Clarke’s book gets into the history of terrorism against the US going back to the Reagan era (when he pulled out of Lebanon after +250 marines got killed there). Boy - what would have happened if that occurred under a Democrat’s watch?
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Oct. 26 2004,10:56) |
| Boy - what would have happened if that occurred under a Democrat's watch? |
Um, you'd be a repbulican?
Just kidding!
DrGuitar,
As I read you post it made me think of the assertion I’ve made all along.
Bush gave a number of reasons for going to war. The ones that turned out not to be true were based on bad intel. That being said, the rest may be valid points. The idea that democracy in Iraq may change the balance of power in the middle east, and change the face of the middle east for the better.
The WMD issue seems to be the one that is harped on the most. The reality is: EVERYONE IN THE WORLD BELIEVED IRAQ HAD WMD! As far as the Nuke threat, we’ve since learned that was based on bad intel from the UK. That’s not even the fault of the US. So, all the President said is he doesn’t want to wait until there is a mushroom cloud. Duh! I don’t either. Okay, so we didn’t find WMD’s, we didn’t find Nukes, and we also didn’t find all of those weapons that were just discovered (by the mainstream) to have gone missing. Maybe the WMD’s are in the same place as those weapons. Who really knows. You have to look at the bigger picture. There were alot of reasons given, a couple didn’t pan out. So what. The goal is still the same. Saddam is gone, and ‘DEMOCRACY IS ON THE WAY’.
And another thing, I remember Bush saying he had no plan on his desk for attacking Iraq. He didn’t say there was no plan, or that he hadn’t given it some thought. He specifically said he had no plan on his desk. Is this creative wording again? Yep! So, again Bush didn’t lie. And again he was very Clintonesque in his choice of words. Misleading? Only if you didn’t listen carefully.
I didn’t read Clarks book so I can’t comment on it. Assuming what is said in the book is true, so what. This country better have had a plan to take out Iraq when we had been attacked by them for over 10 years and all of the trouble Saddam has caused the world.
TomS, I would like to hear more about what you said regarding Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. BTW, that last post by you, very hilarious.
I just read some an article titled the 40 greatest lies of the bush administration.
What a load of crap. www.truthout.com is a ultra-liberal joke.
They seem to site a bunch of twisted information tweeked to match their argument.
For example: They complained about how this administration claimed this was the most precision war ever fought. Then they explain that somewhere between 5000 to 10000 civilians were killed during the bombing. First, common sense tells me that we dropped alot of bombs. So I looked into it. I discovered the US dropped 30,000 bombs on Iraq. That is one person for every 3 bombs dropped. If we were trying to kill civilians up to 3 million dollars worth of munitions seems to be overkill for one person. If one fact is blown out of proportion, the whole lot is thrown out the window as slanted propoganda. But that’s just me. And before you say it, what about the untruths alleged against Bush. As I said before, you can’t really trust everything you hear from any of these politicians. So why should I trade a liar I know for one I don’t. I’m not convinced Kerry would be better than Bush.
Shortly after the fall of the USSR, some in the US had the idea that since we were the only super power it’d be the perfect time to establish our hegemony over the rest of the world, esp. areas of economic importance. A Pax Americana. From this idea was eventually born the PNAC. They had approached Clinton when he was president with the idea.
The problem is that they wanted to establish the American peace in order to further their own personal interests. This accounts, e.g., for the change in Iraq to Brememr earlier on - his predecessor had promised an Iraq election in 90 days, and that was not enough time for the business interests to get set up. In comes Bremer, he says it’ll take a year, and that’s enough time for control to be put in place before the Iraqis have any say. When the dust clears, see who owns Iraqi industry. that’s just one example, but it is an important one. Nothing in Iraq had to do with a threat. There was no threat, all of the intelligence Bush had said there was no threat, all of the experts unanimously said that such a move would destabilize and not stabilize the region, but they needed to do it.
PNAC’s plan calls for Iran and other countries in the area next. You will recall that the admin floated some things about Iran a few months ago, and had to back down b/c they feared the public wasn’t ready.
On the one hand the idea of a Pax Americana looks like a good idea: establish american values in areas of the world that have been less than stable. On the other hand it amounts to corporate imperialism, and is being done WITHOUT concern for stability - in the end the powers behind it are business, corporate powers who are not at all concerned with your well being, the environment, individual rights, democracy, or global social justice in any way.
I’ll get you the list of people involved in a sec.
Truth out is a clearing house for news, yes, with a liberal intent. But the sources are the NY Times, the AP, and the like. Name calling (“Liberal” and the like) is mostly useless, and surely you know better than to dismiss something someone has to say on that sort of basis. Look at the evidence.
From www.newamericancentury.com
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital – both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements – built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
? we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
| Quote (TomS @ Oct. 26 2004,16:09) |
| Name calling ("Liberal" and the like) is mostly useless, and surely you know better than to dismiss something someone has to say on that sort of basis. |
Alright, you caught me. Actually, the article had alot of information worth looking into. Alot of it seemed to be based on heresay and the like, but were good points nonetheless.
I'm going to digest your last post and get back to you. I'd like to research that a little more. I will give you my first impression though.
It actually sounds good to me. The ramifications of what they are proposing are certainly questionable and are absolutely meant to promote US interests in a selfish way. In reality that's what every country does. Any country that deals with us expects to get something for it. So why shouldn't we be that way.
On another topic yet maybe somehow related; I saw a special on (I think) the discovery channel. In it they were discussing the war of the 21st century. Sounded interesting and it was. I expected it to be about a 'US weapons of the future' kind of thing, but it wasn't. It was about all of the private corporations, especially those involved in Iraq and Afghanistan are developing armies of their own. I really had no clue. I was in the army, and all of the civilian contractors were simply that, civilian contractors. Technical Represetatives and the like. Back to the story. It showed these guys with automatic weapons, etc... with the ability to do alot of damage. The story even showed an instance in Africa somewhere, where this type of private army was used. Fact or fiction it paints a picture I don't like at all. It implied that smaller countries could emply these private armies to disperse riots or even squash insurgencies. I don't know about you but when Microsoft starts arming its support staff....
Needless to say, I want to explore this angle along with the info you provided. I'll let you know.
I’m going to start a new topic on this one see the one titled America’s Private Armies. I found an article titled by the same name which is what I described at the end of my last post.
| Quote (truth seeker @ Oct. 25 2004,17:18) |
| Don't forget Saddam was building missle technology under the nose of the UN. These missles (while barely) could travel further than THE UN RESOLUTION allowed. |
So the UN mattered that time? When they figured out that Iraq's missiles might reach Israel?
It gets a bit confusing. How about this;
List of countries for which UN resolutions count
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
List of countries for which UN resolutions don't count
Israel
Iraq (when you want to invade)
The reason I mentioned the missles had nothing to do with the purpose, scope or validity of the UN.
I also don’t believe I ever said that I was blindly behind Israel either. Truthfully, the only thing I care about is that my 3 kids can grow up and have a family without worrying about terrorists blowing them up.
Your point is taken.
I do have some concerns about the UN though, since you brought it up. Again I will rely on common sense and little on actual facts. I look at our government and how difficult it is to get anything done. To think that you can actually get any substance out of the UN is sort of crazy (though the idea of the UN is arguably a good one).
Back to my reason for posting this one. I’ve done some reading on the PNAC and RAD. Once you wade through the anti-war rhetoric and occasional hitler comments, it raises some interesting points. Listening to the Anti war guys talk you would think that this is some sort of plan to take over the world for the purpose of enslaving mankind to feed the whims of the United States and (some of) its allies. I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on the subject since I’ve only spent an hour or so reading.
I will concede the following facts:
1. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz all are members of PNAC and probably subscribe to its policies and vision.
2. These 3 men being in such influential positions probably means that they have significant influence in the administration to advance the policies and vision of PNAC.
3. The members of PNAC are in no way similar to Hitler
So far, I am leaning towards the premise that this is a defensive strategy placed on the offensive. A strategy necessary to insure that scenarios like the cold war and WWII don’t come back. Maybe this is oversimplified but I’m still researching. There is concern that China is eventually going to play a more primary role in world affairs. Also, I must take into account the problems of 3rd world countries who are now developing weapons capable of causing serious if not devestating harm to our way of life.
Just from what I believe on the surface is that the US policy is as long as you do the following: Have free elections
and don’t do the following: invade your neighboors (unless provoked), don’t kill one or more specific parts of your population, and don’t threaten the United States (terrorism or otherwise) you shouldn’t have a problem.
What I do believe a strategy is necessary to insure the freedoms we enjoy for generations to come. This just seems like one developed by a small group of people (based on what, I don’t know) when it should have been developed with alot more cooperation before being implemented. Obviously with the way things appear to be going in Iraq it is not looking good. This plan actually claims that the US should be able to handle “Multiple Major Wars”. That to me is ludicrous at current military staffing levels. So there is good and bad in it. Definately great reading though.
Well, I don’t think I said anything about Hitler and the PNAC - somebody else said that? Missed that one I guess. I would not make that comparsion - the attempted genocide of Jews was an evil alomst beyond compare.
The stuff about the “Multiple major wars” is at the core (or one of the cores?) of PNAC - think who benefits from a massively expanded military. Ludicrous? Perhaps, but Kerry is calling for it. Crisis management. Anyway, you remember the concept of “plausible deniability”? That’s what PNAC is. Bush was not in their camp when he was elected, and a lot of the tension and changes in personnel in the admin are the result of different factions of the repubs trying to get power. The PNAC contingent won. The key is that they are NOT trying to protect our freedoms, or make us safer, or free oppressed people. They serve corporate interests, which sometimes coincide with what is right, but often do not. And when those interests don’t coincide, freedom loses out to money. It’s a rather tedious, old story by now.
I talked with God this morning, he said leave his name out of war! He also told me to shut up and play my guitar! 
TomS, I didn’t mean to imply that you said anything about Hitler. Just to clarify what I said, many of the sites that list the negatives of PNAC compare PNAC and Hitler. I agree with what you are saying.
Ah, that makes sense.
| Quote (TomS @ Oct. 26 2004,06:45) |
| I've said it before and I'll say it again - You guys are not looking far enough back in time - Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and their crew are the real force here. |
Hey Tom,
you have made a very good point.
But really to put all of this hearsay into proper perspective you will have to go much further back in time.
To say, when Isreal first became a country.
I think it was following WWII? but I'm sure there's historians in here that will no doupt prove this wrong.
Regardless, of when it accured, it did.
The UN felt that Isreal somehow deserved this land, much to the dismay of the residents of the time.
The whole thing was a great mistake based on a concept that it was once their land and should be returned. It's a good thing there's not a power greater than the US at this time to do the same to us, and give America back to the native Indians, afterall they were here first!
That was a huge mistake, and we will continue to reap the antimosity for generations to come. The arab nation will never conceed that Isreal truely owns that land. And we as Americans will never conceed that it was a mistake(myself excluded) . This is not over by a long shot. And my children will have to live with this ongoing threat as well, for what? So we can sit here and say,"We did the right thing" Hogwash!"
IMHO of course....interesting reading once again, I will now whipe my ass!
jerm
Jeremy, not to sound critical, but it would seem odd to claim that it was a mistake without knowing the full story. You obviously know taht you don’t know enough about it to really make an informed judgment. I respect your admission on that.
With the French and American and English revolutions and the rise of the notion of equal rights Jews at the time thought that they were going to finally get a fair shake. They didn’t. The Christian myth of supersession and Christian anti-Semitism were not so easily elminated. Through the 1800s Jewish leaders thought a lot about various forms of socialism - and you must understand that word in its 19th century context - and one of the products was Zionism. Go read Theodor Herzl - he was the main theorist at the beginning. Then study the actual politcal and social movements before WWII to understand where things were at the end of that war.
Then learn about the holocaust.
Things may not have been handled well in the last few years - in fact, IMHO Bush’s policies are making things much worse - but it was the right thing to do.
I’ll find a link for the Herzl piece to get you started.
Here is the whole of Herzl’s pamphlet:
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html
Also, try this resource:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/index.html
It wasn’t a bad idea to establish a nation for the Jewish people. Of course, this came at the cost of huge disenfranchisement of the people who already lived there. There are still individuals living in refugee camps now in the West Bank and Gaza strip, plus refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, who were there in '48 when it happened. The international community, via the UN, decided on a compromise, which hopefully over time would be accepted by the Arab community. That compromise is called the green line. It took the international community almost 50 years to work that out - this idea was under consideration since Herzl’s time.
Perhaps If Israel had respected the compromise for what it truly was - i.e. a forced gift to Jews at the expense of Arabs - there may have been more acceptance of Israel’s existence in the Arab community by now. It is true that Israel’s land grab came in response to aggression (6-day war) from its Arab neighbours. Israel had every right to defined itself. But keeping Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza (not to mention the Golan Heights) is a betrayal of the international goodwill which allowed Israel to even exist in the first place. Until Israel acts like it respects the original compromise, it will continue to suffer. Palestinians are no more inclined to accept an unfair deal than any other people on earth.