you're gonna hate me, but unless I'm provoked again (which is probable) I think I'm done with this now....
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-23 20:22:12 +0000
For sake of the thread, can we please keep these things seperate?
"Id be happy to seperate threads, do you have an alternate suggestion as to how I should've posted my opinion on the Iraq war?"
How about here, and let's not discuss Sept. 11th in this thread...
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 20:53:50 +0000
Dawn: What was the title of the other thread? It was It's The War In Iraq, stupid
... No?
I proceeded to give my opinion of the Iraq war there. I may certainly may have missed Terrry's mark of taking generally about what the key campaign issues are going to be in the twilight (thank God!!!) of this election race, But I feel it is pretty reasonable to make a post like the one I did in a thread with that subject title.
I guess my first post in this thread meant: I just told you what I thought of Iraq, maybe erroneously in the last thread, so, while I appreciate the sentiment, I dont feel like I have anything new to contribute...
Sorry I am cranky and tired right now...
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 21:00:45 +0000
I forgot the 'keep 9/11 out of it' motif. that's fine: but Bush DID say 2 or 3 days afterward that it did mark a new era of how we go about trying to fight the increasing trend of global terrorism.
I have no flippin clue what country was related to which terrorists in 9/11 - and I am not insinuiating an Iraq Al Qaeda connection.
But how is it unclear that the war in Iraq is an extension of trying to reduce terrorism and merciless dictators like Sadaam, who Kerry himself was quoted in the news the other day as wishing him his own special place in Hell?
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-23 21:15:57 +0000
I believe the breakdown of the 19 was:
14 Saudis, 2 Syrians, 2 Palestinians, 1 Egyptian with about 95% of funding coming from Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The majority of the training was done in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"But how is it unclear that the war in Iraq is an extension of trying to reduce terrorism and merciless dictators like Sadaam."
Wow, I have never heard it put so awkwardly and bluntly as this. No wonder a majority of the people think Sadaam was behind Sept. 11th. Our media had a lot of explaining to do. I'm really depressed.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 21:54:05 +0000
I never said Sadaam had anything to do with 9/11. How are you assuming I would say so?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-23 21:54:48 +0000
p.s. forgive my ignorance: what is the 19???
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 00:24:01 +0000
The 19 is the 19 terrorist who carried out the Sept. 11th attacks.
I answer:
"I never said Sadaam had anything to do with 9/11. How would you assume I said so."
with:
"But how is it unclear that the war in Iraq is an extension of trying to reduce terrorism and merciless dictators like Sadaam, who Kerry himself was quoted in the news the other day as wishing him his own special place in Hell?"
I guess I thought you were being straight here. It's hard to pick up on sarcasm on a board. Sorry...
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 01:04:07 +0000
I was being straight - I'm not suggesting that there is ANY connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
My argument is that insurgents or no, Iraq is a better place without a brutal dictator like Sadaam and that brutal dictators like Sadaam can contribute to the decline of global security. If Germany and France and other nations in the UN that dont support us, fine. Its not really that surprising that they wouldn't as it is a difficult process to try to help the Iraqi people vote for their own government. If it was easy, we'd have lots more fair weather friends looking to help out.
Do I disagree with Bush's tactics in Iraq? Absolutely.
But we are already IN Iraq. Removing everyone and only going after the SPECIFIC 9/11 threat posed from Al Qaeda is short-sighted and not the eventual goal of trying to rid the world of those who will intimidate any government or organization with violence if they don't get their way.
Here is where I would love to drop WSJ stuff, but I will make sure others would be interested and that it would be more than just pure post inflation on my part. I'll leave that for Mike F and Terry (joke).
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 01:47:12 +0000
I don't think Kerry is advocating cutting and running. A four year time table for total withdrawal isn't exactly leaving everyone defenseless. For better or for worse we are stuck in Iraq for the forseeable future, a quagmire if there ever was one. I reiterate that Bush's and Kerry's plan for a stable Iraq are essentially the same.
I can see the argument that based on an imminent threat, the US might want to act forcibly to remove that threat, knowing how easy it is to attack the centers of American power using asymmetrical warfare.
But, with hindsight, we see there was never a threat from WMDs and Saddam Hussein's collusion with Islamo-Facists. I'd go so far as to say with foresight there was never a threat. In fact, we're damn lucky there are no WMDs in Iraq because we sure as hell haven't done a good job of securing the country.
The known existence of nuclear materials in Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan and Russia pose a greater current threat. The expenditure of money and lives, and the continued need for American security in Iraq has kept the U.S. from increasing the security measures at home that would actually keep Americans safer. It's also distracted from the real need for trying to broker a peace deal between the Isrealis and Palestinians. That thorn continues to agitate the region and is one of the prime motivators of our foes.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 02:41:42 +0000
I'm a little confused, because I think rladew holds that we are safer with the current situation in Iraq, than before. I do not think so, and the CIA said we are not last week. They gave the old Kissenger outlook of: 1) things will stay the same 2) things will get a little worse 3) things will get much worse.
I don't believe anyone, including Bush and Cheney, believe the world is better off with Iraq the way it is, though they have to say they do, because they refuse to admit it when they're wrong. It is a terrorist breeding ground with criminals pouring into the country, trying to kill Americans, and getting paid $100 to $150 to throw pipe bombs at US troops. Even, Al Qaeda is there now. If you thought things were bad under Sadaam....
Secondly,
"Removing everyone and only going after the SPECIFIC 9/11 threat posed from Al Qaeda is short-sighted and not the eventual goal of trying to rid the world of those who will intimidate any government or organization with violence if they don't get their way."
Why not invade Iran, N. Korea, and Syria? How about next week? No, that's not the way to do this, and the Army, Navy, and Air force agree. We need to do this one stage at a time, and not spread ourselves thin. If we had sent 100,000 troops to Afghanistan, instead of 10,000, we would be in a much stronger position to stop terrorism. Military leaders Powell, Franks, and Sanchez all want and wanted small confined targets.
Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq because there were "good targets." Well, I suppose we got our target, but we have made the world less safe....
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 02:59:37 +0000
I don't really agree with "less safe". I definitely don't agree with "more safe". If "less safe" means that with the distraction of Iraq, we are less able to handle all the other threats, than sure.
The world continues to be a dangerous place. The insurgents in Iraq are anti-American, sure, but they/re not into perpetrating acts within the U.S. That's one fallacy I can't stand by: that we're attracting terrorists to Iraq. I don't think so. We're creating terrorists out of everyday Iraqis. They want us out. When we do get out, we'll still be left with the burgeoning ranks of al-Qaeda in places like Pakistan, Iran, Britain, here at home, etc.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 03:03:26 +0000
[quote:1a0f8b20cb]They want us out.[/quote:1a0f8b20cb]
Who is They here? Ill say it again: some elections are better than no elections, we can endlessly argue about what are the correct tactical decisions, but can we ultimately agree that freedom for human beings is generally a better condition than that of dictatorship or tyranny? Maybe not... but Im just trying to find some common ground here...
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 03:15:16 +0000
"They" are Iraqis.
I don't disagree that Iraqis, in the future, are better off without Saddam Hussein. Right now it's a mess. I sincerely hope for a democratic Iraq.
Let's be realistic though, if we held an election in the U.S. and some portions of NYC, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle and L.A. were not allowed to vote because it's too dangerous to send in election workers.... Is that really a democratic process? Would the denizens of these disenfranchised areas really be interested in going along with the this "elected" government. I say this realizing that not everyone in Najaf, Fallujah, Sadr City, Bazra, etc. are responsible for the insurgencies.
Agreeing that freedom is better of then tyranny; Is that why we are in Iraq? At the moment, that's about the only plausible reason (Forgetting, of course, the 10 or so enduring military bases and the effect Iraqi oil will have on destabilizing OPEC). Here's to hopin' for a democratic N. Korea, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, D.R. Congo and the rest.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 03:37:05 +0000
[quote:a55ebe02d1]I don't disagree that Iraqis, in the future, are better off without Saddam Hussein. Right now it's a mess. I sincerely hope for a democratic Iraq.[/quote:a55ebe02d1]
Well at least, we both seem to want the same outcome! That's the common ground that I was looking for...
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 03:38:55 +0000
BTW: we cant stop world hunger, poverty etc. but we can focus on one problem at a time to make progress...
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 03:55:10 +0000
We agree on the best outcome. My question to you: Is a democratic Iraq the sole reason we're there?
That's not what the bill of sale lists. We were told of WMDs, terrorists colluding with Saddam, and the imminent threat of dirty nuclear weapons on the subways of NY.
This is what rankles: Imagine G.W. in front of the American people saying, "We need regime change in Sudan because the people of Sudan desire freedom from tyranny." He'd be laughed off the stage.
The neocons who lusted after this engagement saw flowers of democracy blossoming throughout the region, one less ally to the Palestinians and pressure on OPEC to keep oil prices down. Instead of a debate on the merits of this adventurism, we were told to take this war because Iraq posed an imminent threat. After Sept. 11, 2001, it seemed to some the wisest course of action was to swallow this cod liver oil. Right now, the remedy doesn't taste so sweet.
Now, on top of the hand waving, it's totally apparent that the people who believed most adamantly in waging this war are the same people who completely fucked up it's implementation.
Whoa. Excuse my french. Can you understand my anger?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 04:11:47 +0000
I can certainly understand yr anger. I see we both want the same thing, I know the 'bill of sale' was bigger than democracy in Iraq, but say for the sake of argument we are succesful in this mission (and I know its a big if) We will have fostered a positive relationship and positive ally in Iraq.
I personally find Kerry's strategy of a quick exit in Iraq to focus only specifically on Al Qaeda too narrow. I know this sounds big and bullying and can be misconstrued as "vote for us or else", but if terrorist groups and crazed dictators around the globe see that there are big time consequences to assaulting America, we will make it more difficult for common people everywhere to be mired in systems that dont respect freedom and democracy.
Bush took a risk. Did it work great? Hell no. But he was willing to take a risk (which Kerry supported at the time) and he stuck by his convictions. I'm willing to give it some more time instead of hastily changing gears and backing down. I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but there's my honest opinion.
Ok boys, come and get me :)
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 11:08:50 +0000
Realization: there are people in this country who believe that Iraq posed a threat to them. I know about the polls saying people believed this, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (still) repeating it, but since I've never read or seen anything credible suggesting it, and I hang with a fairly educated crowd, I always knew.
I could go on about why we really went into Iraq and patronize the conspiracy Gods, yet I realize energy should be spent on recognizing that Bush's refusal to talk truthfully about Iraq is the reason he should be voted out. Simply have a reporter ask Bush why he thought Iraq posed a threat, and when he talks about Kerry flip-flopping, ask him again. And when he says he's already answered that question, say "for the record what was your answer." Will some reporter have the integrity to ask for answers from their government? Please?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 12:35:51 +0000
[quote:3384e54ec8]and I hang with a fairly educated crowd, I always knew.[/quote:3384e54ec8]
None of the following is meant as an attack or to anger you Dawn, I do wish to continue our discourse. That being said, I did have a quick response, question to yr last post:
So when you disagree with the other viewpoint, you call (not directly, but at least suggest) them uneducated? I'll admit I have a lot to learn about government, politics, and how American society works in general, but please try and make your views known in such a way where it doesnt insinuate that you are "smarter" than the opposing viewpoint. Just because someone sees something differently than you do doesn't make you and your friends more educated. I feel like this goes back to the post on how we were talking about that Democrats would rather be "correct" or "justified" by taking some kind of unverifiable moral high road than actually being in office.
Said in my best Fredo Corleone voice "Why dont you trust me with the family business Michael? I'm SMAHT!"
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 13:09:54 +0000
I argue that "Iraq did not threat the USA" is not a view point. It is fact. I am fully aware of different kinds of intelligent, but if I think Iraq is a threat, and you know it is not, aren't you more educated than me?
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 14:00:17 +0000
Of course there should be serious consequences for attacking the U.S. One of the reasons for my agitation that we haven't necessarily rained down these consequences on al-Qaeda. In fact, since the Administration started planning the Iraq War on Sept. 12, 2001 we delayed action in Afghanistan for up to 2 months and when we did go in with ground troops, we held back, reserving resources for the Iraq War. If you want to talk about enforcing rules to change behaviors, then where is the cause-and-effect of planning, financing, and executing an attack on the centers of American power?
Making an example of Saddam Hussein has not decreased the chances that al-Qaeda will attempt another attack on the U.S. It hasn't decreased global acts of terror.
What's wrong with being concerned with al-Qaeda? Aren't these the people that want to do us harm? Sure, Saddam Hussein didn't particularly like us, but all the evidence leading up the the Iraq War is that he had no interest in launching an attack on American soil.
A deomocratic Iraq may help quiet the cauldron that is the Middle East. However, you need to be able to provide security to the Iraqi people if you even want to dare consider hoping that might happen in the next 10 years. Again: The people who wanted this war the most are the same people responsible for not executing it properly. This deserves a pat on the the back and another four years?
rladew is for global response to the terror threat that aims to show the U.S. as the hyperpower on the world stage. Is that rational that we really scare people, then the terrorists will stop? How is that different than the tactics that al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq are using?
If, after some time, al-Qaeda is still hijacking planes, planting bombs on trains and the like... Do we invade another country?
rladew sees Kerry's quick exit strategy and I see a plan for withdrawal after four years. What's not jiving here?
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 15:59:44 +0000
[quote:204248a567]How is that different than the tactics that al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq are using?[/quote:204248a567]
Because in 15 out of 18 provinces (is that the correct term? provinces? I could certainly be wrong here...) Democratic elections are already supported.
al Qaeda would rather fly planes into buildings and Insurgents support the Baath party whose agents would go into villagers homes and rape their women while their husbands and children watched. If you want to compare our American troops and our American military to these folks, be my guest. I happen to disagree, though.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 18:52:52 +0000
Ok, then how are they different?
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 19:19:34 +0000
Do you mean that 15 of 18 provinces in Iraq currently support democratic elections? Where is the source, I'd like to know more about this.
I don't doubt the intentions of American soldiers. As we've previously agreed upon, war is hell. The threat of war is made with the intent of intimidating an opponent with fear. al-Qaeda and the U.S. are both saying, "Do as we say or fear our wrath."
We're all using fear, al-Qaeda with hijacked airliners, Baathists with rape gangs, Iraqi Nationalists (for lack of a better term) with car bombs, the U.S. with the B-2 and armored Bradley.
We can argue over which tool is most morally justfied, but they are all being wielded in the same manner.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-24 21:12:22 +0000
Maybe not "morally justified" but "morally palpable".
al-Qaeda targeted civilians, true. Any country wishing to wage a pre-emptive war needs to consider the hard fact that innocent civialians will be killed, regardless of precautions. I know it's not the U.S. _intention_ to kill civilians, but they do get killed. That whole 2 wrongs thing again...
Not only have ~13,000 Iraqis been killed (sorry, don't know the break down between civilians/uniformed military/insurgents), but the situation in Iraq is only getting worse. It's 300 Iraqi deaths a month, for the forseeable future.
Posted by rladew on 2004-09-24 21:39:03 +0000
[quote:7b9439fd60]Ok, then how are they different?[/quote:7b9439fd60]
Please clarify how I didn't answer this question already. The following is the same response I made already with more backup from both yesterday's current events and info I read in yesterday's NYT (verbatim text of speech) [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/international/middleeast/TEXT-ALLAWI.html[/url] and WSJ Review and Outlook 9/24/04 sec A14 (sorry no link... get thee to a public library!!!)
The United States has helped to insure, as verified yesterday by interim Iraqi Minister Ayad Allawi's address to US Congress that Iraq has met its January deadline for a provisional / interim constitution, has met its goal of a scheduled June transfer of power, and has also met an August deadline for an Iraq national confrence.
Did Al Qaeda or Insurgents help the Iraqi people, or did the American military? that's how the American military is different than Al Qaeda or the Insurgents.
Allawi yesterday said to Congress that he is confident that 15 of 18 Iraq provinces (yes that is correct, provinces, I looked it up) will agree to meeting a mandate for elections in January.
Some elections are better than no elections, and it has also been noted by Allawi that former trouble Insurgency spots like Samarra, and Najaf have vastly improved despite how, in his words, major media "lost interest and left"
So, yes. terrible shit is going down in Fallujah, but meanwhile, the village of Wynot outside of Tikrit had succesful city council elections last week (the same day most mass media was bitching and moaning about CBS and the guard and Bush and Kerry and blah blah blah). So not all of the good news is being reported here.
The other statement I happen to agree with also came from the WSJ A14 page today...
>>>>>>"Having described the US allies who liberated Iraq as a 'coalition of the bribed' Mr. Kerry now insults the Iraqis he'd be working with if he becomes President">>>>>>>>>
I can see why Mr. Kerry would want to discredit Allawi, but if its democracy Kerry would ultimately hope for in Iraq arguing against Mr. Allawi's plans to have elections in January could be an unwise political strategy for him.....
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-24 23:00:11 +0000
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/allawi_9-23.html
I note the questions under the "Removal of Saddam Hussein."
JIM LEHRER: What would you say to somebody in the United States who questions whether or not getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the cost of more than a thousand lives now and billions and billions of U.S. dollars?
PRIME MINISTER IYAD ALLAWI: Well, I assure you if Saddam was still there, terrorists will be hitting there again at Washington and New York, as they did in the murderous attack in September; they'll be hitting also on other places in Europe and the Middle East.
There's plenty more on this guy. You are allowed to believe that Awalli has any credibilty, but with his sovereignty dictated by Bush the US embassy, it doesn't hold up in this debate.
Posted by tgl on 2004-09-25 00:15:59 +0000
I was trying to compare the modus operandi of Islamic terrorists, Iraqi insurgents and current U.S. foreign policy. Namely, that violence and the threat of violence are the primary tactics. This is why I disagree with the current strategy of U.S. foreign policy.
I don't doubt the advances in some areas of Iraq, and American soldiers involvement in making those advances. January is a long time off. Whoever wins on Nov. 2, it'll be interesting to see what Bush does in places like Najaf, Fallujah, Basra, etc.
Does a province count as "holding an election" if the residents of it's major cities don't have access to the polls? I should look that up.
I still don't have an answers on:
It's pretty obvious we've pulled back from Afghanistan, never actually went in full bore, either, to focus on Iraq. What about the big time consequences for those that actually are responsible for the attacks on the U.S.?
What if a democratic Iraq is 10 years out? How are we safer from Islamic Fundamentalist attacks in that scenario?
Everybody is on the same page here that we can't afford a failed state in Iraq. What is it about Kerry's plan to prepare Iraqis to provide security for themselves and target four years as the withdrawal period that comes across as "cut and run"?
Posted by tgl on 2008-04-07 20:53:50 +0000
Poem: "We Bring Democracy To The Fish" by Donald Hall, from White Apples and the Taste of Stone. (c) Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007. Reprinted with permission.
We Bring Democracy To The Fish
It is unacceptable that fish prey on each other.
For their comfort and safety, we will liberate them
into fishfarms with secure, durable boundaries
that exclude predators. Our care will provide
for their liberty, health, happiness, and nutrition.
Of course all creatures need to feel useful.
At maturity the fish will discover their purposes.
(not reprinted with permission)