| 0 |
Subject: Burma
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [14851288] Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 18:25
I have to admit to being a little unsure how this is going, but I think we're on the cusp of something very special there. Andrew Sullivan's latest is a good starting (not ending) point. Please post more information as you might get it. The failure of a closed society by the actions of the people on the inside, risking their lives to protest, is an inspiration to all of us, I think. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 27 | biliruben
ID: 17502215
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:12
|
"my response was to billi "If you just rush in guns a-blazing, you get Iraq." inferring that no diplomacy was tried.
Actually, I was pointing out that if you don't consider what you do AFTER you take out the junta, then you may end up with a worth situation than if you had done nothing at all.
I think Iraq could have been a success story. Unlikely, but possible.
The key is have competent, forward looking, leadership that has the right sorts of end-goals firmly in mind, and sees a way to get them with a high probability of success.
Don't undertake nation-building lightly.
|
| 28 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:17
|
But the intelligence officials said the munitions found since the invasion dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and for the most part were badly deteriorated. "They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed," one intelligence official said.
For purposes of clarification...that means they dont work anymore. A "stockpile" of badly deteriorated" chemical weaponry, is not a stockpile of chemical weapons. Its a collection of junk.
|
| 29 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:26
|
RE: 26 & 28
That meth we knocked your door down for has since turned into chalk. Go ahead and smoke it or shoot it up, it won't get you any higher than dirt, but we are still going to charge you/invade your country because WE ARE NEVER WRONG!
Solid argument, JBar.
|
| 30 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:44
|
Next, start using your intelligence corp for good. Work to get a handle on weaknesses within the military hierarchy that could possibly be exploited as well as possible strengths among the opposition that could be supported with intelligence, supplies and arms.
is this an advocation of a CIA coup? this has to be first.
lets all admit it diplomacy usually does not work in these situations, i mean if it did i surely think castro would not be in control right now(he is still alive?). i guess we will go back to old stand bys like embargoes which pretty much are worthless and i am sure they got some nice cheap labor that needs to be exploited...
|
| 31 | biliruben
ID: 17502215
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 15:03
|
Not necessarily a coup. Gathering information to try and assess what sort of action, if any, would be useful.
If that indicates a coup would have a high likelihood of very positive outcome, great. I would doubt that would be the case, but who knows until you dig around.
Diplomacy doesn't work quickly. But often it's still the best option, out of a set of bad options.
|
| 32 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 18:27
|
Sarge, read more about it and you may find that the delivery systems were junk but that the mustard was still approx 80% effective and the Sarin was not stored as a binary unit which would mean that it doesn't deteriorate because it hasn't been mixed yet. The Sarin is on it's way let us know the facts when it arrives as to whether it could be used because the insurgents were surely wanting it for it to just be worthless.
|
| 33 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 18:31
|
Duelfer's report said that, while the old munitions might be effective as terrorist weapons, they didn't pose a "militarily significant threat" and couldn't cause mass casualties.
Correct me if I am wrong, but WMD = Weapons of MASS Destruction. Yes? If the weapon is incapable of causing MASS destruction, then it is not a WMD.
So much for your effort to deflect the truth and present yourself as clever.
|
| 34 | J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 19:42
|
First of all, Duelfer's view is from a man that if WMD were found would be a direct reflection on his performance as head of the ISG so his opinion may be slanted.
WMD = NBC
That was the definition used by the U.S government per report dated Dec 2002. Nerve gas falls under that definition.
|
| 35 | Perm Dude
ID: 5593356
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 08:35
|
Still pinning your hopes on old (pre GWI) cannisters of nerve gas? Jeez, how sad.
As if your performance her isn't slanted by yor hope to prove George Bush right. At least he's already conceded that there were no WMD.
|
| 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:11
|
I am well aware J-Bar, of the definition of WMDs. and by extension, the military term NBC..Nuclear, Biological, Chemical)...however, decayed and inaffective cannisters of Chems, do not fall under the definition of WMDs. WMDs, refer to weapons capable of a military application and resulting in MASS destruction. Cannisters of decayed Sarin, could potentially be used in a small strike terrorist action, but would not be meaningfully impactful in a military sense. They are then, by virtue of their failure to meet the definition, NOT WMDs. (ie a "weapon" capable of causing a fairly high percentage of casualties in a subway for ex, does not constitute a Weapon of Mass Destruction. To meet that definition, said weapon would have tohold the capacity to cause significant damage not to a single subway platform, but to a significantly larger area.)
Yes, we are to a degree persing words. However, if you are going to maintain that Iraq had WMDs, then you have the burden upon you to prove that they did. What you have pointed so far, falls well short of your contention. (As a counter ex, 3 guys with 4 hand grenades ea, could cause a higher casualty count than could those decayed cannisters of gas. Are you then going to contend that a crate of grenades constitutes WMDs?)
|
| 38 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 11:13
|
Fact is, the Administration could never have argued that a few hundred cannisters of decaying materials a decade old or more comprised a threat warranting a preemptive invasion to oust a standing government. We were looking for stockpiles -- huge quantities.
While my personal opinion is that it's likely that the stuff was there, citing these findings as proof that the administration was right is folly.
|
| 39 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 16:28
|
Sarge, very nice that you shared your definition of WMD. Please source that definition.
again WMD = NBC and chemicals were found
Sarge, which part of NBC do grenades fall under?
Mith, I could care less about proving the administration was right, almost every intelligence agency in the world believed it was true and that is why you and I believe that they had them to this day and were able to disburse them while the stall was going on.
Mith, citing a preemptive invasion to oust a standing government when describing the Iraq action is a folly.
|
| 40 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 16:33
|
Huh? What do you mean by "the Iraq action"?
|
| 41 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 16:40
|
the action that has 160,000 troops in Iraq. you know OIF.
|
| 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 5593356
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 16:42
|
I guess you're going to do it alone on the WMD argument, Jag. The President conceded the point in 2004.
|
| 43 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 16:45
|
WMD = NBC yes. Just as Fruit = Apples. Fruit however, also = Banana for ex.
Ineffective warheads/cannisters, are not WMDs, regardless of what they were when new. They were non-functional, and thus not WMDs. (As PD has pointed out repeatedly, you're trying to hold to a claim, that it appears you alone are trying to maintain. Just what is YOUR source, that it is superior intel to what shrub has available to him?)
|
| 44 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 16:56
|
OIF
What?? Its folly to cite the Bush Administration's stated objective for Operation Iraqi Freedom when "describing [Operation Iraqi Freedom]"?
What in the world are you talking about?
|
| 45 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 17:11
|
Sarge, I know that you like the word ineffective but I again present to you that why was it wanted by the insurgents if it was ineffective. I will agree again that the delivery systems were junk but that does not make the chemicals themselves junk.
PD 2004 declassified report 2006
Bush stupidly thinking that most people could see the greater good, the big picture, the long term strategic and logistic benefits of having a stable democratic leaning holder of 80% percent of the world's oil reserves in twenty years and if not a present threat that it was still a future threat. Oh well.
|
| 46 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 17:15
|
J-Bar, your capacity for ignoring reality, is almost mind-boggling.
|
| 47 | J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 17:24
|
just ignoring your reality
|
| 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 5593356
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 17:26
|
J-Bar: Do you just not even bother reading the links anymore? The Duelfer report was done originally in 2003, then updated and released in full form by the ISG in September 2004. Bush, of course, was well aware of the classified and unclassified components of the report when he stated, in October 2004, that there were no WMD in Iraq, citing his own handpicked man's report.
Of course, the 2006 report merely catalogs a large number of old, obsolete (pre 1991 war) weapons, which were already included in both the David Kay and ISG reports.
The reports were all quite conclusive, and (try as they might), could not bring themselves to demonstrate the weapons found as posing a military threat. About the only thing they said was that, because many scientists who might have worked on WMD programs for Saddam went into private practice in their respective fields, that Saddam could have re-started a program. But he didn't.
You're really grasping at straws here, J-Bar. And, in your grasping, you're missing the bigger picture.
|
| 49 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 18:23
|
Bush stupidly thinking that most people could see the greater good
Or stupidly thinking the American people would accept taking a chance at that unlikely ideal after being misled about the threat Saddam posed, being misled about the dificulty and liklihood of the endeavor, witnessing war tactics that actively undermined that ideal which handed administration cronies huge profits that we foot the bill for in the form of unprecedented spending, lost American lives, squandered international support and lost focus and complacency in the hunt for al Qaeda.
I agree, he was very stupid to think the American people would accept those terms.
|
| 50 | Perm Dude
ID: 5593356
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 18:32
|
It is up to the President to articulate this "greater good." He did so. Turns out the "greater good" he was articulating was a house of cards.
Bush was, indeed, stupidly thinking about Iraq.
|
| 51 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 18:49
|
Bush was, indeed, stupidly thinking about Iraq.
Would that not more accurately be phrased:
Bush was, indeed, stupidly thinking stupidly about Iraq.
|
| 52 | J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 19:40
|
pd you are right i am missing the your big picture.
Mith- you say Saddam's threat was not real, I say it was.
you say the task of removing Saddam from power was a difficult endeavor, i say that it happened pretty much as advertised
you say war tactics were used that actively undermined the ideal, I am unsure what your talking about here but I feel that war tactics are left to professionals and hope they overcome, adapt and to the challeges of war.
you say cronies made money, i say money has always been made in rebuilding of countries after war.
you say unprecendented spending and i say as percent of GDP in time war this is debatable allowing for inflation.
al queda leaders are still being capyured and killed is what i say.
|
| 53 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 20:04
|
you say Saddam's threat was not real
Real to the extent that it warranted an unprecedented preemptive war that defied 225 years of established American foreign policy? No way.
you say the task of removing Saddam from power was a difficult endeavor
No. I say the objective of OIF - as you lay it out in your terms i.e. "the greater good" - was and is a very difficult if not nearly impossible endeavor.
you say war tactics were used that actively undermined the ideal
While I think a very strong case can be made to support this as well, what I actually meant was occupational tactics. Happy to elaborate if you'd like.
you say cronies made money
War profiteering is always more difficult to watch when the effort is botched and the profiteering itself contributes to setbacks and failures on the ground.
as percent of GDP in time war this is debatable allowing for inflation
Perhaps you are correct here.
al queda leaders are still being capyured and killed is what i say
Yeah, the ones we largely created in Iraq. Meanwhile, key individuals who took active roles in 9/11 are still at large and have committed numerous large scale attacks since that time.
|
| 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 5593356
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 20:18
|
Knock em down, MITH.
|
| 55 | J-Bar
ID: 39911518
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 20:43
|
You keep using unprecedented preemptive war
that is what started this whole conversation how long does a ruler and or country snub diplomacy before a military action is warranted.
i say this is not an unprecedented preemptive war but a continuation of the consequences clearly articulated to Saddam that if he did not cooperate with the cease-fire agreements and if he did not comply with the U.N resolutions.
the difficulty of the war on terror and the emergence of a democratically leaning Iraq was never understated that I can remember and it was stated that we would be in Iraq for a lengthy time and this very clearly was stated time and again.
you are probably right Al-Zarqawi and Abu Shahid were model international citizens prior to our presence in Iraq. (as Borat would say NOT)
I really am not inclined to defend the profiteering and i wish that there were more honest overseers of the taxpayers money but this i am afraid is a cancer that is not just prevalent in Iraq but is an issue in the me first world that we are starting to find ourselves in. believe it or not though corruption is not an american only issue.
|
| 56 | Perm Dude
ID: 5593356
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 21:51
|
that if he did not cooperate with the cease-fire agreements and if he did not comply with the U.N resolutions.
Well, let's look at those. Which agreements did he violate, exactly?
|
| 57 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 22:23
|
the difficulty of the war on terror and the emergence of a democratically leaning Iraq was never understated that I can remember and it was stated that we would be in Iraq for a lengthy time and this very clearly was stated time and again.
you are probably right Al-Zarqawi and Abu Shahid were model international citizens prior to our presence in Iraq. (as Borat would say NOT)
There was already a democratic entity in Iraq for a decade before the invasion - Kurdistan. Now, they have to tussle with the Arabs in Baghdad in order to cut oil deals.
It was obvious the administration figured to be in Iraq for a lengthy time. How else to explain using a billion dollars of taxpayer money to build the biggest, most expensive embassy in the history of the world while the rest of Iraq suffers from a lack of water and electricity?
As for Al Zarqawi, prior to the invasion, he was fingered as a biological weapons expert, especially versed in the use of sarin as a weapon. Curiously, in all the time spent chasing Al Zarqawi around Iraq, he never once used the weapon of his expertise, which would have been readily available to him if he had a working relationship with Saddam's regime, instead resorting to the questionably effective strategy of beheading as his main choice of warfare.
You won't find anyone who believes corruption is an American issue only. However, as Americans, it's logical that we would (or should) be more concerned with corruption that directly affects our own government spending than that of any other nation. But logic hasn't exactly been your strong point in this thread.
|
| 58 | J-Bar
ID: 39911518
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 22:54
|
nice little read
agreements resolutions and violations
|
| 59 | Perm Dude
ID: 5593356
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 23:05
|
Any report which includes violations of the "no fly zones" (which were never part of any agreement) can be dismissed out-of-hand, J-Bar.
Pretty much all of this report is a compilation of old, penny ante, violations. And the following has no place in a report:
The Iraqi government was the only Middle East regime that did not send condolences to the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks, although Iraq officials did express sympathy to several U.S. non-government organizations known to oppose U.S. containment policies toward Iraq. According to numerous press reports, U.S. officials have not found clear evidence of an Iraqi hand in the attacks or subsequent cases of anthrax, although some U.S. officials have said they suspect Iraqi involvement.
They didn't send a card! OMG! Let's bomb them.
|
| 60 | WiddleAvi
ID: 25102616
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 23:13
|
My only question is why does anyone even bother responding to J-Bar?
|
| 61 | J-Bar
ID: 39911518
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 23:15
|
pv- i appreciate that you feel that Saddam would not have addressed the kurds w/o the Northern watch going on. logically i don't believe so based on his prior actions (Beyond this, Saddam was also guilty of crimes of aggression against Iran (1980-88) and Kuwait (1990-91), and crimes against humanity in his massacre of Iraq’s Kurds (especially the Anfal campaign in 1987-88) and the Shia Arab majority (especially in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War).
i agree with the condemnation of the corruption but the fact that it may happen logically cannot be a deterrent to not assisting these people with rebuilding the water, schools, electricity , hospitals, roads, economy, resources and economy that is exceeding pre-war levels with an infrastructure capable of exponentially increasing for future needs as opposed to the crumbling one under Saddam.
zarqawi-good guy or bad what are you saying?
|
| 63 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 00:03
|
i say this is not an unprecedented preemptive war
In order to support this you'll have to either argue that there is a precedent for preemptive war in US history (good luck) or stand in disagreemment with the how the Bush Administration has defined the war in Iraq:
Cheney 09.26.02: As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated: "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action."
I am familiar with the arguments against taking action in the case of Saddam Hussein. Some concede that Saddam is evil, power-hungry, and a menace -- but that, until he crosses the threshold of actually possessing nuclear weapons, we should rule out any preemptive action. That logic seems to me to be deeply flawed. Ari Fleischer 12/26.02:The President of course supports preemptive action. The President has said that is part of America's doctrine because of the different nature of terrorism. President Bush 04.13.04: I guess there have been some that said, well, we should have taken preemptive action in Afghanistan, and then turned around and said we shouldn't have taken preemptive action in Iraq. And my answer to that question is, is that, again I repeat what I said earlier -- prior to 9/11 the country really wasn't on a war footing. Doesn't sound like they had any problem discussing it as a preemptive war.
the difficulty of the war on terror and the emergence of a democratically leaning Iraq was never understated that I can remember and it was stated that we would be in Iraq for a lengthy time and this very clearly was stated time and again.
Your memory is sadly short. Yes we were mislead. The easy response is the anti-war left's favorite Dick Cheney quote from April, 2003. I shouldn't have to repeat it for you.
We were told it wouldn't be very expensive (post 92). The notion that this could be a long and costly engagement was blatently suppressed. By the Bush Administration. There was very little if any public accounting, concern or acknowledgement of any potential for an insurgency that would result in years of sustained excessive violence, casualties, delayed and stagnated rebuilding and extensive combat operations.
In May of 2005 Dick Cheney told Larry king that the insurgency was in it's "last throes". Yeah, they hadn't been understating the difficulty.
Al-Zarqawi and Abu Shahid
Tell me do you know of a single successful kill or capture resulting from the "flypaper strategy" besides Al-Zarqawi? I don't know that Abu Shahid was an active terrorist before Iraq or anywhere in the world outside of Iraq.
Earlier this year, National Intelligence Director told the Senate Armed Services Committee that al Qaeda in pakistan had reconstituted since we have turned our focus away from the group that attacked us on 9/11 as we focus on the new al Qaeda branch in Iraq that did not exist until we started the war.
Please, honestly, didn't it just shock you when President Bush told America in a March 2002 press conference that he doesn't really think about [bin Laden] very much and tsay that he was "truly not concerned about him?" Even if it didn't -- even if you managed the intellectual dishonesty to reason it away, how are you able to stomach thinking about that now, 6 years later and after numerous attacks around the world since we diverted much of our military presence from Afghanistan, with bin Laden and his thugs continuing to taunt us from their hole in pakistan?
Reading it now doesn't make you sick? Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. That was in March 2002. One year before we invaded Iraq. Since that statement, there have been al Qaeda terror attacks in Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm el-Sheikh, Amman and Algiers.
|
| 64 | J-Bar
ID: 39911518
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 01:48
|
unprecedented- was the biggest problem, that would imply that we have never bombed a country before with cause.
maybe I misunderstood what YOU meant by preemptive war. were there aspects of this action that would possibly preempt the attaining and possible use of nukes sure or preempt his backing and providing safe haven to terrorists sure. i took your use of the phrase to express that it was an unjustified act. which it definitely was not, the sanctions and the U.N. resolutions were preemptive and weren't working. this action was fully authorized by both the congress and the U.N. as the consequences for non-compliance.
i agree completely that all of the military and the intelligence community should NOT be focused on one man.
So before 2002 there were no terrorist attacks
from your link:
He said the group does not have the thousands of fighters, training in multiple camps, as they did in Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. "That's gone," he said.
this link is from feb 2007 and i am sure you believe that no behind the scenes diplomacy with pakistan has taken place but just maybe since Zarqawi and Abu are no longer relevant.
If the ranks of al-qaeda are so thin that a man can rise to top iraqi in al qaeda in less than 4 years we are doing a great job. (Abu Shahid) i would say that it is more likely that this iraqi had been a close confidant of the UBL and zarqawi IMO but you feel free to believe whatever you want.
|
| 65 | J-Bar
ID: 39911518
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 02:35
|
pd 59 I am sorry I missed your post
I agree that line was pretty stupid but that doesn't discount the U.N. resolutions that were listed
unsure why this is written this way if not part of the agreement
his agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities.
|
| 66 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 11:59
|
unprecedented- was the biggest problem, that would imply that we have never bombed a country before with cause.
No it doesnt. It implies, corfrectly, that we have never STARTED the war before, without cause.
|
| 67 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 14:01
|
unprecedented- was the biggest problem, that would imply that we have never bombed a country before with cause.
Unprecedented is not a word that I pulled out of thin air or use lightly. The Bush doctrine of preemption was first introduced in an 06.01.02 speech, explaining that the new threat requires new methods of confrontation:For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)
Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. And if you think American bombing campaigns over other countries are recognized by the US as acts of war, you don't know how American foreign policy works.
But anyway, to give you an idea about America's foreign policy for 225 years prior to March, 2003:
President Lincoln 02.15.1848: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Herry Truman:"I have always been opposed to the thought of such a war. There i snothing more foolish than to think war can be stopped by war. You don't 'prevent' anything but peace." Dwight Eisenhower 1954:All of us have heard
this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war--what is a preventive war?
I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a
thing." In 1962 RFK called the suggestion of attacking Soviet
missle targets in Cuba "Pearl Harbor in reverse" and stated, "For 175 years we have not been that kind of country"
this action was fully authorized by both the congress and the U.N. as the consequences for non-compliance.
No, it was not authorized by the UN. Read Resolution 1441 again. In no part of it or any of the resolutions it refers to is the authorization to invade and conquer Iraq given to any government, entity or body. The US government acted in defiance of the UN. I'm pretty shocked that today in 2007 you still think that.
all of the military and the intelligence community should NOT be focused on one man.
Correct. It should have remained focused on the organization that attacked us on our soil on 9/11.
So before 2002 there were no terrorist attacks
This is not very effective sarcasm. Of course there were al Qaeda terrorist attacks prior to late 2002. That's how Bush should have known that there was still much work to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But instead we pulled much of our military and intelligence resources out of the region and redirected them to Iraq.
from your link:
He said the group does not have the thousands of fighters, training in multiple camps, as they did in Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. "That's gone," he said.
True, so they aren't as strong as they were when they attacked us, but that they are able to continue to grow in strength at all is a disgrace.
How can anyone who criticized the Clinton Administration for failing to hunt down and dismantle al Qaeda stomach the site of continued taunts from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri after Bush walked away from the chase to persue Saddam Hussein?
you believe that no behind the scenes diplomacy with pakistan has taken place
More like demands that Musharraf (whom we have sub-contracted to job out to) get off his ass and do something about it. We know that in an attempt to appease criticism from the US, he attacked a mosque earlier this year in the tribal areas sympathetic to bin Laden. And we know that little or nothing came of it. I suspect the next time we hear anything about Musharraf's hunt for al Qaeda and Taliban bases in Pakistan will be shortly after the next intelligence report stating that they have continued to reconstitute.
just maybe since Zarqawi and Abu are no longer relevant
While we know there was communication and some organizational cooperation specifically regarding al Qaeda in Iraq, Zarquari had been largely irrelevant outside of the sphere of Iraq.
If the ranks of al-qaeda are so thin that a man can rise to top iraqi in al qaeda in less than 4 years we are doing a great job.
Well as I've stated we were doing a great job dismantling the greater al Qaeda network, until we redirected our focus in late 2002. But the part that seems to continue to escape you is that al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before 2004. So almost every prominant member of that organization rose to his level of prominance in less than 4 years.
i would say that it is more likely that [Abu Shahid] had been a close confidant of the UBL and zarqawi
Prior to 2002? There's no evidence to support you that I'm aware of. We do know that according to Military Spokesman, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, al-Mashhadani [aka Abu Shahid] was the leader of the Ansar al-Sunnah group before joining al-Qaida in Iraq 2 1/2 years ago.
And according to the State Dept., Ansar al-Sunnah has operated in Iraq since 2001, when they opposed Saddam Hussein.Ansar al-Islam (AI)
a.k.a. Ansar al-Sunnah Partisans of Islam, Helpers of Islam, Kurdish Taliban
Description
Ansar al-Islam (AI) is a radical Islamist group of Iraqi Kurds and Arabs who have vowed to establish an independent Islamic state in Iraq. The group was formed in December 2001. In the fall of 2003, a statement was issued calling all jihadists in Iraq to unite under the name Ansar al-Sunnah (AS). Since that time, it is likely that AI has posted all claims of attack under the name AS.
AI is closely allied with al-Qa’ida and Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi’s group, Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) in Iraq. Some members of AI trained in al-Qa’ida camps in Afghanistan, and the group provided safe haven to al-Qa’ida fighters before Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Since OIF, AI has become one of the leading groups engaged in anti-Coalition attacks in Iraq and has developed a robust propaganda campaign. So there was at least some operational cooperation between Shahid's group and the greater al Qaeda network, though there is no evidence to suggest he was a "close confidant" of OBL as you seem to want to believe. What we do know is that he was an Iraq-based thug concerned with Iraqi issues from 2001 until his capture. If you think you can show taht he served the greater al Qaeda network's objectives and not just those of al Qaeda in Iraq, please put up.
|
| 68 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 14:36
|
*note to self: before undertaking any sincere debate with MITH...make gddmn sure your ducks are lined up nice and neat like.*
|
| 69 | J-Bar
ID: 39928616
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 20:37
|
let's see if I can address this litany that so thoroughly impressed Sarge.
Lincoln was a great man but his take on invading other countries was limited, he could see no threat from a distance.
With all the others they were absolutely correct in their assessments of the threats of their time but again limited to countries and conventional warfare.
I say that foreign policy should address the new threats with new ideas and you say we should handle it like lincoln and truman and rfk. agree to disagree.
there were resolutions that threatened grave consequences prior to 1441 but I am glad that we had an administration and allies that saw that a country with veto power would never allow a resolution that plainly authorized the consequences (France, who was in bed with Saddam, rendered the U.N. worthless). based on the U.N. resolutions that allowed the attack on Iraq due to their attack on Quwait and the subsequent cease-fire violations, and the violation of 1441 it was inferred by the U.S. and it's allies that the action was authorized since no other course through the U.N. was available. in short, i feel that depending on the U.N. (with its corruption)to allow the U.S. to take action that was deemed to be in our best interest should not happen. you say that we are cowboying it and should be governed by the U.N. i agree to disagree
your inference that we are not able to do more than one military and intelligence operation is funny. must have been happen stance that shahid and zarqawi have been caught or killed (talk about someone that can't give credit where credit is due) i agree to disagree
i feel that the threat to this country is from several radical islamic groups and you feel that it is only al qaeda. i agree to disagree
you feel that the most hunted and wanted man in the world is meeting and welcoming new people to his inner circle and i say that if he was that stupid he wouldn't still be alive. i agree to disagree.
you believe that Saddam had no terrorist ties and i say not. i agree to disagree.
al qaeda in Iraq did not exist before 2004. i agree
you seem to feel that because it did not exist(probably Saddam's decision) that Saddam had no association with, gave resources to, and did not have some like minded ideas with the organization. i agree to disagree
ok so back on topic how many years and resolutions does it take before we help those in burma and it be ok.
|
| 70 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sat, Oct 06, 2007, 21:58
|
how many years and resolutions does it take before we help those in burma and it be ok.
Help for Burma is more in the hands of the powers that border it:
China
"Burma is not just a trade partner but a political ally and neighbor of China and China has not really shared with the outside world what its relationship with Burma really is. Some have said Burma is a puppet regime [of China] and some have said it's effectively a province of China.
"China is just saying it doesn't want to mess with their internal affairs. That's just the party line, and when you have a party line like that the media would really be pushing it to have anything more complex or deeper, different coverage."
and
India
By opposing the imposition of sanctions on Myanmar, India has made it clear that it wants to maintain cordial links with the military junta. It's no coincidence that at the height of the protests in Yangon, India signed production-sharing contracts for the development of three deep-water exploration gas blocks off Myanmar's western coast.
Much like the US, who overlooks tyrannical regimes when it is in our economic or political interest, China and India will be hesitant to rock the boat in Burma. Bush's sudden concern for Burma, which has suffered under the military junta for decades, is rather curious, until a closer look is taken at the resources Burma has to offer - energy.
Energy-hungry India and China are in competition over the massive Shwe natural gas development project, in which ONGC and India's utility Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) are partners under the majority stakeholder, South Korea's Daewoo.
Irked by delays in implementing the Myanmar-Bangladesh-India pipeline, and with strategic support from China at international forums, Myanmar has inked a memorandum of understanding with PetroChina to supply 6.5 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas from Block A of the Shwe gas fields in the Bay of Bengal for over 30 years. PetroChina is the listed subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corporation.
The advent of China as an end-user creates an awkward situation as India will effectively be supplying gas to China, its biggest competitor for oil and gas.
Shwe is expected to generate up to $600 million in revenue every year for Myanmar over the next two decades.
The competition is stiff. Companies from South Korea, Thailand and US energy giant Chevron are looking to exploit Myanmar's natural resources. In recent statements following the unrest, Daewoo said it has no plans to change investments. "Politics is politics. Economics is economics," a spokesperson said.
|
| 71 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 01:36
|
U.N. resolutions that allowed the attack on Iraq due to their attack on Quwait and the subsequent cease-fire violations, and the violation of 1441 it was inferred by the U.S. and it's allies that the action was authorized since no other course through the U.N. was available.
You're pulling authorizations out of your ass. Plain and simple: there is no clause that authorizes invasion and conquer if resolutions are not met.
you have don't understand the history of American foreign policy and you don't understand Resolution 1441.
your inference that we are not able to do more than one military and intelligence operation is funny. must have been happen stance that shahid and zarqawi have been caught or killed (talk about someone that can't give credit where credit is due) i agree to disagree
This is tiresome. Capturing Shahid and and killing Zarqawi were both solid accomplishments. Credit is deserved. But Shahid is part of al Qaeda in Iraq - a group that was formed in response to American foreign policy in Iraq. In other words, if we'd never gone to Iraq, we wouldn't care about him. You can't seem to wrap your head around the notion that the credit deserved for capturing the reason we were after him in the first place was of our own doing. As an enemy of the United States, the United States created him.
Lets try simple arithmatic, shall we? Lets say there were 1,000 actibe al Qaeda terrorists before ewe invaded Iraq. Then the invasion creates 500 more terrorists. We might get 400 of the new terrorists and pat ourselves on the back for it, but the resources used to get them could have been better used by not expanding the problem in the first place and going after the original group.
i feel that the threat to this country is from several radical islamic groups and you feel that it is only al qaeda. i agree to disagree
Some more than others. It would have been nice if we'd chosen not to expand that number of groups and just focus on the ones at hand.
I'm bored with debating someone who refuses to accept historical evidence and is too lazy or not smart enough to offer counter arguments any better than "I disagree". I know you disagree. So be it. Bush could probably conquer Idaho tomorrow with your unwavering mindless support. I'll still be here if you ever decide to do a shred of research to support your opinions. In the meantime, good luck rooting for the unilateral overthrow of Burma.
|
| 72 | J-Bar
ID: 39928616
Sun, Oct 07, 2007, 12:25
|
the support for bush is not unwavering or mindless but the support for the action and its timeliness for stability in the middle east and the securing of an area that will control such a large percentage of the worlds oil reserve over the next 20 to 30 years (will still be what controls the world economy) is unwavering. could things have been done differently (better in hindsight) no doubt but the madman named Saddam had pretty much convinced, or bought enough votes on the U.N. that the lifting of sanctions were seriously being considered. what the future would have held after that is anyone's guess but i it is my belief that it would not have been good and the longer it was allowed the uglier it would get.
PV- it was Billi above that mentioned military action.
Mith- the increase in groups in Iraq were still islamic radicals that whether they were a part of al qaeda or not were still active in other salafist terrorist groups. would you please read some of what abu shahid said himself on making the killings look like sectarian violence thinking that it would make the U.S. leave. i sure am glad that we didn't respond as he and the world (and history) thought we would. although there are some that are still trying to make his plan work.
let's do some other math. you have no terrorists or anti-american islamic radicals in Iraq (per mith) and we start our action and 4000 from around the world congregate in Iraq where we have 150000 troops to deal with them. that's 4000 less people (and resources) spread around the world. i agree with you that more foreign terrorists ended up in iraq after our action but i believe that it was part of our plan and that the math is good.
one example of what could be interpreted as authorization
|
| 73 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 10:33
|
as usual...wrong again:
from your link:
MARGARET WARNER: All right. But now today the Russian ambassador, the Egyptian, and the French, all members of the Security Council, said explicitly they didn't believe this resolution authorized any kind of military force,...
3 members of the Sec Council explicitly stated that this resoslution did NOT authorize military force. How oyu can attempt to call it an authorization, illuminates the depth of your fishing expedition.
|
| 74 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 10:57
|
why do we have articles posted from 1997? sarge i think the article was pretty clear that UN sercurity council was considering military action was viable solution in iraq pionting out that 3 of 15 members did not mean it authorized force. does not mean that was not what it ment. I am not sure why we are even talking about this, it is pretty much water under the bridge and from everything i have read and seen, the UN investigators did not trust saddam, he pretty much toyed with them. there was probably not enough evidence to go war but there was enough evidence from his actions that saddam was never going to abide by what the UN said.
|
| 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 2693498
Tue, Oct 09, 2007, 11:01
|
I completely agree. And I said at the time (and still believe) that Saddam being what he was would do nothing else.
As we know, he, in fact, had no viable weapons or weapons programs and had no plans to develop them. Saddam, like a lot of bullies, was a lot of bluff with nothing to back it up.
|
| 76 | J-Bar
ID: 39928616
Wed, Oct 10, 2007, 08:20
|
back on topic
bush diplomacy in burma
|
| 77 | boikin
ID: 59831214
Wed, Oct 10, 2007, 14:51
|
i saw this article on the USA today cover. i found it interesting that laura Bush was comeing out to make the announcement. i think this is first time i remember her making a stand. i guess she really is unhappy with what is going on.
|
| 78 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 12, 2007, 12:49
|
China joins the UN censure
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|