar, did you have any difficulty travelling?
Thanks, Chi Chi (and good post, I’m with you on the homeland security). Amazingly, there were no problems (though US customs and immigration are still the rudest and least respectful in the world). Either Singapore flights are no longer targeted for hassling, or LAX is one of the airports that put their security back under the control of the airlines.
Iraq, compared to Indonesia, has not once seen a rapid re-construction response. And neither has Afghanistan. It flabbergasts me.
Julia, excellent post. Afghanistan fell off Bush’s radar during 2002. I think that’s a good thing because the international community, NGOs, and US military commanders on the ground have come up with a system I think will work. NATO’s Provincial Reconstruction Teams combine doctors, aid workers, engineers, judges, police, and other civil services, with NATO soldiers for security. They’re steadily expanding throughout Afghanistan to strengthen the authority of the central government, toss out corrupt local officials, and help the locals rebuild and develop. So far it’s been very successful, and I don’t understand why we’re not doing it in Iraq.
Does anyone even know how many [Iraqis] have actually been trained? They’ve exagerated that figure so many times
Adrienne, the Bush administration now puts the figure at 165,000 (45,000 less than Bush claimed during the campaign). Most independent analysts put the number of fully trained Iraqis at around 20,000. As of this year, there were only three (3) Iraqi officers that went through the US Army’s officer training courses. After two years, that’s just crazy. Most of the Iraqi officers can’t even read a map.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 28, 2005 02:13 AMAP,
Let me be the last to welcome you back:}
From this blog dated 21 June.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
This is the blog of an Iraqi living in Baghdad.
“What people find particularly frustrating is the fact that while Baghdad seems to be falling apart in so many ways with roads broken and pitted, buildings blasted and burnt out and residential areas often swimming in sewage, the Green Zone is flourishing.”
It would appear that quite a bit of the rebuilding in Iraq is going on in the Green Zone, while other areas are still without reliable power.
Posted by: Rocky at June 28, 2005 02:29 AMCo-opt the Sunnis, and the foreign jihadists become relevant.
Damned straight, phx8. That’s why I don’t understand why Bush went ahead with the elections knowing it would disenfranchise the Sunnis. That was just stupid.
The aid for Indonesia was a great waste of $ one billion
Beagle, you’re wrong about that. While the US approval rating in Indonesia is still about 30% (it was in the 60’s before Bush invaded Iraq), it’s still better than the 18% before the tsunami operation. I saw first-hand where the local papers softened their rhetoric about the US. That’s what’s going to win the war on terrorism.
Foreign policy isn’t about kissing everyone’s ass nor putting America first, per se. Foreign policy is…
…about respect.
Prof & Julia, all this talk of kindness is making me nausious. Mutual respect is all most of these guys are asking for. It’s about Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah - a guy that trounced his fundamentalist Islamic opposition in a free election - getting squeezed in for a quickie with Bush between NASCAR photo ops, rather than getting the recognition and respect he deserves. We ought to be holding him up as a model moderate Islamic leader of a moderate Islamic democracy.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 28, 2005 02:49 AMRocky,Tony and PHX8, resolution 1441, signed by the entire UN stated that if Saddam did not become fully transparent with his weapons programs, (not specific to WMD)there would be serious consequences. “Serious” consequences need to mean just that. It would not include more monetary sanctions as we all know now profited many members of the UN. There has been no other nation in the history of the UN that has faced such resolution. You all seem to be hell bent on labeling the US war criminals, so tell me how you felt when Saddam invaded Kuwait and paid $25,000 to every Palestinian suicide bomber that went to kill unsuspecting innocent civilians. Does that register on you “criminal” chart.
Posted by: Jay at June 28, 2005 08:36 AMPlease explain to me the ‘transparent’ part of this. Saddam kept telling people he had no WMD… he allowed inspectors into Iraq who (for the most part) agreed with him. The UN inspectors said they needed an additional 30-45 days to complete their search, and we jumped the gun. We removed the inspectors and invaded before they could prove the case against WMD.
It has always seemed to me that the Bush Administration intentionally stopped the inspection process because they knew how flimsy their case for WMD was, and to have the UN officially dismiss the WMD issue would kill they chance on invading Iraq.
Now, I could be wrong, but there has been nothing but support for this ‘theory’ since we have been on the ground in Iraq. For those who want to believe that some other country now has those WMDs - think on this - if our intelligence community knew “not only that there are WMDs, but we know where they are” and we allowed them to be removed from Iraq, who is the idiot? If we took our eyes off the ball in the excitement of war and allowed these WMDs to move to other countries, then I am more pissed about this than if there were never any WMDs to