[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 15 2007, 05:42 AM, said:

i will assume you mean what you say, that the sovereignty of iran and iraq are equally important to you as is that of the u.s. ... i don't see it that way at all... part of a sovereign u.s. (imo) is to weigh our nat'l interests against those who our elected officials see as threats... our interests outweigh those of others... as for the one world thing, i thought i've seen many posts that point toward letting the u.n. handle things

Some of us take a rather broad view of National Sovereignty. With the exception of a few cranks like DrTodd I think that all of us prefer living with a functional government. We recognize that ceeding certain rights to the government is preferable to living in anarchy. In a similar fashion, I'd argue that the United States is better off working in a system with well established international laws and norms. When we flaunt these norms we hasten our own demise.

I don't find it at all surprising that the Bush administration, which its extremely hostile attitude towards international law also launched a largely unprovoked war of aggressive against the wrong country. In doing so, the Bush administration severely damaged many of our long standing alliances and convinced much of the world that we're nothing more than a bully.

[mike777]

I cannot agree more strongly(rats poor sp) that if...if...we are a bully or...flaunted the norms..we have damaged ourselves.


let's assume we have...lets assume we have in the extreme.
What can we do now?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 10:45 PM, said:

1) let's assume the USSR can kill 100 million with the push of one button
2) LET'S assume that radical Islam can only kill one million or less with the push.
3) let's assume radical islam is as dangerous(whatever that means) as the USSR.

I believe your comparisons invalid.

1. At the push of a button, the U.S.S.R. could make the Earth uninhabitable (as the U.S.A. responds in like kind)
2. At the push of a button, the U.S.A. could make the Earth uninhabitable (As the U.S.S.R. responds in like kind)
3. At the push of a button, a radical Islamic can blow himself up and kill 30 Americans in Times Square.

If and when a middle-eastern country developes a nuclear weapon, there will be time then to take action if it is deemed necessary - and I would not necessarily be opposed to that action.

Now let me ask you one: which of these scenarios seems most likely.

1. A group of neo-conservatives organize a Washington think tank called the Project for a New American Century, whose purpose is to develope a plan for a Pax Americana. This group developes a plan, including a military plan, and each member signs it.

Not long afterwards, a new president is elected, whose running mate happens to be a PNAC member, and the president appoints many of these same PNAC members into key positions within the executive: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, Member, Defense Advisory Board; John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security; Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State; Elliot Abrams, Special Assistant to the President; Zalmay Kahlilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq; Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice-President Cheney; Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; James Woolsey, Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board.

A terrorist attack is launched against the U.S. In response, the U.S. invades both Afghanistan and Iraq, which happens to be the military blueprint for the Pax Americana of the PNAC.

Hyposthesis: Like-thinking men in power saw an opportunity to go "real life" with their believed-in Pax Americana and used 9-11 as the reason to masquerade their real intentions.

2. Prior to 9-11, there were isolated and rare terrorist attacks against the U.S. overseas, one on the World Trade Center, and each attack was treated individually with individual responses by the U.S. After 9-11, a world-wide radical Islamic organization materialized and virtually overnight become the greatest threat to the American way of life since Russia sent missiles to Cuba.

Hypothesis: The success of the last attack so galvanized the entire Islamic world that a world-wide terror network was born that could only be fought on a global scale by attacking countries that harbored and aided these groups.

Taking into consideration basic human nature, which seems most likely?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 10:53 PM, said:

btw I am not surprised by your uninlightend.....responses to those of us in Grant Park to those of us fighting for your old fogeys rights....

Grant Park anti-war demonstration? I remember you saying you were at the 68 democratic convention when Mayor D sent out the storm troopers. Which end of the baton were you on?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 11:11 PM, said:

I cannot agree more strongly(rats poor sp) that if...if...we are a bully or...flaunted the norms..we have damaged ourselves.


let's assume we have...lets assume we have in the extreme.
What can we do now?

Agree here, as well. What to do?

First, a complete withdrawl of all troops from Iraq - now. Will there be a bloodbath? Most likely. There will be one anyway. We will have to deal with Iraq after Iraq determines what it is to be - just as we have learned to deal with Vietnam now that Vietnam had determined its own course.

Second, support strongly a Palestinian state - the U.S. supported the creation of Israel - are the Palestinians any less deserving of their own nation?

Third - totally exhaust all possible means of dipomacy before any talk of future wars. Compel Congress to declare war before any future combat that is not a direct assault by armed forces on U.S. territory.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 14 2007, 11:34 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 14 2007, 10:53 PM, said:

btw I am not surprised by your uninlightend.....responses to those of us in Grant Park to those of us fighting for your old fogeys rights....

Grant Park anti-war demonstration? I remember you saying you were at the 68 democratic convention when Mayor D sent out the storm troopers. Which end of the baton were you on?

the end...that hurt.....as a very young.........

[Winstonm]

Quote

in fairness i was idotic......

At least you get to use the past tense - I, on the other hand, do not have that luxury.

[pbleighton]

"I cannot agree more strongly(rats poor sp) that if...if...we are a bully or...flaunted the norms..we have damaged ourselves.


let's assume we have...lets assume we have in the extreme.
What can we do now?"

The answer to this is simple, obvious, and very difficult to accept for most Americans, even now. We must leave, soon, with our tails between our legs, knowing that things will get worse when we leave. Consider these facts:
1. We have totally screwed up
2. Our national security has been damaged
3. Iraq has been damaged
4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged
when we leave Iraq
5. This will happen whenever we leave Iraq
6. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the total damage will be in the
long run
7. We will "lose" (though I think that "acknowledge failure" is more accurate) when we leave Iraq. However, there will be no winners. No one in Iraq will be a winner, though it is possible that a faction or factions may have success in the civil war. Those of us on the left in the U.S. who opposed the war and predicted the outcome are not winners. I certainly don't feel like one. The Republican party has damaged itself politically, but the sooner we leave the sooner they can begin to heal themselves, so the Democratic party won't be a winner.
8. We owe Iraq. Unfortunately, this is not the time to repay it. We (and should) give limited humanitarian aid, but major reconstructive aid should wait until they are finished with their civil war. Right now it accomplishes nothing.
9. We may have to come into Iraq again militarily, as part of a multinational force, when they are mostly done with their civil war, and need (and request) help getting things together. Right now, our presence exacerbates the civil war. It may be that sometime in the future (5 years? 30 years?) we may be able to help. This is not contradictory.

This is a gloomy post, but it is a gloomy subject.

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

The US is the wind, blowing mightily to get the traveller to take off his overcoat.

Sanity and reason is the Sun that, when it shines warmly, will win the day. We have only to espouse the values of human dignity and mutual respect. Economic, political and yes, spiritual well-being can provide the future with the fruit of the seeds that we are planting today. Will it be bitter or non-existant? Or can we transform the world of hate and recrimination into the garden that it once was and could be again?

[luke warm]

taking peter's list, and imo:

Quote

1. We have totally screwed up

if by this he means tactically, then yes.. if he means strategically, then maybe... that's exactly why reasonable people discuss iraq

Quote

2. Our national security has been damaged

i would (or could) argue that our nat'l security has improved as it pertains to terrorist attacks on our soil

Quote

3. Iraq has been damaged

yes, and in another decade or two that damage will approach the genocide proportions during sadaam's rule

Quote

4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged when we leave Iraq

this is not necessarily true, although if we leave prematurely it's probable we will receive more attacks at home

Quote

5. This will happen whenever we leave Iraq

this depends on the answer to mike's question re: "winning" the war

Quote

6. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the total damage will be in the
long run

to whom?

Quote

7. We will "lose" (though I think that "acknowledge failure" is more accurate) when we leave Iraq. However, there will be no winners. No one in Iraq will be a winner, though it is possible that a faction or factions may have success in the civil war. Those of us on the left in the U.S. who opposed the war and predicted the outcome are not winners. I certainly don't feel like one. The Republican party has damaged itself politically, but the sooner we leave the sooner they can begin to heal themselves, so the Democratic party won't be a winner.

assuming loss, this follows

Quote

8. We owe Iraq. Unfortunately, this is not the time to repay it. We (and should) give limited humanitarian aid, but major reconstructive aid should wait until they are finished with their civil war. Right now it accomplishes nothing.

based on the assumptions that we leave now and civil war erupts.. see #4

Quote

9. We may have to come into Iraq again militarily, as part of a multinational force, when they are mostly done with their civil war, and need (and request) help getting things together. Right now, our presence exacerbates the civil war. It may be that sometime in the future (5 years? 30 years?) we may be able to help. This is not contradictory.

it isn't contradictory for any who view contradiction as justifiable

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 14 2007, 10:15 PM, said:

Jimmy, let me address these points one at a time. It may come as a shock but I would classify myself as leaning more toward isolationism than one-world government, and have a strong belief in the concepts of the constitution - I believe, because human nature does not change, that the reasons for the strong separation of powers in the 18th century are just as valid today.

My views begin with the individual - the best any of us can hope to do is to control our own actions. We have absolutely no control over what another person chooses to do. This extends to countries, as well.~~

winston, you and i aren't so different in our beliefs (imho )

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE 
2. Our national security has been damaged


i would (or could) argue that our nat'l security has improved as it pertains to terrorist attacks on our soil

There is no way to quantify this, as you are aware, although it may be accurate in the short term - but what about longer term, say 5-10 years?

Quote

3. Iraq has been damaged


yes, and in another decade or two that damage will approach the genocide proportions during sadaam's rule

I am not about to defend Saddam Hussein's regime, but IMO there are aspects unaddressed here - that the chemical weapons used against the Kurds were supplied by the U.S. (or so I have read), and that it was the U.S. who encouraged the attack against Iran. No one is ever quite as evil or quite as good as the picture painted by our press.

Quote

4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged when we leave Iraq


this is not necessarily true, although if we leave prematurely it's probable we will receive more attacks at home

I simply don't follow the logic here - what is the correlation between staying in Iraq and terroist strikes inside the U.S.?

Quote

5. This will happen whenever we leave Iraq


this depends on the answer to mike's question re: "winning" the war

If you use the president's definition of "winning", the only outcome can be a permanent presence of the U.S. military in Iraq in order to safeguard the puppet government established. I mean, really, liberate Iraq from Saddam so it will become the country we think it should be - is this not nation building?

And again, why do we allow the discourse to focus on what should be done in Iraq when the critical issue is what got us into Iraq? Does anyone really accept that it was simply a "mistake" caused by faulty intelligence, but now that we are there we have to see it through? Are we really going to allow this administration to get away this easily with a war of aggression based on fairy tales, spooky campfire stories, and saber rattling?

The president is commander-in-chief, and thus has the power to increase the troops, and Congress is simply wasting its time debating a given - what Congress should be doing is investigating whether this president committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the establishment of a reason for war.

Whatever happens in Iraq will not affect the American way of life even a tenth as much as the enormous shift in power to the executive which has ocurred already, the dismantling of the constitutional checks and balances that are supposed to prevent this type of war from occurring in the first place, and the shredding done to the Bill of Rights.

Let me take a moment to cover what IMO are critical concerns.

First, say at 11:30 p.m. some Tuesaday night a couple of black cars pull up outside your house and 6 members of Homeland Security burst through your door, terrify your family, handcuff you and drag you off to a military holding cell, claiming you are an enemy combattant. You have no rights. You can be held forever without charges. This is now the president's power.

And if you believe public outcry would prevent this abuse, don't be naive. Sure, the nieghbors may look out their windows, but then they will go back to bed because it's not their business. Maybe a local newpaper will pick up the story, and may even express some minor outrage. But will it make national headlines? No. Will CNN and Fox even care? No. So for 15 minutes in your local town, perhaps you are famous - and then your story gets stale and the only ones left to talk about it are the internet blogs and conspiracy whacko websites. Meanwhile, your life and your family's life has been destroyed and you are held indefinitely as prisoner of the state. This is now the president's power.

Second, let's say things get really out of hand and a huge anti-war demonstration is planned for New Orleans - the President calls out the National Guard from New York and Pennsylvannia and sends them to the Big Easy to quell the insurrection and establish martial law. This is now the president's power.

Don't think it could happen? Do you remember the slant towards the Vietnam War protestors early on? Whose side was taken by the major press? Does Kent State ring a bell? This is now the president's power.

Third, the President claims powers to eavesdrop without judicial oversight, open mail without judicial oversight, and use the CIA and the military to investigate banking transactions within the borders of the U.S. These are claimed powers of the President in his signing statements, as yet unofficial but unchallenged as well.

So you've just posted in Bridgebase Forums that you believe the President has overreached with his power grab and Congress should initiate hearings and consider impeachment - and a few hours later you try to use your ATM and your account is frozen, the letter from your friend in Somalia is overdue, and later that night two automobiles from Homeland Security pull up in front of your house (See "First" above.)

I would finish this post but there's someone at the door......this is the president's power.

[luke warm]

Quote

Quote

4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged when we leave Iraq
this is not necessarily true, although if we leave prematurely it's probable we will receive more attacks at home

I simply don't follow the logic here - what is the correlation between staying in Iraq and terroist strikes inside the U.S.?

this was part of #1 above, and the premise is that we are fighting terrorists abroad which prevents attacks at home... as you said, it is hard to quantify

Quote

If you use the president's definition of "winning", the only outcome can be a permanent presence of the U.S. military in Iraq in order to safeguard the puppet government established.

i don't know that's his definition, and it's certainly not mine... but that's the rub, eh? the way it's defined determines actions or lack of them, which is what i think has been mike's point all along

Quote

So you've just posted in Bridgebase Forums that you believe the President has overreached with his power grab and Congress should initiate hearings and consider impeachment - and a few hours later you try to use your ATM and your account is frozen, the letter from your friend in Somalia is overdue, and later that night two automobiles from Homeland Security pull up in front of your house

i think i've said before that i also am leery (almost frightened, but i'm too old) of these things... it's the old freedom vs. security argument... if freedom is defined by that great philosopher kris kristofferson, then we're fast approaching that state

[Winstonm]

You read Mike-ese better than I do. I can always understand what you are saying, on the other hand. Speaking down to my level, no doubt.

Yes, the crux is: what does "win" mean in the context of Iraq?

[pbleighton]

"Yes, the crux is: what does "win" mean in the context of Iraq?"

This is important. Even more important, though, is what is the best (or more accurately IMO least bad) outcome which can reasonably be expected in Iraq in the long run as well as the short run, and how do we get there.

It's time to stop chasing rainbows and deal with reality. More and more people are realizing this, as reflected in the huge majority against the escalation, pardon me, I meant "surge"

How are 21,000 troops going to stop an escalating civil war in a country of 26 million? I haven't heard an explanation of this from the administration or its defenders which is even remotely plausible.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"You read Mike-ese better than I do"

Key point in understanding Mike:

He asks lots of questions. He's very good at that. His questions are usually good ones, and are easy to understand, though not necessarily easy to answer.

OTOH, he HATES to take a position himself. I think he is deliberately vague and difficult to understand sometimes.

Keep the questions coming, Mike, but don't be such a chickens**t!



Peter

[Winstonm]

I listened closely to the president's speech the other night and had my Bush-to-English translation guide by my side. Here is what he said:

Bushese:
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.

Translation:
Iraq will become Israel-light or else.

Bushese:
A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security
for our children and grandchildren.

Translation:
Not really Israel-light - more like Israel/USA-light.

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Jan 15 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

"You read Mike-ese better than I do"

Key point in understanding Mike:

He asks lots of questions. He's very good at that. His questions are usually good ones, and are easy to understand, though not necessarily easy to answer.

OTOH, he HATES to take a position himself.  I think he is deliberately vague and difficult to understand sometimes.

Keep the questions coming, Mike, but don't be such a chickens**t!



Peter

Mike does ask provoking questions - I just with I were smart enough to understand his thrust. Come on, Mike, don't be so vague so we idiots can join the fray, as well.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Jan 15 2007, 04:42 AM, said:

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

This is the same as saying that U.N. (as well as any non-U.S. governement) has no power at all since any decision they make can be turned down by a U.S. president who thinks (or pretends to think) that the non-U.S. decision was against U.S. interests.

A sovereign U.S. means that the U.S. governement is in charge of U.S. territorry. I does not necessarily mean a U.S. governement in charge of the World.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jan 16 2007, 05:43 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 15 2007, 04:42 AM, said:

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

This is the same as saying that U.N. (as well as any non-U.S. governement) has no power at all since any decision they make can be turned down by a U.S. president who thinks (or pretends to think) that the non-U.S. decision was against U.S. interests.

A sovereign U.S. means that the U.S. governement is in charge of U.S. territorry. I does not necessarily mean a U.S. governement in charge of the World.

you're right, the u.s. is not in charge of the world... you're also right that the u.n. has no power over decisions made by the u.s. unless the power is given... isn't the same true in germany?