Politics from the Fahrenheit thread

[anduril]

Oh and JustaFied, with respect to #5, be sure not to confuse your expectations or media expectations, with what the administration actually said would happen.

[JustaFied]

Well, I believe I have read most of the posts that you and Steve have written, but I'll go back over them. Again, you guys are talking in noble terms about ending the reign of oppressive regimes, but what do you suggest we do in the situations of the other countries I mentioned? It gets pretty murky pretty quick. Most disturbing to me is his virulent pro-war stance. He seems to be suggesting that war should be the norm in our world. He talks about the need to counter "Democide", but he seems to be lumping in Islamic fundamentalism with the oppressive regimes of history. Al Qaeda is not affiliated with any particular country, so there is no place we can fight in the traditional sense. It's a different type of enemy, it's a different type of conflict, but the knee-jerk reaction seems to be to approach it in the same manner as we approached fighting Hitler or the Vietcong.

In my opinion, a large part of winning this "war" against Islamic fundamentalism is through education. We need to educate ourselves on why there is so much anti-American hatred being put out by these fundamentalists, and we should work to make sure these some of the corrupt autocratic states in the middle east clamp down on the level of this hatred being taught in their religious schools. It goes beyond simply sending in troops and beating their citizens into submission.

The goal of Islamic fundamentalism is not world domination. This is not WWII, where Hitler was bulldozing country after country. I would venture to say that Al Qaeda poses no threat to Norway (and probably not even a threat to Canada). And yet we play right into their hands, we turn this into a religious war where they become martyrs.

[anduril]

al Qaeda has been affiliated with several countries. Obviously, Afghanistan most notably. But, it has also received support and refuge from many others. Afghanistan and Iraq are now fronts against al Qaeda; al Qaeda fights coalition soldiers in both these countries. This is steadily diminishing their capacity. In addition, there are actions on-going against al Qaeda in the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia (and perhaps elsewhere too). al Qaeda is being fought... I'll let Steve elaborate (he had a great summation of this a couple of posts back in this thread).

As for some of your other issues, I again think that they have been covered, especially by the eight points I made in this thread.

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
In my opinion, a large part of winning this "war" against Islamic fundamentalism is through education. We need to educate ourselves on why there is so much anti-American hatred being put out by these fundamentalists, and we should work to make sure these some of the corrupt autocratic states in the middle east clamp down on the level of this hatred being taught in their religious schools. It goes beyond simply sending in troops and beating their citizens into submission.

We are not beating their citizens into submission... we are bringing down totalitarian regimes and giving the people the opportunity to be free. We are also giving them the opportunity to be educated, without the propaganda of their totalitarian regimes, which I agree with you is one of the major fronts in the war on terrorism.

As for learning why the Islamic Fundamentalists hate us... JustaFied I appreciate the sensitivity you are trying to develop here and indeed many Americans could stand to learn something about the way they are perceived in the world and in the Middle East in particular. However, and with all due respect, the Islamic Fundamentalists, at least those connected with bin Laden, hate America because it is America. There is nothing you can do to change this short of converting to Islam (or allowing Muslims to rule the country), instituting sharia law, and putting an end to the freedoms or excesses of American culture. They believe in jihad against the infidels until the world submits to Allah. Even their more immediate purposes, that is to remove all foreigners and non-Muslims from the Middle East and to drive Israel into the sea, are simply not objectives with which America should be empathizing. Theirs is a radical and militant agenda.

The only way to stop it, beyond fighting where we can as we do now, is to raise the level of freedom and enfranchisement in Middle Eastern countries so that young people will not be drawn to this agenda. The only way to raise the level of freedom and enfranchisement... encourage democracy and capitalism. In Iraq and Afghanistan, this has meant invasion. In Libya, embargoes and the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan have gone a long way. In Pakistan, economic incentives have encouraged change. For Iran, it appears necessary to isolate them until the youth of the country have a real chance to enact the reform they desperately desire. This is no cookie-cutter strategy... each country will require a particular approach. But, it must happen to change the way of life there and end the disenfranchisement that spawns terrorism.

[stevetseitz]

>>I'm going to venture into this argument and try to present a few of my qualms with the events in Iraq:

1) Evidently this is now primarily a human rights issue. Initially, the Bush Administration presented the Saddam regime as a "imminent threat", and the Niger high-grade uranium information was thrown out at us to scare us into jumping onto the war bandwagon.<<

Whoa nellie! Has the information REALLY been thrown out? The Senate report on the CIA's intelligence gathering concluded that, contrary to Wilson's statements about his own report, his findings had bolstered rather than undermined the case that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. (The Senate committee also produced his wife's memo recommending her husband for the job. This followed Wilson's assertions that his wife "definitely had not proposed that I make the trip" and his astonishment that anyone could imagine his wife was "somehow involved in this," saying that "just defies logic." Wilson is notably a John Kerry supporter.)

>>This information has since been disproved, and the vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction were never found. So why were we in such a rush to war? There was NO imminent threat, and they probably had a damn good idea that this was the case.<<

David Kay's interim report on Iraqi WMD says:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.


A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.


Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.


New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.


Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).


A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.


Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.


Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.


Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment."

Disproved? Hardly!

The president used this knowledge in addition to the confirmed Iraq-al-Qaeda connection noted in my previous post, one could conclude that Iraq and it's weapons were indeed an imminent threat.

The threefold argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq was that 1. Iraq had terror ties (again see previous post for details) 2. Iraq had WMD programs and 3. Iraq's human rights record was atrocious.

The danger posed to the world by a totalitarian regime can accurately be predicted by their treatment of their own people. Look at Hitler's actions prior to the War. Look at the bloody history of Stalin. Americans and people of the free world should take note when countries opress their own citizens.



>> As an American, I feel BETRAYED that their initial arguments turned out to be invalid, and in my opinion they played the "fear card" to rush into war. Now, the only justifiable argument in retrospect was that Saddam was a bad guy. No doubt true, but as Anduril points out, there are equally horrifying human rights violations going on RIGHT NOW in other parts of the world.<<

Other problems are never an excuse for not solving the one right in front of you.

>> Why are we not in Sudan RIGHT NOW? Why?<<

You don't think we are bringing all our diplomatic and financial resources to bear on Sudan? The whole point is we had been working on Iraq for over 20 years! Read the history. The U.S. government initially supported what they saw as a moderate leader in Iran. Iraq, at the time, was a Soviet satellite down to their baathist roots. When the Shah was overthrown, the U.S. had two choices, try and court the supposedly "secular" leader Saddam Hussein or have no influence in this vital region. The U.S. used this same strategy with some success in other parts of the world. Secular leaders were traditionally seen as easier to work with than idealogues.

>> Why did we do nothing in Rwanda? Why did we do nothing in Cambodia 25 years ago? Why don't we step in and demand changes to countries carrying out human rights violations on a lesser scale right now, countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt? That's hypocrisy for you.<<

Those countries you mention aren't dealing directly with the terrorists who killed 3,000 people in New York City on Sept. 11th.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was.

There is a line from one of my favorite sports films, "Hoosiers":
"Look mister, there's two kinds of dumb, the guy that gets naked
and runs out in the snow and starts barking at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. The first one don't matter. The second one you're kinda forced to deal with."

>>"A just war is better in the long term for a man's character than the most prosperous peace" - I just don't get this, Steve. I know that war is unavoidable sometimes, but that doesn't make those who go to war better people or of higher character than those who don't go to war. Prosperous peace is the longterm goal here, you seem to be equating that to some character flaw. That's sad.<<

No, you are missing the "just" part at the beginning of Roosevelt's comment. His point is that even if you can profit by letting an injustice stand, it's a matter of principle. It's character building to make the tough choices now rather than pawning the decision off to some future leader. Did Bush have to act when he did? Of course not. He could have done nothing, talked tough like Clinton and maybe lobbed a few cruise missiles here or there.

State sponsors would have seen Bush's inaction and continued to sponsor terrorists both here and abroad. America would be in greater danger. Bush made the tough choice. Our President decided to take the battle to the very heart of the region from which our enemies come. He has liberated 50 million in Iraq. Afghanistan will be holding democratic elections soon. This in a place that was run by the Taliban until recently. We have captured one of the biggest war criminals in history and a known state sponsor of terrorism in Saddam Hussein. Arrests are being made almost daily as panic sets in among the terrorists. It's a mad rush to leave a sinking ship.

>>3) Where is Osama? Why have we not caught him yet? I think this is a good point from Moore's movie. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, we should use all of our resources to shut down that organization and bring Osama and the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders to justice, and what do we do? We turn our attention to Iraq. There is NO proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam showing that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.<<

Wrong. There is more than enough evidence proving various levels of state sponsorship of terror by Iraq. Read the 9/11 commission's report. If you haven't I have summarized the most salient points in my previous post. We have highly trained troops searching for Osama as we speak. Typical of Americans our short attention spans and instant gratification addiction don't always match up with reality.



>>Cheney, disingenously, won't let this point go.<<

Dick Cheney is simply being honest with the American people. I would question the judgement of anyone who reads the facts and DOESN'T see a connection. You think the Democrats don't see it? Their posturing is pure election year politics they can't afford to concede this issue to Bush.

>> If you, Steve or Anduril, have links to show an Iraq - Al Qaeda link, please share them with us.<<

Already did. Look at my previous posts. There are books on the subject. You can find Stephen Hayes "The Connection" at a bookstore near you.

>>The Iraq war has created tremendous anti-American sentiment in the world,<<

Only our enemies could possibly begrude us defending ourselves while being pro-active against terrorism. Let's face it America has a lot of enemies. Dennis Miller has it right when he says, "The United States right now is simultaneously the world's most loved, hated, feared and admired nation in the world."


>>5) The United States had no feasible plan for Iraq after removing Saddam. The removal of Saddam created a power vacuum in a country with little history of democracy. And we expected that they could peacefully set up a fully functional system of government where the disparate cultures all got along in harmony? That's the height of naivete.<<

I think the transfer of power has gone incredibly well. Besides, no amount of "planning" can account for all the possibilities. It should surprise no one that a country that has a Shiite majority has some strife when an oppressive Sunni dictator gets thrown out.

>>It's also naive to think that American companies are not benefitting in an Iraq without Saddam. The uncertainity in the region (along with troubles in Russia) has pushed the price of oil to record levels. This is a windfall to the oil companies.<<

The Bush administration has put forth a comprehensive energy bill, which aims to modernize conservation, increase our domestic energy supplies (including renewable energy), and increase our energy security. Although the president's energy bill passed the House of Representatives with the support of 46 Democrats, John Kerry, John Edwards, and the Democratic leadership have repeatedly used procedural hurdles to stymie the bill in the Senate.

If you want to blame high oil prices on someone, blame it on the Dems.

[Johann]

Maybe we can all agree on one thing: the world sucks.

[Johann]

Anduril- I "reasoned" innocent people dying was wrong.

That's the only fact I need to oppose this war.

Wars, oppression, religious and financial disputes- they have existed and will exist forever.

Get used to terrorism and get out your wallets. You and your grandchildren will be supporting it forever.
As long as we have war (and face it- we will forever) we'll be in fear, in debt and in a very real hell.

Your Good Book tells of heaven on earth. Where is it?
I won't see it in my lifetime and niether will you.

We will have turmoil and war and indescribable atrocities forever.
It's human nature.

Vive Life!

[anduril]

I "reasoned" too that innocent people are dying and given the options the most effective way to stop it was to bring down the man causing it, i.e., Saddam Hussein.

That's the only fact I need to support this war.

I know that war, oppression, religious and financial disputes will continue; and, incidentally, so does the Bible. It being human nature is one of the fundamental truths of a biblical worldview. "Heaven on earth" as described in the Bible is an eschatological reality not a present one. (Of course, it can be a present reality too to describe the life in Christ, quite apart from the strife of the world.)

In any case, why do you constantly refer to the Bible when writing to me? Every time you do, you only reveal to me your ignorance about it; and also your ignorance about what I believe about it.

[stevetseitz]

>>Anduril- I "reasoned" innocent people dying was wrong.

That's the only fact I need to oppose this war.<<

O.K. Johann time for a logic test:

If X= 10 innocent people dying and Y=40 innocent people dying

then...

X=must be preferable to Y. By your own standard, the fewer innocent people killed the better. Right?

It's a fact that in the 20th century war and all military conflicts have killed about 40,000,000.

It's also a fact that in the 20th century totalitarian regimes (read: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein) have killed at minimum 170,000,000 of their own citizens.

So as bad as war is, it's always preferable to a totalitarian regime from a human life standpoint.

Freedom is the way to save lives. Free countries don't start wars with each other and the wars that free countries fight in are primarily against totalitarian regimes.

Viva freedom.

[Johann]

If I don't employ the bible you tune out.

Good- we agree that we will live with wars forever.

Now you can go back to your thesis, Steve can go back to his homeland security job (helping on the homefront) and I can go back to my beer and Gangs of New York DVD.

[anduril]

If there is a cancer in your body, you don't just sit there and hope that by your inaction the cancer will slink away. No, you go into the body; you take the risk of being cut open; and, you remove the cancer because, you know, sooner or later, that cancer will kill you and better that you die on the operating table than wasting away an even more horrible and painful death. Everybody hates surgery but sometimes it's the better option. This is the analogy I see with Saddam. He was a cancer on Iraq and the world that needed to be removed.

[anduril]

Originally posted by Johann
If I don't employ the bible you tune out.

If you use the Bible, I tune out because every time I see you do it, I want to roll my eyes.

Originally posted by Johann
Now you can go back to your thesis, Steve can go back to his homeland security job (helping on the homefront) and I can go back to my beer and Gangs of New York DVD.

Still others that want to talk this point and I will engage me... in fact, I've actually been done talking to you about it ever since I left the F9/11 threads. But, you just seem to want to come back at me all the time.

Incidentally, I'm almost done my thesis and will be moving to Pennsylvania by week's end.

[Johann]

The argument that you must take "the lesser of two evils" and "get rid of the cancer" is very noble, but in this case Saddam is a circumstantial cancer.

Why didn't the U.S. get rid of him in 1991 when they had the chance? This question is on a lot of people's minds.

There are many many atrocities going on under many regimes- if the U.S. is gonna "take out" Saddam, they had better tell us that he's only the first one.

The U.S. had better have a long list of terrorists that they're gonna take out of commission. If what you and Steve are saying is the absolute truth, then we can expect a constant, decades- long U.S. intervention on all nations behalf to "rid the world of these terrorist killers".

Somehow I seriously doubt that.

I seriously doubt that Bush has implemented a "war on terror" that will free us from terrorists from nations other than Iraq and Afganistan.


I still feel that Bush is after Iraq for oil and that Saddam was a perfect excuse. The innocent deaths resulted from this oily command decision has created my intensely emotional stance.

[anduril]

Johann: This is exactly what George Bush has proposed to do; a decades long intervention to fight the war on terrorism. Afghanistan and Iraq are only two places; U.S. troops/agents are also fighting in the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other places where they actually have Government support to be there. There are also diplomatic and economic measures being taken throughout the war. This is multi-pronged assault on a very different type of enemy.

Why didn't the U.S. get rid of Saddam in '91? I'll tell you why... the government of the time listened to the advice of people like you and stopped the fighting. Americans saw the "road of death" out of Kuwait littered with the bodies of Iraq's Republican Guard and they lost their resolve. What's more, the mandate of the '91 war with Iraq was to repel the invasion of Kuwait... not, overthrow Saddam.

But, here's the better question: if it's been about oil and, if Moore is right, that this has everything to do with the Bush family businesses, why didn't Bush Sr. just invade Iraq and take over its oil supply when he had the chance in '91? It would have been a whole lot less messy then than now.

[Johann]

He was about to, I think.

But he was voted out of office. And we can only pray that the American people will do the same for his bastard son.