Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric:

I find it interesting that you ask how a hypothetical President Kerry would react to the Iran threat— “If Kerry is President how can we expect him to deal with this? Diplomacy? Nuance? Detente? Get the UN involved?”— without identifying what an actual President Bush has done.

Some believe that Bush has paved the way for Iran to assert its power in the Middle East by taking out it greatest enemy. The argument goes, Iran feeds false information about Iraq to the Bush Administrtion, giving Bush the impetus to remove Saddam. Iran gets what it wants without getting its hands dirty, while Bush and America come off as the bad guy.

Has any of this been proven? Not to my knowledge. But Bush’s actions— the actual steps he has taken as president, not what I or anyone else imagines he would do— have resulted in an increasing threat in Iran.

Your argument supports the contention that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has made us less secure, not more. That it took our focus off the war on terrorism and the true threats to the security of the U.S. and the world.

More to the point, Bush’s attack on Iraq has left us ill-equipped to militarily address the threat from Iran (and North Korea for that matter). Like it or not, we may have no choice but to let Israel handle this one.

You can hypothesize all you want about how President Kerry might deal with the Iran situation, but you must then admit that the Iran situation exists, the Bush Administration has let it fester, and there are no signs that this administration has the answers you suggest Kerry lacks.

Totally agree with you, Jerome. Bush has been a total dupe of the Iranians a la Chalabi.

But, I trust that the Israeli’s will (with secret U.S. help) knock out any serious facility preemtptively.

Eric, first off, we don’t do anything based on your statements starting with the word, “may” which you repeated a few times to suggest that Iran is a threat. The first thing is to get the hard intel. we need. Then a number of options become available for us to pursue, including, directing neighboring Arab states to defuse the situation or get caught in the fallout if they leave it up to the U.S. to handle on its own.

Israel, we have insured, has a major nuclear arsenal. Supporting Israel’s attempts to defuse the threat is another option. There are
many other possible scenarios which need to be considered, weighed, and discussed ultimately with the Congress of the U.S. Since, this is not the modus operandi for President Bush, the first step to dealing with Iran is to replace Bush. Then we can develop a number of prioritized options instead of relying upon one man’s perception of what God is telling him to do about Iran.

Iran and Korea were much more of a threat even before invading Iraq. Now Iran highlights the errors of the Bush Administration’s priority scheme, Taliban first, Iraq next, may OB Laden third, Cuba, then Syria or Iran. No question, we need a rational president to deal with what is coming before us and that means replacing President Bush who now wants to associate himself as closely as possible with President Reagan. I was around when Reagan was President, and George W, is nor R. Reagan.

Jerome,

Your argument supports the contention that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has made us less secure, not more. That it took our focus off the war on terrorism and the true threats to the security of the U.S. and the world.

More to the point, Bush’s attack on Iraq has left us ill-equipped to militarily address the threat from Iran (and North Korea for that matter). Like it or not, we may have no choice but to let Israel handle this one.

The fact that there is more than one threat does not make dealing with one of those threats illegitimate. That is tantamount to saying we must deal with all of the problems or none at all. Does removing one dictator make all the others more powerful? Something the left refuses to see is that these states, these rogue regimes, are not a diversion they are part of the war on terror.

You seem to be endorsing a military ‘address’ to the Iranian threat. Unless we intended to do something about it why would it matter if we were ill-prepared? Besides which I would dispute that contention. We are no less prepared than if we weren’t in Iraq. Our forces are already at the doorstep of Iran. We will have a regional base of operations and or we can assist freedom fighters into the country from there.

What would Kerry do? Does Kerry consider Iran to be an immediate and imminent threat? Or would it also fall into the category of Iraq, which we didn’t have enough evidence to invade? Do we need more evidence of their means and intention of building nuclear weapons? I mean beyond the fact that they are assembling all the components to do so?

Bush addressed the problem in Iraq that had been festering for 10 years. These regimes are threats or they are not, the left must make up its mind… about how much appeasement is appropriate to the level of threat they pose.

David,

The first thing is to get the hard intel. we need. Then a number of options become available for us to pursue, including, directing neighboring Arab states to defuse the situation or get caught in the fallout if they leave it up to the U.S. to handle on its own.

Not enough evidence to convince you that Iran will build a nuclear weapon? Yes, the left asks for absolute proof. The bomb itself might do? A mushroom cloud? There are no options in the liberal playbook for dealing with terrorist states. If Iran is a threat the preferred progressive method of dealing with it is above all not to perpetuate the cycle of violence. This means primarily a detente. Diplomatic means. We can’t just go around threatening legitimate states like Saddam’s regime or the mullahs of Iran, after all, they might get the wrong idea that we mean them harm.

Which Arab state would you be referring to? Which Arab ally would you be directing these options to? The left has no answers for these questions because military force is off the table. War is immoral.

The problem Kerry and the left will have is that it will have fewer options, not more. The war on terror in the hands of democrats will be defensive and limited. Too much of the ACLU is ingrained in their consciousness. In essence we will wait for them to come at us and arrest them. Law enforcement. Rather than taking the initiative and using some force to change the conditions of the Middle East, something that is difficult but not impossible.

What I keep hearing is that we should not attempt the difficult. It may be too much for us. We need to consider, weigh, and discuss, then develop a number of prioritized options. Then I guess we go to the Iranians, as the UN does, and ask them politely to not make any nuclear weapons. They say they won’t and we go back to considering, weighing, and discussing our prioritized options.

We are better off taking a more forward leaning stance until the enemy is willing to consider that they are not going to win. That we are not going to give up, or turn away until they say uncle. That’s called victory gentlemen. That’s how freedom is won. For ourselves and for others. Anything less is a Faustian bargain.

Eric, this is another Bash liberals thread. Frankly, the IAEA is doing much of our work for us, indicating they’re up to something funny. Let them pull together some support for us, some support for some sanctions.

By the way, the whole point of what they are saying in Iran, is that they are a nuclear state in terms of having reactors and facilities. They are denying an atomic weapons program on their part.

If we need to attack, then by God, let’s do so, but in the meantime, we are having to deal with another war entirely. If you wish to go into Iran, you will have to revive the draft. Otherwise, we don’t have the manpower to invade properly, thanks to your Iraqi wild goose chase. But if the threat is not eminent, we should put international pressure on these people, and arrange things so that if we do go to war, we aren’t up to our armpit in otherwise preventable problems.

Even if war is the final option, neglecting diplomacy will only end up forcing us to wage a war with one hand tied behind our back, just like we’ve been doing in Iraq.

Eric, your reply appears to me to reflect prejudice and partisan myopia. On this issue of Iran, I might be considered on the “left”, but, I tell you straight up, military action IS NOT OFF THE TABLE, by any means. Military action should be the last available means attempted, and I think it is safe to say that most folks on the Left feel the same way.

It is not born out by the facts of recent history that the left won’t put military action on the table. They did in Congress in granting Bush approval to invade Iraq, and at the time, more than 70% of the American people backed the action, meaning a very large number of left leaning folks backed it as well.

So get off the sweeping generalizations that lefties would rather be bombed dead than use military force to protect themselves, it just is not true by an abundance of evidence in the polls and in Congress.

You asked about the other Arab nations: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Arab Emirates come to mind. They have a vested interest in stabilizing their region especially where nuclear weapons are concerned. If there is a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, depending on the winds that day, it could be their own homes and backyards contaminated for years.

Your mixing concepts: What does ACLU have to do with national defense and defending against the global recession that would take place in the event of nuclear exchanges in the Middle East? This is hyperbole to the extreme.

You do yourself a great disservice to attribute such simple mindedness to Democrats like Biden and others in thinking they would ask Iran to stop and then go home and come up with something else if that doesn’t work. This rhetoric simply has no basis in fact. Please, provide a single quote from a single democrat in context that indicates the Democrats on the foreign relations committees would take such a simple minded approach.

It appears you believe we should play Goliath toward other nations that may have designs opposed to our interests first, and be polite afterward. There was a great and respected President named Truman who wielded the power of the office with a motto: Walk Softly but Carry a Big Stick. That is where most lefties are. We have the big stick. We have proven time and again in the last century and this, that we as a people have no reluctance in using that big stick when push comes to shove.

To Wield a big stick and talk softly afterwards is to invite Goliath’s David to seek us out, and bring the fighting home, since having wielded the big stick without warning, the vanquished have nothing to lose by bringing terrorist attacks to our own shores.

We need to be firm with Iran, but, as important, we need to demonstrate to Iran that such resolve is unified including Iran’s neighbors, the EU, Nato, and even the U.N. Security Council if that is possible. Unilateralism and preemptive war without having sought all other reasonable remedies first, will only lead to the creation of new enemies not even on the radar screen when hostilities commenced as well as reticence and reluctance on the part of our allies in supporting our cause.

P.S. Watch for the revised State Department report on Tuesday which will reveal Bush’s claim of our winning the war on terrorism as evidenced by reduced incidence of terrorism in 2003, is false. It is going to show our actions have increased terrorism, not decreased it. That is what Big Stick first policy brings with it.

Well, if you read The Age of Sacred Terror, you’ll know there is nothing unusual about Al Quaeda waiting years between their big attacks, and that a few years of “relative” peace means nothing as far as our vulnerability. These folks are not prone to trying to desperately prove themselves. They carried out 3/11 with the same precision they did 9/11, and they will do the same elsewhere.

Frankly, the last thing I need from this administration is talk about how they’re statistically reducing the attacks. True as it may be, it has only taken a few attacks in the last several years to cost thousands of lives world wide. These people are committed, and so must we be. We must not take false comfort in a reduction of the attacks.

Eric, you bash the hypothetical Kerry Administration for not having credible options on how to deal with a nuclear Iran.

But what about the existent Bush administration? What do you want them to do about nuclear Iran?

-Cf

Stephen,

By the way, the whole point of what they are saying in Iran, is that they are a nuclear state in terms of having reactors and facilities. They are denying an atomic weapons program on their part.

If we need to attack, then by God, let’s do so, but in the meantime, we are having to deal with another war entirely. If you wish to go into Iran, you will have to revive the draft. Otherwise, we don’t have the manpower to invade properly,

I don’t think we need to invade just yet. An intense bombrdment of all supected nuclear facilities would be appropriate. And let them know we will do it again if necessary.

…neglecting diplomacy will only end up forcing us to wage a war with one hand tied behind our back, just like we’ve been doing in Iraq.

Relying on diplomacy alone will be useless. No amount of words will dissuade them. We should however do what we can to rally the rest of the world to put every kind of pressure on the regime. I haven’t said we need to disregard diplomacy, only that the pace and nature of diplomacy is not sufficient in these cases where you have a dictatorial regime that is bent on getting nuclear weapons. A regime that is dedicated to and considers itself at war with us and Israel.

They aren’t thinking about the next five years, they’re thinking about the next thousand years. Allah will bring them dominion over the earth.

David,

If there is a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, depending on the winds that day, it could be their own homes and backyards contaminated for years.

What makes you think that their hatred for Israel and willingness to uphold anyone who dies destroying Israel as a martyr who goes straight to heaven will not allow them to suffer a few inconvenient deaths? We are not talking about democratic countries who must constantly worry about the opinion of their people to stay in power. The ‘finsl solution’.

What does ACLU have to do with national defense and defending against the global recession that would take place in the event of nuclear exchanges in the Middle East? This is hyperbole

Law enforcement David. The need for absolute evidence. The need for lengthy and dramatic procedures. The rabid opposition to the Patriot act. The accusations that Al Qaeda fighters rights are being violated by being detained at Guantanamo. Etc etc. I’m leaving on vacation right now or I’d look for some telling quotes. Remind me next week and I will.

Liberal solution to nuclear Iran? ‘Let’s talk about it.’

> I don’t think we need to invade just yet. An
> intense bombrdment of all supected nuclear
> facilities would be appropriate. And let them
> know we will do it again if necessary.

Eric, why is “intense bombrdment” an appropriate strategy for Iran - which we are absolutely sure has a more advanced nuclear program than Saddam did - while full-scale invasion was the appropriate strategy for Iraq?

Is it because we’ve learned our lesson that invasions don’t turn out so neatly as we might hope, or is it because our military is spread so thin that we simply can’t invade Iran?

-Cf

> Our forces are already at the doorstep of Iran.
> We will have a regional base of operations and
> or we can assist freedom fighters into the
> country from there.

What are you talking about? There are no “freedom fighters” in Iran. Iran is the most democratic nation in the entire Muslim world (which isn’t saying much, but the point is to draw a comparison with the Baathist regime under Saddam).

The people of Iraq aren’t as thankful as we thought they would be for our liberating invasion, and the “freedom fighters” we hoped for are, in fact, attacking us now. The people of Iran will be even less grateful for American liberation. Please, America, let’s not fool ourselves yet again about the difficulties of invasion.

-Cf

They aren’t thinking about the next five years, they’re thinking about the next thousand years. Allah will bring them dominion over the earth.

What makes you think that their hatred for Israel and willingness to uphold anyone who dies destroying Israel as a martyr who goes straight to heaven will not allow them to suffer a few inconvenient deaths?

Come on. The dictators in the Middle East are plenty interested in saving their own skins - they’re certainly not suicidal.

Law enforcement David. The need for absolute evidence. The need for lengthy and dramatic procedures. The rabid opposition to the Patriot act. The accusations that Al Qaeda fighters rights are being violated by being detained at Guantanamo. Etc etc. I’m leaving on vacation right now or I’d look for some telling quotes. Remind me next week and I will.

I’m always confused by conservatives’ attacks on the ACLU… the only criticism I hear can be summed up as “they fight too hard for Constitutional rights”…

Iran is the most democratic nation in the entire Muslim world…

That’d probably be Turkey, actually.

Eric, I know you don’t like to restrict yourself with issues of international law, but an unprovoked bombing campaign constitutes an act of war. What’s more, it’s an act of war with humanitarian consequences, both in terms of potential nuclear accidents, and in terms of generating capacity for the surrounding nation.

You don’t seem to be recognizing the character of my argument. Nowhere do I suggest that diplomacy alone will do the job. I’m saying that diplomacy is a vital part of our foreign policy toolbox.

A dictatorial regime may not submit to diplomacy, but the countries around them can be persuaded to make things more difficult for that recalcitrant country. Materials and machinery necessary for the infrastructure-heavy requirements of nuclear weapons development can be denied. Even if they do succeed in building the bomb, we can make it more difficult for them to make more of them.

As for their thinking, indications are that the Iranians are much more Geopolitical than they are mystical. It’s one thing to harbor the belief that these people aren’t worldly enough to be persuaded by our efforts. It’s another thing to not even try the range of coercements and compromises that might keep the hardliners in check, and allow the burgeoning pro-democracy counterculture to overwhelm and perhaps simply outlast the revolutionaries.

There’s an interesting passage in Against all Enemies which relates to the accidental shootdown of the Iranian airliner by the Vincennes around the time of the hostilities there. They were ready for Iran to attack us, to involve us in the Iran-Iraq war. What actually happened was that the Iranian government said it was ceasing the war, because it could not fight both Iraq and the United States and preserve the revolution. Why do I recount this?

Simple reason: it was not the act of a hardline, kill all Americans regime, but instead one of a geopolitically aware, pragmatic government interested in its own survival. It stands to reason that if the threat of their talibanization seems imminent, Iran may be willing to compromise. It would be better to have a subdued Iran which we can peel the nondemocratic elements from, than an Iran with a legitimate greivance to divide people against us with.

Law enforcement David. The need for absolute evidence. The need for lengthy and dramatic procedures. The rabid opposition to the Patriot act. The accusations that Al Qaeda fighters rights are being violated by being detained at Guantanamo. Etc etc. I’m leaving on vacation right now or I’d look for some telling quotes. Remind me next week and I will.

Liberal solution to nuclear Iran? ‘Let’s talk about it.’

Eric, few democrats begrudge the need for stronger anti-terrorists laws. What we begrudge are attempts to rewrite constitutional law without the ratification of the states and the voters. What we begrudge is that the Patriot act is filled with all kinds of provisions inserted to make sure that laws that people have rightfully rejected for year would be passed without much thought or reflection. What we begrudge is the lack of oversight and transparency about these processes that have been instituted.

We should not get into the business of rationalizing habitual torture of enemy combatants, and arbitrary breaches of due process for U.S. citizens. This country is not merely built on the good intentions of it’s citizens, but on the promises of fairness and justice granted by our constitution. That, in turn, makes sure that such intentions are both fulfilled, and also required to work as well in substance as in thought.

So what is the liberal solution to Iran? First we remind them of how much they have to lose, then we set about making sure that they do lose, with the penalties increasing the more they resist. All along the way, we leave them with ways out of the mess, ways they can both satisfy the hardliners, and do the right thing by us, ways that may seem on the surface to disadvantage us, but instead give us the advantage because of the way we have nuanced the agreement. In this way, we can work our will, without having to take on the costs of working it directly. Talk can be powerful when it motivates action. The right kind of talk can multiply the strength of an army. The wrong kind can ennervate it, emasculate it, put soldiers on the ground in a more hostile and miserable position. If war is about breaking an enemies will to fight and resist, it helps if there isn’t daylight between oneself, and one’s allies. It also helps if the frustration and confusion lies more with your enemy than with you or your allies. You make the mistake of thinking that diplomacy just means negotiating with an enemy. You should realize that it is negotiation itself, and the side of the conflict that can reach the best deals with those around it, and garner the best support will be the side that wins the easiest.

It is all well and good to pre-empt an enemy’s attack, but if one simply attacks anytime one feels threatened, we will soon have to make a choice between a retreat in shame, or a shameful compromise of our nation’s values. I’d rather not get to the point where we are so drunk on our own fear that we lose all sense of the good and righteous people we are suppose to be.

Someone wrote: “Frankly, the last thing I need from this administration is talk about how they’re statistically reducing the attacks.”

Actually, that claim was false, as Colon Powell stated on the talk shows this morning. The revised State Department report will actually show that the number of terrorist attacks rose in 2003.

That aside, one thing which is absent from this discussion is mention of the UN and Arab push for a nuclear weapon free zone in the middle east, which at the same time affirms the right of every nation to utilize nuclear power for civilian purposes. Of course, this would necessitate the removal of Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpiles as well as any that may be in the possession of or in production in Iran.

Charles, quite right. The official report is due out Tuesday, and it will show the Bush administration’s penchant for getting the stats and data wrong in their favor. Like job creation, yes jobs are being created but the unemployment rate is NOT going down. Hence, jobs creation is just keeping pace with new entrants into the job market, immigrants, new 18 year olds and college grads.

>> Iran is the most democratic nation in
>> the entire Muslim world…
>
> That’d probably be Turkey, actually.

Oops, I guess that’s true!

-Cf

Would a nuclear Iran stabilize or destabilize the middle east? Maybe the stinking mullas are lose cannons or maybe Israel will find a new respect for Arabs and stop massacaring civilians. The only sure bet is that if we meddle in Iran’s internal affairs, we will ruin millions of innocent Iranian lives. There are some things only the UN should tackle, Iraq, Iran and North Korea are among them. Even Shrub understands this now.

Bayviking, the UN tackle Iran and North Korea?
Are you serious? The same UN which illegally profiteered from Saddam’s food for oil program? Which took bribes? Which handed Bosnians over to the Serbs to be slaughtered and then fled from the gunfire, afraid to use their weapons?

The UN has not, in its entire history, ever successfully tackled a problem larger than arranging cheese plates at the posh New York City hotels where they meet to sip martinis, trash George Bush and discuss their lofty utopian ideals with emmisssaries from the world’s despots and kings. I believe you’re wrong if you think George Bush is anywhere near to handing over the defense of the free world to that Keystone Cops
operation.

The U.N.’s mission statement does not call for it to invade nations to set things right. It calls for the U.N. to step in under concensus, to keep the peace, or maintain the peace. Which is why they are referred to as ‘peacekeeping forces’.

It is up to the U.S. to invade nations and tell them how they should live and govern.

Martin, do you not think that the UN-sanctioned Persian Gulf war counts as a success? That was a perfect example of a type of purpose the UN is good at (building consensus for international action). Apparently it’s also a perfect example of how you and the current Bush Administration misunderstand that purpose.

-Cf

Iran either already has or will shortly have nuclear weapons. No peaceful condemnations or even sanctions will stop them.
Iran has missiles that can hit anywhere in the Middle East. They are developing two more missiles the latter of which will be able to hit the continental US.
The Iranians are the chief funders and exporters of terror in the world. Their doctrine is a radical Islam.
They are fanatic, determined and have strung the world along very well.
Only military action will stop them.
Military action is problematic also, and may lead to very damaging retaliation.
The Bush Administration apparently will wait until the horse is out of the barn. Sharon too may wait .
If that is the case the world is in deeper trouble than it is already- and believe me it is in very big trouble now.

Okay, Martin, how many problems has America solved, in terms of terrorism by unilateral action? Not Afghanistan, not Iraq. So far the Bush Doctrine hasn’t worked. It’s based on notions of good and evil to oversimplified to work in the real world. Your doctrine also depends on international acceptance and faith in our motives, an unrealistic proposition given our actions in the Cold War.

As for the UN not solving anything, I think that you should be reminded that the UN often follows America’s lead. Because of America’s policy toward dictators, it’s policy towards Iraq, and other things bad things have been allowed to continue. We could have put a stop to Rwanda, but we decided that fell outside of our interests, just as Sudan probably does now.

As for corruption, that’s a natural element of many governments. Power attracts many who who hope to make selfish gain. Ask Cheney about that. Ask Bush how he profited from eminent domain takeovers of people’s land around his ballpark. These acts should be hateful to us all. But you would throw out the baby with the bathwater. Your solution to corruption is similar to the military solution of destroying a village to save it. Expose the corrupt, shame them, but don’t let this world plunge into chaos again, just so America can fulfill the Bush Doctrine.

Martin,

#43 wants Brahimi in Iraq, after first insisting he would go it alone, by which he meant he would cannon fodder as he wants. The UN (like NATO & Congress) are weak, often corrupt decision makers (like any large bureacracy). But, rightly or wrongly, the world perceives us as bullies and resent being occupied. What the UN brings to the table is a perception of neutrality, which can bring peace, even though they cannot win a war.

This country has never seen such blatant corruption as promulgated by the Bush-Bush-Reagan-Nixon thugs. Many of #43’s personell, responsible for fraud and abuse of power, served and were indicted and pardoned under #41. Remember the S&Ls, BCCI, World-Com, Enron, Arthur-Anderson, Lay, Cheney, Negroponte, North, Baker, Rove and hundreds of others? These crooks have robbed the middle class blind, waged illegal wars, run drugs and weapons, traded arms for hostages in Iran to defeat Carter, illegally disrupted Democratic elections in Florida, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina and Venezula, pocketing billions along the way. Cheney and #41 got a 10% commission to rebuild Kuwait, while buying and selling from Hussien during sanctions. April Glaspie may have accidently or deliberately started the first Gulf War by telling Hussien that the US does not get involved in disputes between Arab States.

Indecisiveness and political infighting has also undermined the ability of the FBI, CIA, State Department, Immigration Department to fight terrorism, including three opportunities to prevent 9-11. Last night Front Line documented how the US Ambassador to Yemen and FBI prevented US agent O’Neil from performing a proper investigation after the Cole attack?

We cannot negotiate with binLaden but we need to look beyond military force to win the war on terrorism. Cheney and Sharon may want perpetual war, but we cannot afford it. If the US continues to go it alone, we will go broke, fighting $200 grenade launchers with $200 million helicopters. Total WWII cost was $304 billion (entire defense department budget) against two mighty industrial powers. Now stupid white crooks have spent $200 billion (Iraq alone) fighting a bunch of fanatics living in tents, with no end in sight. The public is so gullible that they haven’t figured out that privatization costs more, not less, as insider cronies allege. This is as true for electricity as it is war. Meanwhile offshoring jobs and tax scams continue to grow. Clinton policy forbade Corporations convicted of government fraud from bidding on any new contracts. Bush moved quickly to not only reverse that policy, but to dispense with bidding altogether! What can we clean up first, UN corruption or our own country?

Now, they’re amassing troops on the Iraqi border on the pretense of stepping in if a U.S. Withdrawal creates a “security vaccuum.”

So, I have to ask myself, “What would Jacques Chirac do?”

Stephen, I don’t believe there has been a baby in the bathwater of the UN since at least the 1970s. Or perhaps there have been a lot of babies—Rosemary’s babies, the likes of Saddam, Castro Khaddafi, Arafat and the myriad other tyrants who get their protection and succor from the UN.

The US’s attempts to use the UN for international cover have been nothing but disasters. The reason we had to draw Gulf War I to an early close and not deliver Saddam the knockout punch was fear of offending the UN. Ther result was ten years of sanctions and probably over a million Iraqi deaths. The reason we excessively stressed WMD as our reason (among many others) for finishing off Hussein was Powell and Blair’s misguided desire for a UN resolution that was never going to happen because UN officials were too interested in getting rich off Saddam’s blood money, and Russia an France wanted to keep their fat oil contracts while Hussein kept murdering his people. An organization which bestows legitimacy through the benevelonce of such actors as Syria, China, Iran, Russia, the Sudan, France, etcetera, is nothing but a sorry joke—one that would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

Cheney and his Iraqi Oil Spoils Map Cronies were the intended beneficaries of a war paid for with innocent American and Iraqi blood. It ain’t gonna happen now, but Haliburton’s doing fine.

#41 believed Iraq would be more of a mess than we could handle (correctly), because his advisors told him so. This means he conducted fact finding meetings with Secretaries of State and other experts, like Clarke. #43 just gets a nod from Rove or Cheney, prays and then stages scripted meetings or tells Powell about “Iraq Attack” after first informing Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandor.

Who got all the profits from massive short selling of American and United Airlines just prior to 9-11 and why won’t the White House or SEC investigate? The murder investigation of 2800 people trumps privacy laws. Could it be the Iranians, Saudis or the Carlyle Group? The public deserves to know. During Watergate, deep throat’s advise was always “follow the money”.

> The reason we had to draw Gulf War I to an
> early close and not deliver Saddam the
> knockout punch was fear of offending the
> UN.

That’s not the reason Bush 41 and Colin Powell and Dick Cheney gave when they explained their reasons, at least not nearly the only reason. (Were they lying?) They said they thought that it would lead to, well, precisely the chaotic mess we find our world in today. They realized that Saddam was beaten and that he was unlikely to be a threat worthy of creating the kind chaotic mess that Bush 43 has unleashed.

> The reason we excessively stressed WMD as our
> reason (among many others) for finishing off
> Hussein was Powell and Blair’s misguided desire
> for a UN resolution…

Awesome, a totally-new excuse! “The UN forced Bush to force Colin Powell to lie to the American People about WMDs!” I thought we’d heard them all, but this one’s great, truly inventive. Thanks Martin!

-Cf

To overstress it, Christopher. Something is not a lie if you have every reason to believe it’s true. And actually, the bulk of the evidence—for example, um, finding a WMD in Iraq—suggests that it was true.

Okay, you’re right, let’s just leave it with your fine selection of words: “excessively stressed WMD”.

-Cf

Any forceful action requires a rationale, if one is demanded of you, and my point is that you tailor you rationale to fit your audience. When your audience is passive and obstinate, this can lead to problems later on.

Q: Why do you want to want to send in the SWAT Team?

A: The gunman has killed hostages.

Q: Not good enough.

A: Well, he says he’s going to kill more. In fact, we can hear gunfire now.

Q: Not good enough.

A: Well, he has a bomb. He did have one, and his accomplices say it’s true.

Q: Well, all right then. But don’t scratch the paint or scuff the carpet on your way in, and if you don’t show me that bomb later—and brother, it had better be a big one—then you lied. YOU LIED and there’s going to be hell to pay.

Eric, why is “intense bombrdment” an appropriate strategy for Iran - which we are absolutely sure has a more advanced nuclear program than Saddam did - while full-scale invasion was the appropriate strategy for Iraq?

Is it because we’ve learned our lesson that invasions don’t turn out so neatly as we might hope, or is it because our military is spread so thin that we simply can’t invade Iran?

That’s a good question Christopher. Invasion is not appropriate right now for several reasons. One we are still busy in Iraq. Two, there is a sizable democracy movement in Iran which we should be providing moral and material support to. We should follow Reagan’s excellent example in Eastern Europe for fostering democracy and an aiding democratic movements.

We didn’t just decide to invade Iraq out of the blue Chris. We are talking about a decade of provacations and failure to abide by the Gulf War ceasefire. Saddam was not living up to his agreement with us or the UN. He fired at our planes, which were protecting his people from him. He tried to assasinate a US president. He was harboring and funding terrorist organizations and terrorists.

Now we have confirmation from Russia about Saddam’s terrorist intentions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein’s regime was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.

Putin, who opposed Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into detail about the information that was forwarded, and said Russia had no evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks. -wapost

We cannot wait until Iran has a nuclear bomb before deciding we need to deal with them.

Stephen,

So what is the liberal solution to Iran? …we leave them with ways out of the mess, ways they can both satisfy the hardliners, and do the right thing by us, ways that may seem on the surface to disadvantage us, but instead give us the advantage because of the way we have nuanced the agreement.

Here’s the problem with the liberal solution. You have spelled it out quite nicely. What you see as a sly nuance giving them ‘apparent’ advantage but in your mind the real victory is basically appeasement diplomacy. They are not the enemy to be defeated but a misguided bunch who just need the benefit of our ‘nuance’. Liberal solutions are hollow precisely because they purport to not have a cost beyond mere words.

In this way, we can work our will, without having to take on the costs of working it directly. Talk can be powerful when it motivates action. The right kind of talk can multiply the strength of an army.

Sure, Chamberlain’s peace in our time seemed on the face of it to give Hitler the advantage but what did it cost us in men and money? You get what you pay for. This is the difference between the hollow ideology of the left and the hard truth. You don’t defeat the enemy by giving them apparent advantage. You will only embolden them with your Kerry-style diplomacy.

Bayviking,

Would a nuclear Iran stabilize or destabilize the middle east? …maybe Israel will find a new respect for Arabs and stop massacaring civilians. …There are some things only the UN should tackle, Iraq, Iran and North Korea are among them. Even Shrub understands this now.

Sounds alot like the words of Charles Lindbergh.

He did not see the conflict as basically a war for democracy or morality. He was skeptical of the ideology and moral righteousness of the British and French. He conceived of morality in international affairs as relative to time, place, circumstances, and power. His approach was, in effect, more understanding of the Germans (without approving of what they did) and more skeptical of the Allies than the conventional view in the United States. -charleslindburgh.com

Christopher,

Martin, do you not think that the UN-sanctioned Persian Gulf war counts as a success?

UN troop’s pushed Saddam’s army out of Kuwait?

Stephen,

Okay, Martin, how many problems has America solved, in terms of terrorism by unilateral action? Not Afghanistan, not Iraq. So far the Bush Doctrine hasn’t worked.

You have to be kidding me.

Eric:

Thanks for the interesting Lindburgh quote. He was of course wrong, because the axis powers were so strong. If Saddam Hussien were ever strong I would have to retract my statement.