The wisdom of Rumsfeld

[Natoma]

By saying we should attack Saudi Arabia, I am pointing out the very fallacy of the argument that we should attack countries who are cruel to their people and are generally "very bad".

No, you're saying that you're greedy with your freedom and aren't willing to share it.

Actually, strike that, you're trying to use a strawman to show that the policy of deposing despotic leaders is a bad one, simply because Saudi Arabia presents the little problem of being the "holy land" for the Islamic World, who tend to be, overwhelmingly, despotic. You know its not feasable, so you use it as an obvious example.

I never said that deposing despotic leaders is a bad one. However when that policy is predicated on pre-emption based on infallible evidence that shows a building imminent threat to this country, and that intelligence and its use turns out to be flawed, that is where I have the problem.

Iraq is better now without Saddam. Does that justify the blatant misuse of intelligence and lying by the administration to increase support for war? Most certainly not.

"Next you'll say North Korea, why don't we invade north korea?". Well, again, they present their own tiny little problems (like a huge ass military poised to destroy one of the largest economies in Asia). Again, it isn't feasable, and you know it.

And you'll say all this simply because you are greedy with your freedom.

edit: clarity.

Not greedy at all with my freedom. But I damn well want to know where our troops are being sent and why. And I damn well want to know why the "why" turned out to be completely false and in some cases fabricated completely.

 

[DemoCoder]

If the administration had simply said they wanted to despose Saddam because the middle east needs an Arab democracy, would you have supported it?


I think Iraq was the wrong choice from a cost-benefit standpoint. Jordan, Lebanon, and Libya seem to be on the road to modernizing now, and with help, could have become constitutional democracies, perhaps with alot of bilateral trade agreements and other carrots and sticks.

Likewise, putting all our efforts into Afghanistan would have been better. Afghanistan is an area where I feel we were justified in attacking (it wasn't preemptive), and where other countries are contributing NATO forces.

Like I said months ago, I like the outcome of the war, but I feel it has damaged our credibility too much and blew away alot of post 9/11 sympathy and hand holding.

 

[Natoma]

If the administration had simply said they wanted to despose Saddam because the middle east needs an Arab democracy, would you have supported it?

If the US had worked with the UN to get to that point, yes. I don't support unilateral actions. I would have supported this war against Iraq in the current form if they had gone to the UN with a *full* attempt to garner UN support. Not the half-hearted "we don't need you anyways" bravado that made our allies scorn us in droves.

I think Iraq was the wrong choice from a cost-benefit standpoint. Jordan, Lebanon, and Libya seem to be on the road to modernizing now, and with help, could have become constitutional democracies, perhaps with alot of bilateral trade agreements and other carrots and sticks.

Agreed.

Likewise, putting all our efforts into Afghanistan would have been better. Afghanistan is an area where I feel we were justified in attacking (it wasn't preemptive), and where other countries are contributing NATO forces.

Agreed, and that is where I commented specifically on earlier in the thread. The money and forces Iraq is receiving right now I think would have been better in Afghanistan when we had a chance to fully crush Al-Qaeda before they escaped into the hinterlands of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Like I said months ago, I like the outcome of the war, but I feel it has damaged our credibility too much and blew away alot of post 9/11 sympathy and hand holding.

Agreed on both points. Well, I like the outcome of the war in that we got rid of Saddam. Not the current mess that we're mired in atm that was the result of poor post war planning.

 

[Willmeister]

Lebanon was pretty much modernized. Beirut was considered the Paris of the Middle East before civil war broke out in 1974.

Likewise, putting all our efforts into Afghanistan would have been better. Afghanistan is an area where I feel we were justified in attacking (it wasn't preemptive), and where other countries are contributing NATO forces.

Well, this is debatable. Did Afghanistan attack the USA? Can it even be proven that a group based in Afghanistan actually was behind it? The Administration has never fingered a culprit for it in the two years since, so I've read. Bush's handlers have been extremely careful in their wording; very legal-esque.

It's not very comforting to think that civilians were bombed from 30,000 feet to get a few foreign nationals operating in the wilds of a nation with little in the way of law and order.

Shouldn't one be sure before you execute people because if you don't, isn't it just summary execution we criticize other states for?

 

[Natoma]

Willmeister I have to disagree completely. Al-Qaeda admitted to attacking us on 9/11 and we've known for years that the Taliban harbored Osama. Hell they flaunted it.

It was no secret whatsoever and is in no way shape or form debatable. We did the right thing in going into Afghanistan. It just wasn't executed properly.

 

[Willmeister]

NO ONE has taken credit for 911, not even Osama. He's the prime suspect so it's not surprising he's being coy.

For the sake of argument, Osama has been proven conclusively he did it. So why do Afghanis have to pay for it? Why should Afghanis, who probably didn't like Osama and his merry little band of men much less invited him in, pay for the crimes of others?

And did the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan really accomplish anything, especially if one believes the White House claims that international terrorists have transplanted themselves into Iraq. If they can move this easily, has the Afghani war proven cost-effective?

 

[pax]

No doubt afghanistan is again being grossly mismanaged. 20 billion needs to go into that country and at least 100 000 nato troops to put down the warlords. Yes even those warlords who helped take down the taliban.

No way in hell can the US leave Iraq now. Itd become the next lebanon only ten times worse. But the US has a small window of opportunity to recycle the Iraqi army and the approx 300 000 disgruntled soldiers who are waiting for a paycheck. Last I read only about 40 000 were being retrained and to be put on duty only by xmas. I seriously doubt thats enough. Recycling the rest needs to be done by spring. They cant need all that much training. Theyve been on the job for up to 20 years.

Give them a little sensitivity training and put them on the street with an ak47 and that 4x better paycheck than under saddam and they'll keep the peace no worry. Next withdraw western troops as much as possible... Only stay to keep an eye on the Iraqi army for the next couple years then move out once an election and a legitimate authority has been established...

If the Iraqi army isnt recyled by spring things will get worse a lot faster than we think. I dont even know if we have till then but agree with some analysis on the subject...

Heck Id even vote to have canadian troops finally join the effort... We cant afford to have Iraq become another afghanistan.

Im virtually sure if Bush loses next election the troops will be out by spring 2005 if things dont seriously improve. They could be out even if he does win if he mismanages the occupation...

 

[DemoCoder]

NO ONE has taken credit for 911, not even Osama. He's the prime suspect so it's not surprising he's being coy.

For the sake of argument, Osama has been proven conclusively he did it. So why do Afghanis have to pay for it? Why should Afghanis, who probably didn't like Osama and his merry little band of men much less invited him in, pay for the crimes of others?

Look, it wasn't a "few" foreign fighters, it was over 10,000 foreigners. Secondly, we had waited patiently for years trying to get him via diplomacy, it failed.

Let's say a bunch of murdering criminals has taken over a school, kids are held hostage. The government waits for a year, negotiating with the criminals, feeding them, yet there appears to be no end to the situation.

Finally, the police storm the school, and the criminals are killed or arrested, but in the raid, a few hostages die. It's regrettable that civilians died, but that's because Bin Laden used them as a shield. Innocent civilians die all over the world when they get in between police and criminals. Afghanistan is no different. Bin Laden and tens of thousands of foreign fighters, some left over from the Afghanistan/USSR war, others attracted by slick Al Qaeda marketing material, carved out a base in another soveign country, and used that country as a base for terrorism. The Taliban in return, got mercenaries (illegal foreign mercenaries under Geneva Conventions deserving no-quarter)

The "government" of this nation was unwilling or unable to do anything to dislodge them, and would not respond to international police requests. Therefore, eventually the police had to "storm the building" Our patient was tested by 1993 WTC, Cole, Kenya, but 9/11 was the last straw.



The real fact of the matter is, Bin Laden is an admitted terrorist (just not the WTC, he admitted the Cole bombing), and he has been indicted by evidence from members of his own network that were caught, including those who tried to destroy the WTC in 1993. He was snitched by on his right hand man in the phillipines. He was being protected by the illegitimate government of Afghanistan (wasn't recognized by the UN or any major countries, except Pakistan and a few other arab states), called an official "guest", and his entire network was freely operating terrorist training camps and putting out terrorist manuals and training videos.

And don't forget, video recovered from compounds in Afghanistan show him taking credit for 9/11. (yeah yeah, if the CIA "forged" it, then how come they can't "forge" some evidence on Iraq, and install some Uranium or anthrax equipment to incriminate them? Much easier than forging a video tape)

Either

1) Bin Laden really was an official guest of Afghanistan's illegal government, in which case, it's a group calling itself the government, supporting a terrorist group

or

2) Bin Laden was in control of the country, the foreign arabs called the shots and the Taliban was a lapdog. In which case, we have an even worse situation: The controlling government of a state attacked another state.

And if Bin Laden didn't do it, why is he allowing people to credit him for it? All over the middle east, Al Qaeda is selling tapes, t-shirts, and posters, or atleast, not stopping such sales.

They won't be any hard evidence anywhere who really did 9/11. The 19 guys who did it were killed. They probably never knew Bin Laden personally. The only thing we have is financial traces of money between them and others known to be Al Qaeda, and some rather "convenient" phone calls and business transactions Bin Laden made right before 9/11.

 

[DemoCoder]

Im virtually sure if Bush loses next election the troops will be out by spring 2005 if things dont seriously improve. They could be out even if he does win if he mismanages the occupation...

Which is really bad. Beirut, Somalia, etc, now Iraq. The lesson being taught is that Americans have no stomach for blood and that terrorism is really effective against them. Even since Algeria, terrorism has been on the rise, because of the lessons that political goals can be achieved by terrorism and Western nations are spineless and gutless, and will pay-to-play and avoid conflict.

I can hardly believe that the attacks on the UN, ICRC, and Iraqi police are the work of Iraqi "resistence". Attacks on American troops in the Sunni triangle, maybe. But ICRC? I think it is carefully calculated terrorism, the idea that by sewing the seeds of chaos, the Americans and others will just pick up the pieces and leave.

The killing of AID workers were Iraqis go to get food rations is not "resistance"

 

[pax]

We need an analysis of how the attacks are being done to see how many are typical fanatical islamist attacks... The Iraqi army has to be rehabilitated asap. Polls already show the average american getting tired of the conflict...

 

[RM. Andersson]

Why do you think it´s wrong to try to stop terrorism? Perhaps you can answer that question.

If you are not a member of any group of leftist or Islamists. Why?

That's not fair. Being a "leftist" has no bearing whatsoever on wanting to stop terrorism. I live in NYC. I worked only 10 minutes from the WTC and I watched those towers come down, scared shitless. I want all terrorism to be crushed if possible. And I'm a big time "leftist".

Tread carefully. We heard far too many "If you dissent, you're in league with the evil doers" in the early days post 9/11. It's not needed that in intelligent discussion.

You must understand that people are suffering in countries that support terrorism. They get murdered and tortured and they have no rights or freedoms at all.

Removing a dictator in a country like that helps the people. It makes you a friend to that people. Someone that prefer to support the dictator and thugs that murder them will be an enemy to that people.

To talk about a dictators right to continue to rule the country but never talk about the peoples rights. Rights that are not respected at all. It´s morally wrong to think like that.

You know, people that actually live in those countries are the real victims.
Perhaps you should start to care about them instead. And be happy for them if someone tries to help them and give them a better life and a better future.

I agree with this. However, we spent a great many years supporting Saddam Hussein and his tyranny. The Reagan Administration and Bush I were quite known for that. And lets not forget our never ending support for the Saudi Royal Family, who are one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world.

The reasoning is sound and good, but the implementation of our government is most certainly not. If we are to truly do something like that'd, we'd need to take out most of the governments in the world. China (tibet), Russia (chechnya), Saudi Arabia, almost any African government, etc etc etc. Hell India has some of the worst human rights abuses on record. The caste system is an atrocious religious relic that needs to be done away with.

As I hope you've seen, there are problems with trying to save the whole world. My only problem with people saying that it was ok for us to get rid of Saddam because he was an evil dictator, and not because we haven't found any of the WMD that he was purportedly amassing, is the fact that if we go down that route, we're going to be at war for the next century. I disagree that freeing the Iraqis is good enough, because then the majority of the world can ask, "Why not us?? Help us!"

No, we went to Iraq for one thing and one thing only. WMD. And to date, we have found none, and to date, we have found that in fact the administration simply glossed over the details in order to make its case for war. That is where I and many other "leftists" take umbrage with this administration. Considering this war, or any war for that matter, could have cost me my brother's life, I take a very personal stance with it as well. If we're going to risk americans, it better be for the reason that is given to get people to support it.

Frankly, and this will sound jaded, the american public wouldn't have given a damn if it was just about getting rid of an evil dictator. We've let Castro sit under our noses for 50 years, and he's arguably just as bad as Saddam. Why not him? He's far easier to take out and the Cuban people would finally be free. See where the "lets get rid of the evil doer" logic fails when it's used as a crutch to support a war that has no other foundation?

150 americans have died so far, and so far it has seemed needless, given the stated intentions of this war. All of this imho of course.

First: I think some "leftist" people and organisations are respectable and reasonable. I will probably not agree with them most of the time though.
But some of them are clearly very terrible and unreasonable. They lie and say stupid things. If we talk about such organisations and people in europe I would have to say that most are bad.
They clearly defend terrorists. They hate anti-socialists in europe that dont agree with them. They hate the US. They hate western democracy.
They are out on the streets praising islamic terrorists and old communist leaders. I think I can recognize the common lies that these people use.


Second: The issue we are discussing.
I don´t think the US or any country can be expected to remove all dictators in the world. I understand that it´s not possible. But if the US or some other democratic country with enough military power decides to remove one terrible dictator I will still think it´s a good thing. I will support it 100%.
It makes no difference why a democratic country decides to remove a dictator. It will always be good and morally justifiable anyway.
To help is always a good thing. The reason why you help is less important.

If the politicians in the US lied about why the war against Saddam was needed I agree that this was not good. Of course I think you should complain about that.
But it can never change the fact that the war, from a humanitarian perspective, is morally justifiable. And that is why I support it.

 

[RM. Andersson]

We need an analysis of how the attacks are being done to see how many are typical fanatical islamist attacks... The Iraqi army has to be rehabilitated asap. Polls already show the average american getting tired of the conflict...

Yes, they need a powerful well equipped army and a police force that can take control when there is a problem. But first they need true democracy.
A people must be ready first before real democracy is possible. Ordinary people must participate and be an active part of the democratic process in Iraq. The politcal parties in Iraq must represent the people.
To let US or other foreign troups go home before this is the reality would be a very serious mistake. In that case there will be a huge risk that a new dictator will take over. And before that there might be civil war and ethnic clensing. It´s possible that millions could die if this happens.

If you start something like this it must be finished the right way. If it´s difficult for the US to handle the situation long term UN or other peace keeping troups must take over the responsibility.
There must be a real democratic government and it must be a secular state based on true democratic principles and human rights. The police and army must be capable of defending that state against it´s enemies.
Until this is the situation the people of Iraq will need support from foreign troups.

 

[Fred]

Yes and I have yet to see any evidence for the administration 'lying' like so many people like to mudsling.

If anyone actually down and out 'lied' it was the CIA, the administration just trusted their secret service (wouldn't you?). Now it seems more like the case of an inept department moreso than anything else (and thats another issue altogether). In retrospect I guess we should have been a little more skeptical, considering their 9/11 blunder.

Perhaps it was a hasty conclusion on the administrations behalf, (particularly the 'imminent threat' part) but understandable all things being considered. The last thing anyone wanted was for Saddam and his lunatics to achieve a WMD, so a preemptive strike was necessary in order for them not to gain such a thing.

It would have been a disastrous world if five years down the line, had we not gone in, saddam would be waving a WMD in our faces as blackmail (much like NKorea seems to be doing), probably selling it to terrorists, etc. That would have been far worse than what we are dealing with now, and the relatively mild collateral damage incured during the war.

Perhaps all the naysayers would like ot know the results of what the Iraqi people feel. Overwhelmingly when polled, they are glad that this situation came to pass and Saddam is gone. So it is a good thing, all things being taken together.

 

[Natoma]

Fred,

When the CIA tells the adminstration over and over that no purchase of Uranium occurred in Niger, and the administration ignores that and still comes out publically saying "The Iraqis tried to buy uranium from niger," that is a lie. All the memos that have come out to date show that the CIA on a couple of occassions prevented the inclusion of the niger purchase story in the president's speeches. Unfortunately they bowed to pressure and vetted it for the State of the Union. But just 9 days later Colin Powell came out and stated that that assertion did not have enough credibility for him to use in his speech to the UN Security council.

The evidence is good enough for the american public to hear, but not good enough for the UN Security Council? If that isn't lying by this administration, I don't know what is.

I posted all of the quotes and the timeline in another thread showing the trail of deception. I can most certainly bring it up again.

 

[RussSchultz]

Well, actually, the speech said (paraphrased because I'm too lazy to look it up) "The british intelligence agency has said that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from an african country".

Which was true.

 

[Natoma]

First: I think some "leftist" people and organisations are respectable and reasonable. I will probably not agree with them most of the time though.
But some of them are clearly very terrible and unreasonable. They lie and say stupid things. If we talk about such organisations and people in europe I would have to say that most are bad.
They clearly defend terrorists. They hate anti-socialists in europe that dont agree with them. They hate the US. They hate western democracy.
They are out on the streets praising islamic terrorists and old communist leaders. I think I can recognize the common lies that these people use.

I am sure that there are some "leftist" organizations and people who would fit that description. As I'm sure there are some "rightist" organizations and people who would fit that description.

But you made a blanket statement lumping all "leftists" in with Islamic extremists, i.e. terrorists. That is completely unfair and unwarranted.

I may think that Pat Buchanan is an idiot for saying a lot of the things he says in the name of his god. But I wouldn't lump him and ALL "rightists" in with Osama Bin Laden and his ilk.

Second: The issue we are discussing.
I don´t think the US or any country can be expected to remove all dictators in the world. I understand that it´s not possible. But if the US or some other democratic country with enough military power decides to remove one terrible dictator I will still think it´s a good thing. I will support it 100%.

I would have supported a war to get rid of an evil dictator if we had UN support for it and if that were the reason given to go to war. See the UN in Bosnia to take out Milosevic and end the ethnic cleansing. But we were not sold this war on those grounds. We were sold a unilateral war to take out WMD. The attempt to include the UN was half hearted at best, and disingenuous at worst.

And again, if we really want to remove a terrible dictator, we should have taken out Castro. And I mean this 100%. No sarcasm *cough* Sabastian *cough*. The things Castro has done to his people are simply atrocious. They are boat ride away and we continue to let his regime stay in power. If anything, Cuba would accept democracy VERY quickly, especially given their proximity to our nation and what they've seen of our nation in the past few decades. So why not Cuba?

It makes no difference why a democratic country decides to remove a dictator. It will always be good and morally justifiable anyway.
To help is always a good thing. The reason why you help is less important.

No, it does make a difference. If there's one thing we have learned over the past few centuries, it is the idea of a self governing nation and that all nations respect the borders of other nations. We created the UN to act as the world body in which we decide as a world how we are going to police ourselves. It is not morally justifiable for the world's most powerful nation to say "FU" to that body when it pleases and go it alone.

What happens when China attacks another country like Tibet? They can simply say "We saw an imminent threat and needed to take it out". What can we say? What clout do we have? What about the brutality of the Russians in Chechnya? What can we say to them? Bush declared the Russians reprobate given their conduct in Chechnya, yet when we needed support for the war on terrorism, he allowed the Russians to brand the Chechens as terrorists and to use whatever means necessary to crush them, despite the fact that the Russians invaded Chechnya in order to annex it, and the chechens are fighting back in order to keep their land. Yes some of the tactics the chechens have used in order to fight the Russians have been deplorable, but if we were being invaded by a larger more powerful entity, would we not use the same tactics to defend our homeland?

And if you say that removing evil regimes is good, then again, we better start on the rest of the world because there's a shitload of them out there.

If the politicians in the US lied about why the war against Saddam was needed I agree that this was not good. Of course I think you should complain about that.
But it can never change the fact that the war, from a humanitarian perspective, is morally justifiable. And that is why I support it.

From a humanitarian perspective, yes it is morally justifiable. From the real world perspective of why we went to war in the first place, why we were told it was SO necessary in the HERE and NOW to war with Iraq, it so far is most certainly not.

 

[Natoma]

Well, actually, the speech said (paraphrased because I'm too lazy to look it up) "The british intelligence agency has said that Saddam tried to purchase uranium from an african country".

Which was true.

Indeed. But you know as well as I do that that was disingenuous at best. Our CIA intel had already debunked the intelligence. And the administration knew this. So to say "Well we heard it from the Brits" is just a convenient excuse imo. You know this.

 

[RussSchultz]

*shrug* There was an investigation into it in Britain, and apparently the Brits believed it enough to stand behind it.

They claimed there was more evidence than those particular "forged" documents.

And there was more to the intelligence that Iraq had an active WMD program and/or weapons than that claim.

Again, your indignance is based upon a strawman argument. Sure, that particular piece of evidence is shakey, but the whole damn world believed he had weapons and programs. The interim Kay report has shown that there was ongoing subterfuge to hide the WMD program.

And again, it wasn't about an imminent threat, it was dealing with it before it became immenent (like NK). And that is the reason we went to oust Saddam based upon the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emption.

There were other reasons as well (humanitarian, and spreading democracy, and stabilizing global oil prices), but you won't pick on those because they're pretty much bullet proof. You'll simply pick on the one that isn't as strong as it could be and present it as the ONLY reason we went to war. Which is BS.

Regardless, this is such old news it doesn't really bear useful discussion. The proverbial milk has been spilt, and the hash has already been re-hashed at least once. Lets now argue pointlessly about the rebuilding of Iraq.

 

[Natoma]

*shrug* There was an investigation into it in Britain, and apparently the Brits believed it enough to stand behind it.

When our intelligence agency comes out and says it's a fake, When the ambassador sent to Niger to inspect the claims comes back and says the claim is fake, When the people who first brought up the claim, the italians, come out and say it is fake. There is no other recourse. The president in the face of such evidence should not use it in a State of the Union address when trying to build up support for war.

Especially since 9 days later Colin Powell publically stated that the evidence was circumspect, not good enough to bring to the UN Security Council.

The bottom line is that the administration used whatever it could, even though common sense shows that it was suspect, in order to justify its case for war. Every semantic clause, every potential detail used in order to give themselves an out later, when in fact they knew from the beginning that the information they were putting forth was false.

 

[ByteMe]

*shrug* There was an investigation into it in Britain, and apparently the Brits believed it enough to stand behind it.

When our intelligence agency comes out and says it's a fake, When the ambassador sent to Niger to inspect the claims comes back and says the claim is fake, When the people who first brought up the claim, the italians, come out and say it is fake. There is no other recourse. The president in the face of such evidence should not use it in a State of the Union address when trying to build up support for war.

Especially since 9 days later Colin Powell publically stated that the evidence was circumspect, not good enough to bring to the UN Security Council.

The bottom line is that the administration used whatever it could, even though common sense shows that it was suspect, in order to justify its case for war. Every semantic clause, every potential detail used in order to give themselves an out later, when in fact they knew from the beginning that the information they were putting forth was false.

Not true, there was a few government agencies that gave the evidence a "credible" rating.

And as far as cuba goes, we can NOT attack cuba because of an agreement with the russians a previous president made.