Pakistan is not in the Middle East

SOPORIFIC
"And remember, the United States had formal a relationship with Bin Ladin. He was also on our buddy list prior to 9-11"

No, remember, clinton shot cruise missiles at him after the whole african embassy bombing thing. we'd been after him since the mid 90s.

He was our bud back in the early 80s when we were fighting the Proxy war in Afghanistan.

TheConvincingSavant
Dude, took you long enough to show up!
good point.

TheConvincingSavant
I agree that Iraq's lib is good, but there's something missing here. And that's consistency. We're willing to setup a cruel dictatorship so long as we get what we want, and overlook the dead babies (obligatory "What about the babies"!?) but as soon as that dictator isn't playing our style of poker, its time to boot him out, and play the morality card, "We stopped another dictator, and that's a good thing!"? That's a tad hypocritical. I'd rather either play dirty pool and acknowledge it as such, or take the moral high road and keep it there. The two don't mix well, and makes us look like, well, the past lives of many of our presidents. Makes one understand why people refer to the US as the great satan.

Father_Jack - if you look carefully I amended my statement to 1991, and you are absolutely correct

06-10-03 04:28:46 PM Shut........UP

Sure you can. We just did.

And the entire civilized world hates you for it


So those countries have the right to invade for strategic reasons but we do not?

Interesting theory.

It's not a theory. If Saddam poses a threat to the United States, then they have the right to take him out. Unfortunately, the US has never made a clear case for this, and the only thing you can give is he was a possible threat to his neighbors, which I gave a response saying that then his neighbors should have dealt with him.

Pman:

Pakistan is, at this point, a diplomatic issue. The US does not go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons very often.

Weemill
I think its been said by me and a few others, that I hope that WMD ARE found. I'm not a fan of bush, mind you, but I'd hate to see the political backlash that could happen

I am one of the others that have said that.

06-10-03 04:32:05 PM TheConvincingSavant

So if we had waited for however long the opposition wanted to wait for the inspectors to piddle around, could you live with the possibility that even 1 child may have been sent to another mass grave?

And the longer you do nothing about North Korea, China, Nigeria, etc. the more people are slaughtered. Is that your BS excuse now from the right? This same group of people who supported such wonderful human rights champions as Pol Pot and others?


Our government spends way too much time arming the wrong people and not enough time confronting the tyrants in this world.

And Bush arms more wrong people (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc) while not doing anything about tyrants except for those who are blocking his businesss buddies' plans.


Hypothetical: Lets say that Bush has been found guilty of lying to Americans about Iraq. Lets also say he is impeached. Regardless of what may happen, the liberation of Iraq was a good thing. I only hope that we can do another good thing by giving the new Iraqi government a healthy start.

You can't excuse a war with reasons proven to be wrong just by saying "Look at the people who are better because of it!"

If Bush came up and from the start said how horrible people are being treated, and how he wants to put a stop to it, fine. Nobody has a problem with that. The problem arises when excuses like "Nuclear weapons" "chemical agents" "supporting terrorists" all have zero evidence but were the main reasons for war.

06-10-03 04:41:21 PM Vroomazoom

Pman:

Pakistan is, at this point, a diplomatic issue. The US does not go to war with countries that have nuclear weapons very often.

So whats the excuse for not publicy condemning Saudi for their role in 9-11?

It seems the real players never get called out by the Bush administration. Why? Nobody is talking about going to war with Pakistan, NK, Saudi Arabia, a public condemning and listing of facts which show each countries role in terrorism and WMD would do just fine.

oh look BIG AL and SAVANT are arguing.

I bet they'll get it all worked out. We've never seen this before.

Burn98

So what's your take on this war? Pro or Con? I was bobbing back and forth, which is saying a lot, because i had to muffle out my disdain for ashcroft/rumsfeld/rice and my anger at the Patriot Act and Homeland Security bill and Patriot II. It seemed that we were only a step closer to fullscale internment than what I would've expected. But in the end, i found myself arguing more and more against the war, and i found my stance.

Vroomazoom - after Vietnam, I have noticed that we only get into fights we are sure we will win.

06-10-03 04:45:08 PM Father_Jack

oh look BIG AL and SAVANT are arguing.


Unfortunately, he continues to defend his half-ass and backpeddling arguments, otherwise we would never argue so much.

"oh look BIG AL and SAVANT are arguing."

Its time to just sit back and enjoy.

Father_Jack

LOL, now that's funny. Polar opposites.. I bet they're husband and wife (or husband) and don't even know it. They go home, and in the evenings and hump their troubles away, taking out their frustrations on the other. Now that's a funny picture!

Big Al:

I think we should attack those countries. but not pakistan. Im not sure full war is needed. just bombing of anything related to making WMD.

TheConvincingSavant
Regardless of what may happen, the liberation of Iraq was a good thing. I only hope that we can do another good thing by giving the new Iraqi government a healthy start.

You been reading Thomas Friedman? Since when did you get neoliberal?

Soporific:

well there arnt very many wars we couldnt win.

TheConvincingSavant
So if we had waited for however long the opposition wanted to wait for the inspectors to piddle around, could you live with the possibility that even 1 child may have been sent to another mass grave?

Hell no! Lets invade the Sudan and the Congo right now and save those children. I would even sacrifice my most sacred political belief (Fiscal Responsibility), to pay for freeing those poor children. (NOT sarcasm, that would be a straight face I think :-|

Our government spends way too much time arming the wrong people and not enough time confronting the tyrants in this world.

On that we certainly agree.

I'm not so sure I'd sit back in my lazy-boy right now and say,"Now that Iraq is all better now". Iraq is a lawless, militarily ruled, occupied country right now. Hundreds of people are still going to be shot by our military for various reasons. Look at the feudal warlords that have gained land and power after the Taliban got their arses' handed to them. Afganistan isn't the cozy, fast-food infested, capitalistic democracy which we (theoretically) envision. There's still people dying over there every week. Only now it is mostly our soldiers doing the killing now, not the Taliban.

Do you think things are going to look similar in Iraq?

Vroomazoom- true, but which wars can we win easily? If we went to war with China, it would hurt a lot. Same thing with many other countries whose armies are strong and intact. We coult take them, but I'm pretty sure that the US population would get pissed off because they would be required to make sacrifices and a lot more people would die.

Even the pro-war crowd would pause to consider if it was worth it, then.

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," Rice said...

Hey Condi, you might want to check that w/ Rummy.

RedfordRenegade:

Well, Iraq should be easier to get under one government, because it is starting in better shape. Afghanistan was a total mess before we got there. Iraq has a decent infrastructure to start with.

REDFORD
"Do you think things are going to look similar in Iraq?"

Well, it hasnt broken down into civil war yugoslavia style ethnic cleansing between kurd shiites and suunis yet.

Afghanistan is a lawless country the US couldnt give a crap about. As long as there's no overtly terrorist friendly taliban calling the shots, i dont imagine the US will care much, sorry to say.

Iraq, on the other hand, is strategically and economically important tot he US and the world communtiy, so it'll get more attention.

I think its too early to tell one way or the other. ive said this a buncha times already, so whats once more...

if in 5 years theres civil war and another military dictator and no stability in the region and if in 10 the US has fought other major wars in the area, than this is and has been a catastrophic failure, all the more because the price we paid in international credibility and allied good will was so high.

if in 5 years theres peace, a secular government that's more or less democratic, the iraqis are friendly but independent, adn in 10 years theres still peace and general stability in the region and good things have come of it (ie, the saudis and the iranians reform under pressure from or in immitation of the iraqis) then it'll be a good thing, and the price paid will've been most likely worth it.

but its too ealry to tell either way.

Soporific:

well, I will agree we go to war with weak countries much more easily than stronger countries. that makes sense.

"You been reading Thomas Friedman? Since when did you get neoliberal?"

I have lost all respect for that guy. He totally rolled over let specious arguments for invasion (i.e., the subject of this thread) turn him into a bloodthirsty war-monger.

The only thing worse was watching Maureen Dowd pee in her pants and shake with fear after 9/11. Her tongue-in-cheek crap and belief in civil liberties fell faster than the WTC.

Sadly, only Paul Krugman is asking any relevant questions for the NYT op-ed these days.

Shut........UP

"You can't go around overthrowing countries because you think they might threaten you in the future"

Sure you can. We just did.

He probably should have said "You can't go around overthrowing countries because you think they might threaten you in the future without REPERCUSSIONS!"

"If Saddam was a threat to the middle east, let those countries take care of it, right?"

So those countries have the right to invade for strategic reasons but we do not?

Interesting theory.

That is interesting. I wonder what we would have done if Syria invaded Iraq, citing WMD? We probably would have let the UN handle it.

This comment from Savant gives me some hope:

Hypothetical: Lets say that Bush has been found guilty of lying to Americans about Iraq. Lets also say he is impeached. Regardless of what may happen, the liberation of Iraq was a good thing. I only hope that we can do another good thing by giving the new Iraqi government a healthy start.

Inherent in this comment is the idea that Bush should be held accountable IF he lied. Even though we disagree on some things, this comment seems reasonable to me. Even, to an extant, convincing (i.e., I can accept what happened with Iraq if I know the whole world hasn't gone completely crazy). Unfortunately, I think a lot of people right now would defend lying to the American public and the world.

Weemill
So what's your take on this war? Pro or Con? I was bobbing back and forth. . .

I am with you 100%. I have said repetedly that I would have supported the war if Bush and Co. had said it was for humanitarian reasons from the beginning. Now that they are using that reason after the fact they will have to make sure the Iraqi people come out OK. :-) That is a good thing.

As far as WMD goes. I was never convinced that is was as big a problem as they said. But I certainly thought it was a bigger problem than it now appears to be. I wanted to get "buy in" from the UN before we invaded. Since then I have started to question the value of the UN as a "voice of world opinion".

On the whole I think it came off very well!

extant=extent

Even more interesting: If Syria had threatened to invade Iraq, citing WMD, what would we have done?

Let the UN handle it, I still think. Anyone else? Do you think we would have let them fight? Or backed one or the other?

06-10-03 05:02:24 PM Father_Jack

Afghanistan is a lawless country the US couldnt give a crap about. As long as there's no overtly terrorist friendly taliban calling the shots, i dont imagine the US will care much, sorry to say.

The reason the US doesn't care anymore is because the natural gas pipeline deal was signed. Who cares if the Taliban is slowly fighting their way back into power. Obviously Karzai cares but his cries for help fall on deaf ears in the Dumbyah Administration.

If the Taliban threatens the pipeline deal like they did last time, expect the US to go back in.

"He probably should have said "You can't go around overthrowing countries because you think they might threaten you in the future without REPERCUSSIONS!"

Ya but he didn't did he? Alrighty then.

"I wonder what we would have done if Syria invaded Iraq, citing WMD?"

Syria was to busy illegaly buying billions worth of oil at the time. Maybe they would have invaded if we cut the supply of off?

ZipBeep:

its very rare we dont back one side or the other, and I cant see us backing iraq, but I would have seen us letting the UN make our descision for us.

Syria doesn't have the man-power to fight both Iraq and keep its hold on Lebanon.

Here is a very revealing quote about this whole mess:

The bishop of the southern Mexican city of San Cristobal de las Casas urges Americans to "reflect on why they are so hated" after the US "has generated so much violence to protect its economic interests"...

That my folks is your homework for tonight.

Burn98

Same path, different outcomes, i guess. I don't think it went well at all :(

Big Al, what about the poppy seeds? 90% of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan...If the new goverment pulls a stunt like the Taliban did to ban poppy seeds, expect the US to come back in again also...

Big Al
Who cares if the Taliban is slowly fighting their way back into power

Maybe the CIA will finance opium dealers to protect the oil pipeline from sabotage by the Taliban? I bet Ollie North is chewing at the bit for that job.

Father_Jack:

Afghanistan is a lawless country the US couldnt give a crap about.

No. No. Don't admit that. I would like to promote the whole humanitarian thing we have got going now.

Listen People! The US cares very much about the quality of life in other countries! (maybe if I just repeat it often enough it will come true)

The US cares very much about the quality of life in other countries! Haven't you been paying attention to what the administration is saying about Iraq?

The US cares very much about the quality of life in other countries!

There's no place like home.
There's no place like home.

Bush put forward the reasons for invading Iraq as being that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction. The UN sent in inspectors, which found nothing. Bush pointed to specific place where he knew the weapons were. The UN inspectors searched there and found nothing. And then before he could be told by the UN that there was no justification for military intervention to find the weapons he invaded Iraq anyhow.

Now no weapons of mass destruction can be found. And they are trying to say that after 11 years of watching every single thing that has happened in that nation we do not even have a hint as to where these supposed weapons are? Then analysts with the CIA and MI5 start admitting that they were pressured to "enhance" the presence of WMD in their reports on Iraq. I call bullshiat. Bush has lied to us.

He has lied to us and should face impeachment just like the last American President who lied to us.

Father_Jack:
if in 5 years theres civil war and another military dictator and no stability . . .

if in 5 years theres peace, a secular government that's more or less democratic. . .

but its too ealry to tell either way.

Very well put.
You are quite correct. It is too early to celebrate.

Well I have got to go. Thank you all

pman -

Mexico and Colombia now supply 80% of the heroin in the US. They have switched from coca production and now coordinate their efforts. Increasingly potent Mexican brown is distributed west of the Mississipppi and Colombian white is distrubuted east of the Mississippi.

Weemill

I agree that Iraq's lib is good, but there's something missing here. And that's consistency. We're willing to setup a cruel dictatorship so long as we get what we want, and overlook the dead babies (obligatory "What about the babies"!?) but as soon as that dictator isn't playing our style of poker, its time to boot him out, and play the morality card, "We stopped another dictator, and that's a good thing!"? That's a tad hypocritical. I'd rather either play dirty pool and acknowledge it as such, or take the moral high road and keep it there. The two don't mix well, and makes us look like, well, the past lives of many of our presidents. Makes one understand why people refer to the US as the great satan.

I don't have a problem with that. I'd like to see us take your second suggestion and do some more good for a change.

Big Al

And the longer you do nothing about North Korea, China, Nigeria, etc. the more people are slaughtered. Is that your BS excuse now from the right?

Nice try, but I've supported cleaning up those place as well. Don't assume you know a person's political views. It'll backfire on you.

Big Al

You can't excuse a war with reasons proven to be wrong just by saying "Look at the people who are better because of it!"

Read my post again. I'm not excusing anybody. If it's proven that Bush lied to us, then he should pay. That doesn't negate the fact that a free Iraq is better than an Iraq lead by Hussein.

Big Al

Unfortunately, he continues to defend his half-ass and backpeddling arguments, otherwise we would never argue so much.

Unfortunately, Big Al lives in a world where facts are only facts when they can prove him right.

Burn98:

adios

Chad_beaverwood
Increasingly potent Mexican brown is distributed west of the Mississipppi and Colombian white is distrubuted east of the Mississippi.

Interesting segmentation. The heroin cartels have some kind of non-compete agreement? Can I get a link?

Beaverwood,

Agree wholeheartedly on your assessment of the NYTimes editorial staff. Freidman sold out, making him look like a tool, or a DNC liberal, at best, and Dowd never sat well with me. While I agree with most of what she says, it's her shrill delivery that puts me off. Always sounds like she's biatching about the clueless hostess of a cocktail party. And Krugman's coming through. I swear, it's like the past 6 months have lit a fire under that guy, he's on a roll, and he knows it.

And my next post might actually be on topic. Are we even on topic, anymore?

Pontechango:

I have to disagree with that. heroine from mexico can be found in the new england area. I will agree that mexican heroine is about all there is in the states by the border.