Politics from the Fahrenheit thread

[anduril]

Well, I never did use your last name, Jason Shier, until just now of course ... but if you want Johann, I'll try to watch myself. I apologize.

Your championing of the pragmatic systems of the U.S. government contradicts what you told HorseradishTree!

You tell him in one breath that pacifism is not workable yet you say there is balance in the "branches".

Make up your mind- do we pick a party of our own free will or do we support the Nazi's who currently run the show simply because dictators are threatening us?

I'm not sure I understand the contradiction... please explain. How does asking HorseradishTree to demonstrate pacificism as workable and my defense of the balance of the U.S. branches contradict? And, how does this relate to elections?

Obviously, I don't share your view that the Republicans are Nazis and I do believe that democracy exists in North America and the electorate have the freedom to choose their candidates.

You haven't responded to the very salient points about Bush causing the world to hate the US.

What's to respond to? Do I tell the unpopular kid in school who chooses not to party with the bad kids that its time for him to make bad and improve his popularity?

Also, I hate to break it to the Americans... the Americans have never been well liked as a people. Pre-9/11 I remember having many conversations with fellow Canadians about how important it was to identify yourself overseas as Canadian and not American. The world has always had a love-hate relationship with the U.S. and that hasn't really changed that much because of Iraq; and, I know having travelled in Europe pre- and post-Iraq war. The world is just perhaps a bit more vocal now that some Americans are joining in on the anti-US bandwagon and the American people are just becoming a little more cognizant of what others think of them; they used to not care.

Oh, BTW, the French haven't liked the U.S. ever since they decided to start getting along with the British way back around WWI; so what?

But, y'know, conversely the U.S. relationship with the British, the Australians, and former Eastern Bloc countries is actually the best it has probably ever been.

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
Facts, figures and an infinite number of opposing sources are not enough for me; they seem to prove any and every point. "The street" is perhaps more important to me, and it does not reflect well on Bush outside of this country (and only moderately well in this country). That's an important thing for me.
P

I'll remember to teach my kid that important lesson... only do what's popular with others because that's the right thing to do... huh?!?!?

[pmw]

Originally posted by anduril

I'll remember to teach my kid that important lesson... only do what's popular with others because that's the right thing to do... huh?!?!?

No, don't teach your kids that. You would be doing them a disservice and all because you misread me. As I said, facts and figures are not enough (especially when our sources are dubiously slanted one way or the other). "The street" is an important factor, and given the access the president has to the American public's eyes and ears, the fact that the street expresses grave concerns is a very compelling indication that he's alienated a large percentage of the American population. As a source, it's an important factor to take into consideration.

P

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
No, don't teach your kids that. You would be doing them a disservice and all because you misread me. As I said, facts and figures are not enough (especially when our sources are dubiously slanted one way or the other). "The street" is an important factor, and given the access the president has to the American public's eyes and ears, the fact that the street expresses grave concerns is a very compelling indication that he's alienated a large percentage of the American population. That's an important factor.

America was deeply bi-partisan before 9/11; GWII hasn't really changed anything in this respect, except perhaps focused the bi-partisanship on certain particular issues.

[pmw]

Originally posted by anduril

America was deeply bi-partisan before 9/11; GWII hasn't really changed anything in this respect, except perhaps focused the bi-partisanship on certain particular issues.

True, and in my first posting about this, I mention specifically a loss of support in the international community in reference to "the street." This is a big loss for Americans and one that did not exist before GBII. We have an obligation to work with the world, and this administration has worked against it continuously.

In any case, I think JustaFied makes some very salient points which I hope you'll address as well (I know there are a lot of posts to respond to).

Im out for the rest of the night.
P

[anduril]

Originally posted by pmw
True, and in my first posting about this, I mention specifically a loss of support in the international community in reference to "the street." This is a big loss for Americans and one that did not exist before GBII. We have an obligation to work with the world, and this administration has worked against it continuously.

I commented on the international scene in my response to Johann a couple posts back. I disagree with you. It did exist before; Americans just weren't really aware of it. Old Europe and most of the Middle East has resented America for a very long time. With respect to Old Europe, I speak as someone who has travelled there several times, has family who are first-generation immigrants to North America and still have ties to the old country, and as someone who tries to keep up with news in Europe. There is no real change there; perhaps, the only real difference is that the Iraq War has given them a particular issue on which to vent frustrations that have existed for a very long time.

As for the Middle East, I think you'll see attitudes change as Iraq and Afghanistan become full-fledged democracies and begin to recover from the centuries long oppression they have suffered--a process that will no doubt take at least 10-15 years (as any student of history can attest). But, the real thorn in the Middle East is the Palestine/Israel question... and who knows when this will be resolved.

By contrast, New Europe, Australia, and Britain are now closer than ever... at least, from a political standpoint. Support on the street in these countries is not always strong... but the lack of support hasn't really translated into anti-American sentiment, except perhaps in some parts of Britain.

Also, it is my sense that anti-American sentiment in many countries has subsided considerably in just the last year. It is paltable even here in Canada.

Originally posted by pmw
In any case, I think JustaFied makes some very salient points which I hope you'll address as well (I know there are a lot of posts to respond to).

I tried to address several points and will try to get back at the rest but I also want to leave some room for Steve and any others to get involved... I wouldn't want to dominate the discussion... ;-)

[anduril]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Sorry, I just don't have any primary sources right now. Maybe I'll find some later, maybe not. As far as secondary sources go, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have publicly gone into great depth in the last few months to criticize their own coverage of the Bush Administration's claims of WMD.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...ublic%20Editor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug11.html

Partly, they're claiming that stories they published ended up being factually incorrect, and partly they're claiming that stories that could be seen as challenging the Bush Administration's "reasons for war" were buried deep in the paper. And this was the pre-war coverage from the so-called "liberal media"? Read the articles, they give a pretty broad overview of the WMD fiasco.

As far as your "primary" source goes, Kay's report does NOT prove that Iraq had active WMD's. I see words like "documents", "equipment", "plans" and "designs". Bush's claim was that Saddam was currently in possession of WMD that posed an "imminent threat". It looks like such a threat did not exist.

I'm not much of a fan of the media (though admittedly I watch lots of it), and hence I don't like when the media is used of evidence of this or that. To be frank, many journalists are the most under-educated people out there to claim the title "professional." Think about it... a community college degree can get you a job with the NY Times; and even then you can even bullshit your headlines and stories because there are no standards (such as in the academic world) and minimal oversight.

In any case, to your real point by bringing these up... there was alot of spin before the war. It is undeniable that there was also mistaken intelligence put forward by not only the CIA but the intelligence services of nearly every major country in the free world. The expectation was there that Saddam was even going to use WMD and to this end some of the intelligence has proven incorrect. However, this is neither surprising nor so "outrageous" as people alleged. Certainly, one would hope for more accuracy but intelligence is an art not a science and mistakes can be made. Governments worldwide have investigated the errors and in each case have made important suggestions for improvements while at the same recognizing that the intelligence wasn't wholly bad. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by getting your facts from those unreliable media.

The basic assertions have been verified. Saddam had WMD, failed to report it, and was actively seeking to increase his capacity. Read the CIA report, to see what was actually claimed before the war, and then compare it to Kay's and Duelfer's reports. You'll notice, e.g., that many of the CW and BW agents that the CIA report expresses concern about have been uncovered by Kay and Duelfer. The mobile labs that Powell mentioned in his U.N. speech: Found! Enriched uranium was found in the country and transported out. Also recently, a dirty bomb turned up as a part of a terrorist attack in Iraq and the Polish contingent found seventeen longer-range missiles with WMD warheads. Given this relative trickle, I would actually expect that more will be revealed when Duelfer finishes his report. Also, it remains entirely plausible that WMD were transported to Syria, Iraq's Baathist neighbour, in the long run-up to the conflict.

Originally posted by JustaFied
No, initially the only reason, as stated in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, was the WMD that posed an imminent threat. After no actual WMD were found, they moved on to the next arguments. (Also, by the way, my complaint about Cheney's use of the "terror ties" is more specifically his insistence on a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack itself).

Actually, you are wrong JustaFied. The first reason given by Bush was regime change, well before the 2003 State of the Union. The Bush administration increasingly stressed WMD as it committed itself to pursuing the case through the U.N. and pre-existing resolutions against Iraq. But, more than that, even in the State of Union, Bush calls attention to the terrorist links and the human rights issues. It was always, as Steve mentions, a three-pronged justification.

The rest of your email I'll leave to Steve.

[HorseradishTree]

Originally posted by Johann

I'll address you as Aragorn's sword, you address me as Johannes dos Matteeses dune Filmus.

Oooh, can I be "El Arbol de Grooviness?" Ah, give me a day and I'll find the Latin translation of my alias. I'm taking my third course in it this year, and I find it to be the most beautiful language ever created.

Ok, where were we? Oh, right, war and stuff.

Originally posted by anduril
the argument I submit you must make is that pacificism is more than an nice ideal; that is, it is workable to be pacificist in the face of cruel and tyrannical dictators.

Gandhi saved an entire nation simply by not eating. Well, okay, there's more to it than that, but his passive resistance tactics did indeed service the strive for perpetual continuation of peace.

By making an unbridled attack on another nation, we kind of screwed the pooch with everybody. I believe it to be an excellent regulation to have to get permission from the UN to go to war. But by ignoring that rule, the hawks seem to have shown their true form.

War and violence should be an ultimate resort, and it shouldn't even have to come to that. Did we try everything we could before forcibly removing Saddam from office? I don't think so. And as a result, Spain had its own 9/11, hundreds of Americans have died, and the whole world's looking at us with disgust.

Casting aside casualties of war as honorable deaths for a greater cause is barbaric. No one should have to die to achieve an ultimate goal for the greater good.

[anduril]

It's a good start HorseradishTree but I need more than Ghandi. Ghandi was certainly an amazing figure but his non-violent approach worked because the country against which he directed his challenge had a consitution, a rule of law, and, in this respect, was not tyrannical (even as it may have been colonial and at times brutal). Ghandi had many vocal supporters in Britain who helped his cause, including among them (at least for a time) Winston Churchill, who spoke out in a very famous speech against the Amritsar Massacre. Also, Britain was not in a state of war with Ghandi; they simply ruled India. So, Ghandi could take some comfort in that he wasn't going to get pulled away in the middle of the night by the secret service or shot simply for expressing his political dissatisfaction (the Amritsar Massacre notwithstanding)...

What I need is some examples of civil disobedience and pacificism working against a totalitarian regime...

[anduril]

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
Casting aside casualties of war as honorable deaths for a greater cause is barbaric. No one should have to die to achieve an ultimate goal for the greater good.

So, the British civilians who died from Nazi bombing raids didn't die honorably in their commitment to oppose Hitler. Tell me, how exactly would pacificism have stopped Hitler? Do you think a Jew refusing to eat would have stopped the Holocaust? Do you think a Pole advocating a boycott of German goods who have prevented the 1939 invasion of his country and systematic extermination of many of his countrymen? How successful was Belgian neutrality in preventing the invasion of their country?

Now, tell me, do you think a non-violent protester would have prevented the gassing at Halabja? Or, how about a Kuwaiti standing in the front of the tanks that rolled into his country? Should we have continued the policy of appeasement and containment and lifted the sanctions against Iraq (as many advocated pre-9/11)? Isn't twelve years of embargoes, sanctions, no-fly zones, and military presence doing everything we can to find a peaceful solution? Saddam was funnelling billions off the Oil-for-Food; he was re-arming. Do you think he was doing this just to assert the sovereignty of his own country with a goal of living in peace with his own people and his own neighbours? Do you think if we gave him another ten years he would have complied with U.N. demands he had failed to meet for the previous twelve? Don't you think his army would have grown in that time? How about his WMD capacity--would it have shrunk or grown?? Wouldn't another ten years have only harmed the Iraqi people that much more and made the inevitable invasion that much more bloody?

Do you think the pacificists who died on 9/11--and there must have been at least one--weigh on the mind of Osama Bin Laden?

[stevetseitz]

>>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.<<

Ummmmm, maybe because the Democrats in Congress wouldn't have gone for it? Hell, we had to bribe Al Gore with national TV time just to get him to support the liberation of Kuwait. The fact that you can point to a history with Iraq and that our challenges with Saddam date back several decades should tell you right there that THERE WAS NO "RUSH" TO WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>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.<<

Oh...so now you are a hawk? You suggest that the precedent set for regime change was Saddam's regime? I often wonder if we should bother with the U.N. red-tape and security council resolutions, sanctions, inspections, and "oil for food" programs at all. We gave Saddam a hell of a lot of leeway. You know me, I'm all about saving lives and anytime the choice is between a totalitarian regime that supports terrorism and war it would be war ANYTIME.

>>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".<<

How ever long it takes.

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.<<

Why? Iraq was a state sponsor of al-Qaeda, large enough to provide arms, training, refuge, intelligence and financing. Afghanistan was al-Qaeda's home base. Why the hell WOULDN'T we make the first major battles in the War on Terror those two nations?


>>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.<<

Feelings are temporary. Emotions are decidedly irrational. Facts do not change with our moods. Reason and intellect provide us with the ability to make choices based on principle.

[Johann]

Several decades?

No way, Jose- the U.S. had a nice relationship with Saddam and provided him with lots of toys only a short time ago...
You know it, Steve- your provocations are getting mighty tiresome.

A hawk? What does that mean? Please explain.

e-mail me when Bush has rid the earth of terrorists, Steve.
I need closure.


Great to know your ready for war when the need arises, btw.
What's your source for the "state sponsoring" of Al-Queda?

Be very specific.

There ain't nothing irrational about my emotions. I don't spontaneously erupt at the drop of a hat.

I speak with conviction about my emotions. Why would I waste my time? I'm dead serious about needless death and my indignance about it's cause.

Keep mocking- I'll keep calling you a blind fool.

[Johann]

anduril seems to think that pacifism involves standing by and letting atrocities happen without blinking an eye.

Hardly.

You flap your gums about "doing nothing is worse than fighting evil doers". Well, muchacho, some people think that you fuel the flames of evil if you engage these "terrorists".

And the situation in Iraq right now proves that "adage" with aplomb- there is a lot of escalating tension and hatred for the U.S. that increases every damn second.

And it was all avoidable. A damn shame.

Yeah, Saddam was a horrific dictator. We get it.
Stop using that excuse.

I love how Steve said if I had my way Saddam would still be in power. Now who's a mind-reader? Saddam is/was evil. But his removal could have been executed in a myriad of different ways. But Dubya felt killing innocents and ignoring the Geneva Convention was the best way. Fuck him and his Imperialist, Nazi Rules.

The cowboy president said "a dictatorship would be easier" in refering to his role as president. Nice.
Those words actually came out of his mouth- fact.
Deny that one anduril- I'll be happy to give you plenty of primary sources confirming he said it.

Funny how Bush wants a dictaorship himself and wages war with one. Now who's a hypocrite?

Anduril- those people who died in previous wars were heroic- nobody profited financially from their deaths daily, nor did their leaders send them into harm's way without exploring all the options. And there was a SERIOUS threat from Hitler and co.
Saddam was not a serious threat- only to his own people. I've said it before- the U.S. is not a schoolmarm. They are not the World Police. And if they are, if they are taking that responsibility, don't go half-assed about it. Don't send 11,000 troops to Afganistan and give Osama a 2 month head-start. 11,000 troops? As Moore pointed out, there are more cops in Manhattan than there are soldiers in Afhganistan. Yeah, those terrorists sure are on the run!

In fahrenheit, there's a clip of Colin Powell telling the camera (back in 2000?) that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction and that he's of absolutely no threat to the United States.

Hmmm. So in a scant 2 years Saddam became an imminent threat? So in a very short time Saddam was again an enemy who's gonna harm us?

Weird. Explain that one, anduril.

waiting...

and I'm also waiting for concrete proof that Al-queda and Saddam were bed-buddies.

[anduril]

You've just recycled arguments I've answered before; I'm not interested in going at them again. If you don't agree, if you've thrown in the towel, fine. I have no expectation that I'll reason you out of your position because, as you yourself have admitted and I've explained before, you didn't reason yourself into it the first place. If I shared your conviction that George W. Bush was Hitler and the Republicans the Nazis than I would oppose them too and I would be just as appalled as you are that someone would suggest Bush is possibly a good guy; thing is, I don't share your conviction. In fact, I think it is pure nonsense. But, as long as you're there, it is rather pointless for me to try to reason with you.

[Johann]

You don't reason- you defend your stance with info approved by Bush.

I reason innocent deaths is wrong and could have been avoided.
Can you deny that?
No, you can't.
How many people have died over there, anduril- forget about Saddam for one fucking second- 30, 000+ and counting?

This war is a mini-vietnam and Bush is Nixon.

You've refuted nothing- and neither has Steve. You both stand behind your government-approved "primary sources" while attacking me for lack of facts.

The lack of facts is Bush's fault- I can't provide facts when the government lies!

I can't accurately debate you because I'm faced with corrupt info!

Now who's thrown in the towel?

Nice way to avoid all of my salient points.
Bravo.

Look at my last post. I PLEAD with you to respond to it.
I WANT to be wrong here- make me wrong anduril- look at each thing I typed and respond intelligently, astutely.

If you don't, then I assume the correct perspective on this war and Bush.