Joe DeFuria said:
Ballsy? How so?
Ballsy is actually committing troops to expel an oppressive regime, rid that country of WMD, and at the same time committing financaial resources, and humanitarian aid the oppressed people.
That's ballsy because there is great risk involved in doing so.
What risk is Indonesia taking by threatining to bring the coalition up on war crimes? Certainly not any risk of backlash from the majority of the "Arab Street."
Looks about as far from ballsy as you can get, IMO.
Ballsy considering the US is the dominant power in the world, financially and militarily.
And please. Committing our troops to Iraq is not ballsy at all. The military strength of this country is completely unparalleled. We could level that nation in a few days if we chose to. So no, I see nothing 'ballsy' about committing troops to Iraq.
I consider it stupid without significant allied help.
Joe DeFuria said:
And people honestly think that this will have no repercussions on our relations around the world.
What people think that?
There's a difference, you know, between thinking that there will be no repercussions, and whether or not people believe that any negative repercussions are outweighed by our successful actions.
You know it's funny. The link from The Onion that I posted a few days ago about the two differing sides of this war-debate fit you so perfectly.
"Everything will be fine. You're worrying too much. All those doomsday issues you talked about? Bah. Everything will be fine. All our good will come out in the end. All our negative crap will be outweighed by the good. Everything will be fine. Shut up already. Everything will be fine."
Damn pie-in-the-sky people.
Joe DeFuria said:
The sad thing is, technically they'd have an argument.
And naturally, we have an argument too of course.. Just like 99.9% of every other case that might go to trial. Both sides, "technially" have some argument. On our side, for example, Iraq never having lived up to the terms of the cease fire it signed. (Cease fire for war that WAS sanctioned by the U.N.)
Where would we have an argument? We certainly did not have definitive evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs. All I could see from Powell's presentation were a few trucks rolling from one place to another. There was no "smoking gun" found during the inspections that would justify sending 300,000 troops into Iraq.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I truly believe Saddam was really complying with the UN, but no case was definitively made either that he was in breach.
And I know what you're thinking. "Well, we should take him out before he has a chance to use his weapons against us."
That kind of pre-emptive talk would historically justify a lot of things Joe. Pearl Harbor being one of them.
Joe DeFuria said:
It's crap like this that a good diplomatic plan could have avoided.
On the other hand, going after, for example, Al Queada and terrorists several years ago based on evidence of their involvement in the WTC bombing, embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc....we may have been able to avoid 9/11.
Uhm, big difference. We *knew* and had conclusive evidence that Al-Qaeda was behind the WTC bombing in 94, the embassy bombing in Kenya, the USS cole disaster. Why? Because they took responsibility for those actions right after they occured. We *knew* without a shadow of a doubt that they were guilty.
So that would have been a justifiable use of force. Considering we knew the Taliban housed Al-Qaeda, we could have gone after them. Unfortunately, Clinton did not do so, save for a few goddamned Cruise Missiles.
Joe DeFuria said:
Lucky for us this administration has shown a complete lack of one over the past year.
Last time I checked, diplomacy involves at least 2 or more parties. That is, when there is "diplomatic failure", it is inherently the "fault" of more than one side. You might have a case if the U.S. was indeed "alone" in its decision, but clearly that is not the case.
Two differing sides could not reach agreement, and yet somehow, you lay blame on the current administration.
You don't go to someone, threaten them, and expect them to not harbor some resentment later on when you ask them for a favor.
For *months* before we actually went to the UN, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were all saying publically "We have no need for the UN. It's old Europe. It's archaic. We're strong enough to do it ourselves," etc etc etc. Finally Powell convinced them to go to the UN, but then you have Rumsfeld coming out the very next day saying stuff like "We're going to go into Iraq, whether the UN likes it or not."
I mean sheesh. Talk about piss poor diplomatic skills. If you asked your wife to do something, and she kept whining and moaning and complaining and just generally being a bitch about it, but finally after a week or so, she caved in and said "Fine fine. I'll do it. Whatever. Goddamnit," would you really want to work with her on that anymore?
The presentation for this war was piss poor. Even those who support the war because they believe that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator (there have been such things as 'good' dictators. hehe) and needs to go (I'm one of those people) take great umbrage with the way this administration handled the diplomatic situation.
We didn't have to piss off 99% of the world to get done what we need to do. We also didn't have to threaten and bribe the other 1% of the world (Mexico was threatened directly by Bush himself on national television if they didn't vote our way in the security council, and we attempted to bribe Turkey)
Joe DeFuria said:
Not that we don't expect anything else from you, Natoma...
Oh please Joe. It would be mighty convenient for you if I was just completely anti-war no matter what. But frankly I'm not. As I've stated in every case, I do think Saddam needs to go, but the way this has been done has potentially irrevocably damaged our interests on the world stage. There's a fantastic Businessweek article (page 27 - 28) called "Lest we forget: No Economy is an Island" that deals with how this administration's unilateralism could potentially bite us in the ass. It's the April 7th Issue. Here are a few quotes.
But there is a new issue in the outlook. Whether the war is short or long, at its end the White House must either repair its political relations around the world, especially in Europe, or face the economic consequences of its unilateral way of thinking.
<snip>
No industrial nation needs increased globalization and its multilateral trade benefits as much as the U.S. does. The U.S. has long consumed far more than it produces. The widening trade gap has been financed in part by foreigners lending the U.S. money by buying American assets. As a result, the U.S. has racked up a net foreign debt of about $3 Trillion, nearly the size of the German and French economies combined. this puts America in a position in which it must export more, while also remaining highly dependant on foreign lending as a source of capital. Against those imperatives, unilateral policy is economic suicide.
<snip>
The increasing urgency of America's growing external debt and its pressure on the dollar was evident in the fourth-quarter current account deficit, which showed a quarterly gap of $136.9 Billion. At an annual rate, that's a record 5.2% of gross domestic product, an unsustainable trend, even given the U.S.'s high productivity, favorable cost structure, and powerful position in the world. Also, deficits of that size accruing to only one country create a threat to global economic stability.
<snip>
For all of 2002, the U.S. payout of investment income exceeded receipts by $5.4 Billion, the first such deficit ever and a sharp reversal from the previous year's $20.5 billion surplus. This essentially represents the cost of servicing the external debt, and its growth is now adding its own weight to the current account gap. Worse still, the burden is growing at a time when interest rates are exceptionally low. As interest rates rise in an economic recovery, so will this cost.
<snip>
Of course, the edge won't matter if the U.S. companies don't get a chance to increase their exports. Globalization is one of those 21st century catchphrases that can mean many things, but its economic bottom line is the promotion of greater foreign trade. Global markets must be open to American-made goods. That condition is crucial to the long-run health of the U.S. economy. And it's something the White House needs to keep in mind during its postwar fence-mending.
But of course Joe, to people like you, anyone who dares question this Adminstration is unpatriotic, worthy of a
, pro-saddam, anti-american, etc etc etc.
It's people like me who question our government and our policies that do more for this country than those who simply tow the company line and never ask questions or think about the ramfications of unbridled usage of force and intimidation around the world. *cough*
