If Only.....!!!
 

If only Bush and Cheney had listened to....uh....


Cheney?

http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2007_08_05.html

http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2007_08_05.html

Meh, so he knew exactly what would happen. Scary how much power that man has.

I love how he goes from a Secretary of Defense who doesn't want to finish off Saddam, to Halliburton, to VP leading the charge for an Iraq war where Halliburton makes billions.

Vicious little cycle there.

Dark Sith Lord Cheney

Why do you guys think he changed his opinion on the invasion of Iraq and removing Saddam and his government?

Well, Either his opinion changed, or he knew full we were heading into a clusterf@ck, decided not to prepare for it, and has since lied continuously to support his Boss.

You tell me, which is better?

It wasn't profitable then, it's very profitable now.

This is what I think. And why he changed his opinion, would be a good question for him to answer given the number of people who don't know why.

Why would he want to do that?

I think his answer would be that Saddam became a greater threat. I thought the Saddam threat was always high and we should have taken him and his government out at the time of the first Gulf War.

If Chaney sincerely thought Saddam became a greater threat, why is that wrong? Many others in Washington felt the same way, even some Democrats who voted for the war, or in the case of one was against it before he was for it, after he was against it - or whatever.

How did it become "profitable" now compared to then? If money was his motivation, wouldn't he have made more money than he would ever be able to spend by keeping his job at Haliburton?

i'm not sure that the interpretation being given this video clip is right.

first off, when was this clip made? i havent researched it for lack of time at the moment.

cheney is talking about the first run of the iraq debacle and seemingly from a position actually took account of the rules that were fashioned for military action at the time--there was no mandate for an invasion of iraq given by the un in the context of the first gulf war. given that there was no mandate, it was possible for cheney to have a more coherent view of what would happen were the americans to invade because such an invasion was off the table in 1991.

in the interim, he seems have decided that--for whatever reason--the more bizarre neo-con interpretation of 1991 was correct and that the mighty american phallus had been unduly limited in its manly self-assertion by the wimpy united nations. this transformation took place well before 9/11/2001--cheney was a signatory to the project for a new american century and pulled himself into line with that whackjob faction of the neocons well before.

none of which explains how it came to pass that the administration--whcih is more than dick cheney, as much as i detest the guy--decided that the wolfowitz "plan" was rational. but even if that plan was understood---somehow--as rational by the administration, it still does not explain the wholesale abdication of oversight functions on the part of the congress that approved the war in iraq.
because the "plan" was never rational.
there was not even a minute during which it was.
any idiot could see that---unless you were blinded by macho posturing and rightwing happyface claims.
what has happened in iraq followed in a staight line: the "plan" was revealed as bullshit almost as soon as it was "implemented"--even faster than were the claims that "justified" it's implementation.

so i am not sure that i see any sudden jerk in cheneyviews following on 9/11/2001--his position modified well before that. which would mean that the consequences of the debacle in iraq cannot be excused by referencing the post 9/11/2001 hysteria and the neofascist political narrative that shaped and extended that hysteria.

rather it seems like iraq was the result of deliberate political calculation on the part of cheney and the rest of the bush squad and that they are fully, unalterably and unavoidably responsible for everything that has happened there.

What if things in Iraq took a turn for the better? What if the new government takes hold, Iraqis have rights, we gain an ally, the government refrains from the tactic used by Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people, Iraqis side with the US in the war against terror, etc, etc, will you give Bush and Chaney all the credit?

We couldn't move in and 'rebuild' Iraq until Saddam was dead and his government removed.
It's easier to control the relationship between government and business from inside government. He could have remained at Haliburton and allowed someone else to oversee the invasion, but I'm sure Cheney, like myself, believes that if you want a job done right, you do it yourself.

ace, as to your last question, that seems to be a rehash of machiavelli, and i hated the prince the first time i read it. if all that happens, that's great. but i disagree that the only way we, or the western world, or the middle-eastern world, or iraq itself, could have brought those changes is via violent destruction as we now have in iraq. this pathway is only the one that we are conditioned to see, implement, and respect.

This suggests that he needed the Iraq war for his financial gain. This is false. Ironically Haliburton sold goods to Saddam while Chaney was CEO. I think you need another motive.

http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?itemid=16168

I agree, but the target of my question is with the notion that Bush and Chaney are solely responsible for the consequences of the war. You rightfully called on my question, but you did not call on what prompted my question. Why single me out for logical flaws?

I'm sure you've compared the income of Haliburton before and after the war just as I have. Since you've done that, you know that the war was, is, and will continue to be far more profitable than anything between Saddam and Haliburton before the war. $73m over 3 years....heh.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...&type=business

Compare $73m in 3 years to $235m in one quarter.

The guy who replace Chaney is making a mint:

http://www.citizenworks.org/crw/crw9-5.html

Chaney made plenty of money from Haliburton before the war and it seems to continue.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/ethics.html

I looked at historical quotes for Haliburton:

1/3/75 - $5.46
1/3/85 - $6.55
1/3/95 - $7.98
1/3/00 - $19.16
8/14/07 - $33.37

The best years for Haliburton stock was 1995 to 2000.
for comparison I looked at Phillip Morris, the tabacco company - not related to oil or war.

1/3/75 - $.77
1/3/85 - $2.48
1/3/95 - $14.42
1/3/00 - $17.59
8/14/07 - $66.73

If Chaney was in it for the money, a better proposition would have been to jump on the cigarette band wagon and waged a war against anti-smoking, rather than a war with Iraq.

oh, sorry ace: i only popped in late and saw your question, but didn't follow everything back. my answer would be that bush and cheney are responsible for what is happening in iraq, and yes - if good things come out of it i expect they will be get some credit for that. however, i can't personally say much positive about them because i fundamentally disagree with their methodology. i'm not a pacifist, but i think that the level of violence we have engaged in was uncalled for. it would depend on what good things came about, and how they came about. would they come because of our military intervention, or in spite of it? i don't want to get philosophical here, but i think things tend to happen as they should in a general way, and that therefore what is happening in iraq is what has to happen in iraq. regardless, i do not like it, nor do i think that it is the *only* way things could happen in iraq. but we are limited, as a species, by ourselves.

I would regain a good measure of the lost respect, mainly because I would have been proven wrong. I might even give them credit in spie of the handling of this mess. Keep in mind however....I would also happily give a pig credit for its areal expertize should it learn to fly.
Its all good and fine to play of the improbable for your argument Ace....but few will take it seriously and you shouldn't expect otherwise. Its obvious to anyone who watched the video that Cheney understood the implications of going into Bagdad, and allowed it regardless. Hell, Bush Sr, and Shwartzcoff stopped for a damn good reason and explained it at the time. Many military minds suggested it was a bad Idea....but here we are.

Saying he "changed his mind" just isn't enough anymore....and you know it.

I know this point has been made before, but this war like most, has ebbs and flows. During WWII, things looked pretty bad before we won the war. Lincoln went through several generals, before Grant changed the tide of the Civil War.
I agree, but what he (or "we") thought was too high a price to pay at one point in time does not mean he (or "we") can not re-asses the situation and make new judgments with new information. I understand questioning the decision, then and now, but I don't understand questioning a person making a new determination given new information. I do it all the time, don't you?

Yes...I do it too....unfortunately, all new information makes your case significantly worse in my opinion.

Here is a quote from Chaney, it appeared in a opinion piece in today's WSJ. The author, Stephan Hayes, gives Chaney credit for his efforts in our war against terror.

We need more people like Chaney in Washington. I am concerned about our future without mean, clear thinking, S.O.B.'s who take no shit like Chaney around. If a Democrat wins the White House, who is going to assume that role, or is the new President going to be surrounded by ivory tower, arm-chair diplomats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1187...ays_us_opinion

It's not Korea. It's Vietnam without trees, and people can't seem to wrap their heads around this. It's an unwinnable war. We don't have the funds, military power, or will to win. We have lost and will continue to lose so long as we stay, and what's worse is that our being in Iraq is allowing al Qaeda to galvanize and recruit Iraqis.

Cheney is a politician and a businessman. He's not a leader. He doesn't have the US or Iraq's best interest in mind. He has his own interests in mind and as long as that's the case, he will be precisely the type we don't need in Washington D.C. He needs to be who he represents himself to be: a Christian. "Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons (and Daughters) of God."

We need Bobby Kennedy. We need someone who has a clear set of moral guidelines and who will lead with those. We need someone uninterested in serving himself, choosing instead to serve the people.

One key difference is that terrorist will attack us on our soil. perhaps we can reasonable disagree on the war strategy, i.e. invading Iraq as a part of the war on terror, but do we disagree on the issue of being at war with an enemy who has declared war on us. If we are at war and the war is real, what the significance of comparing this war with Vietnam.

What is the alternative in your mind? Are you willing to convert to a radical form of Islam?

If you compare our military spending in this war as a percentage of GDP compared to past wars, you will see that we are not spending much on a relative basis.

Here is where I agree. Chaney's point in the quote is that this war won't go away. So we will either get the will to win or it will continue.
Iraq is the global front on the war against terror. If terrorist secure Iraq, they will move to another target. Why don't people see that?

True, Chaney is a behind the scenes guy. Also, true he is a politician and a businessman - he knows how to get results. Like I asked who is going to assume this role in a Democratic administration? Kucinich? Carter? Reed?
Bobby Kennedy?!? I thought he was dead. You supported what the Kennedy administration did with the Bay of Pigs? The whole Cuba crisis? They seemed to be pretty aggressive in those days, don't you agree? Didn't we get lucky that their game of chicken with the USSR didn't lead to nuclear war?

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Iraq, not the al Qaeda attacking on 9/11. I'm sure you know that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on American soil. You can't get attacked by one enemy and blame it on all your enemies.

In Vietnam, at we had the Tonkin to blame. We didn't even fake an attack by Iraq.
They aren't trying to convert me to Islam any more than you're trying to convert me to Christianity.

The alternative always has been the UN. It was the UN's resolutions they supposedly broke, so the UN is where the responsibility fell to correct the situation. If the security council had voted to invade or bomb, then that's what would have happened. Even now our best option is an international peacekeeping force replacing the US as we withdraw. Once the peacekeeping force is deployed, we can work as a part of the peacekeeping force so people don't think we're 'cutting and running'. It's okay to admit we're not invincible.
All that tells me is we've always been spending too much on war. Still, this is the most expensive war we've ever fought.
Here is where you disagree? I thought you were disagreeing with me above...
The thing is wars aren't won by will (the verb, not the proper noun). They are won by strategy and capability. We have neither the strategy nor the capability to win the war. Why do you think the word 'draft' keeps getting tossed around? We don't have the necessary manpower to reach or sustain peace in Iraq. Even if we started sending mall security and war reenactors over there, we'd still be undermanned. That's the reality of the situation. How is that 10,000 man surge doing?
There was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam hated them, specifically OBL. He wanted control over his own country and saw them as a serious threat. Iraq may have been a dangerous state (15 years ago), but there was no terrorist presence there.

Let me reitorate the most important point above: because we removed the Saddam government, al Qaeda was finally able to get into Iraq. We are supporting and enabling global terrorism. If the al Qaeda gains a serious foothold in Iraq, it will have been our fault.
Kucinich has the balls, but he doesn't have the popularity. None of the Dems have the capability to run the government, really. Neither does the GOP.
I was speaking hypothetically, of course. I know he's dead. I wasn't alive for the Bay of Pigs or Cuba. I've read a lot about Bobby, and I believe it's leadership skills similar to his that would suit the oval office well right now.

Don't confuse Bobby with JFK, though. Bobby had his own ideas.

The great irony, of course, is that if we had elected a "flip-flopper" instead of reelecting the Simpleton In Chief, we most likely wouldn't be in the quagmire we're in now.

ace... What you said you like about Bush is that he says his truth and sticks by it. So... Help me here. You admire steadfastness in Bush, but you admire in Cheney the ability to reconsider?

If I have to explain it, you probably won't really understand the difference. When decisions are made on the basis of core principles, the decisions may be correct or incorrect, reconsidered, altered, etc, but the basis is honest and consistent. That I respect, even when I disagree with the decision. For example I respect Kucinich and his stance on the war although I disagree with him and would never support him, his objections to the war are based on principle. I have no respect for Edwards' and his stance on poverty, his position is based on his attempts to mold public opinion so that he gets media attention and votes.

I think we are getting into an area covered in great detail in the past. We will never see this the same way, I don't think I can add anything new.

My view on religion is libertarian, I could careless about your religion. What do you think the goal of Islamic extremists is? I think they want to control the way people practice religion.


Japan attacked us during WWII, would you have rolled over and took it up the what ever, or would you have responded with force? If yes, at what point would the cost have been too high for you? Or, what price are you willing to pay for freedom? Would you fight for the freedom of others, why or why not?

We are trying to fight a "politically correct" war against an enemy who will do anything, including strapping bombs on children. Peacenics will protest and complain about our tactics but are silent when terrorists kill Red Cross workers trying to save lives. I say if you and the peacenics want the war to end - go over to Iraq and ask the terrorists to lay down their arms, stop targeting innocent people and ask them to use diplomacy to get what they want.

There is now. The Bush strategy is to fight them in Iraq. Their strategy is to fight us in Iraq. Both sides recognize the value of the Iraq target, even if you don't.

Actually...they recognize the Afghanistan target as far more strategic I think....unfortunately we do not.

I need to be clear on this point, as apparently you've still missed this point: Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Not only did they have nothing to do with 9/11, but Saddam Hussain hated Osama Bin Laden and took an active role in ensuring that the al Qaeda 'terrorist network' was never able to move in to or have any level of influence in Iraq.

When you said "One key difference is that terrorist will attack us on our soil." in referring to Iraq, you were totally incorrect. It's not a matter of perspective that Iraq didn't attack us. It's a matter of proven and verified fact that Iraq had no connections to 9/11. Even those who misled us into Iraq with their claims of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda have long since explained that they were wrong.
As someone who knows several radical Muslims, I can say with total confidence that you're wrong. They'd be happy if Islam continued to grow in the US, but they are not fighting for that to happen. The goal of the violent radical elements in Middle Eastern Islam want to be left alone or want revenge for past interference. Whether they want Israel out of Palestine, the US out of Iraq, or want to punish the US for our role in the Iraq-Iran War, they are fighting for reasons that really have nothing at all to do with converting anyone to Islam.

Some of them may want to control Islam there, but they aren't going to blow up a building so I'll pray to Allah. That's just not how it works.
I would have acted on the pre-Pearl Harbor intelligence and intercepted the fleet at sea with fighter planes. This is of course assuming I was allowed a time machine and a high military rank back in the 1940s. See how helpful hypotheticals are?
Oh boy, that's a strawman. No one is 'silent' about anything, except for the apathetic people. I will protest about murder, no matter who is responsible. Are we really surprised that a nation we invaded is fighting back? I abhor any war, but I'm not beyond comprehending reasons behind fighting. It's not difficult for me to put myself into the shoes of US or Iraqis over in Iraq.

As for targeting innocent people, let the military that is without sin cast the first stone. All I hear out of Iraq is reports of US convoys firing on unarmed Iraqi civilians. Do you think that conservative 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths number is a joke? Do you know how many innocent people have been killed by US forces?

I'll go over to Iraq and ask the US soldiers to lay down their arms, stop shooting or kidnapping and torturing innocent people and ask them to use diplomacy to get what they want. We'll see how well that goes over.
We, the USA, brought al Qaeda to Iraq. We broke down what was a relatively stable state that had managed to keep terrorists out and let them in. We are supporting global terrorism. We have failed where Saddam was easily successful. What's even worse is that our presence is galvanizing and helping to organize Iraqis who are ripe for the al Qaeda.

Do you know what the mission of the al Qaeda is? The end of foreign influence in the Middle East. And people say if we pull out it will help the al Qaeda come to power in Iraq. That's just niave. Our presence is the factor leading to the spread and growth of al Qaeda.

How do you know that they consider Afghanistan is a more strategic target? Why would you think Afghanistan is a more strategic target? There is nothing in Afghanistan other than good remote places to hide. If they want to extend their influence in the region, Iraq is the place to be.

Let me be clear. The Saddam threat predates 9/11. He should have been removed in the first Gulf War.

I understand how it gets confusing, but I don't think you are putting any effort to understand the opposite point of view to yours.

Terrorist have attacked us on our soil. Currently, many not all, are fighting in Iraq. Regardless of the reason, that is where the fight is. If we leave Iraq, the fight doesn't end with the terrorist. This war like many others can be fought on multiple fronts - Iraq is one. We more or less chose Iraq and one way to look at it is that getting rid of Saddam was a secondary benefit, although I think it was a primary benefit. Afghanistan is not a good location to take the fight to the terrorists.

Left alone?!? When Bin laden was hiding in Afghanistan planning 9/11 who the hell was bothering him. You don't think they want to control how everyone practices their religion in the ME? Why do you think they would stop in the ME and not control the "western world"? That after thought about revenge, seems to be pretty important to them, doesn't it. I am sure they need revenge on children who were not even alive when supposed wrongs were commited against them. Revenge against other Muslims is really serving their cause too. I am not sure how you can justify the actions of these people. Having the intent and planning to kill innocent people is simply wrong. If you think that is what we do, I suggest you spend time talking to some of our people in the military.

I guess some of them may think having non-Muslims dead is o.k. too.

Why do they blow up buildings? What is the point then? Tell me how it works.

Re-visiting past military actions is a common training technique in the military. Hypothetical can be very helpful. I do get your point, from your point of view. You are lucky to live in a country at a time when others take military issues seriously.

It was a point based on an observation. Truth hurts sometimes.

Again, we will never agree or find any common ground on this issue. I will read what others have to say on this topic for a while.

Ace please stop with the strawman argument that "they will follow us home". All studies I have read have concluded that the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is different than the Al Qaeda that attacked us and is related only by name. The fact is that because of this war more American citizens have died than would have without it. The number of US Soldiers and contractors that have died is growing and growing. If we would not have attacked Iraq there would be less dead Americans, not to mention countless Iraqi's that have died as a result of our imperialism.

I doubt they would follow us home, and if they did they wouldn't do much damage. We would be better off bringing our troops home, using the saved money to beef up our security, and then taking the remaining billions of dollars and investing it into things that actually kill people like preventing any of the following:

Deaths-Leading Causes

(Data are for U.S. for year indicated)

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

Heart disease: 654,092
Cancer: 550,270
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694
Diabetes: 72,815
Alzheimer's disease: 65,829
Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762
Septicemia: 33,464

There once was a great president who said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself".

Now we have Necon's like Bush, Guillani, and yourself coming out and saying "Be afraid, be very afraid, the boogeyman is out to get you and only the Neocons can protect you". To that I have to say grow up, get a spine, and start acting like an American.

How about you and others stop with this particular straw man argument. I did not say they would follow us home, I said the fight would not end.

Here is your second straw man argument. In this thread I have not used the term "Al Qaeda", I have referred to '"terrorist" and "Islamic extremists".
How do you know this?

How do you know this?

Isn't the above a non sequitur. Just becuse we don't spend money on the war against terror and spend it on other things does not necessarily mean we will be "better off".

I guess this is your third straw man argument. I am not afraid, nor am I saying be afraid. What I have said is that Saddam was a threat, terrorists have attacked us on our soil, terrorists want to kill us, terrorist kill innocent people, etc. I have the position that we take the fight to the terrorists. I think my position is the opposite of fear. i am willing to sacrifice and even die for the cause of freedom.

By the way - I think in your use of the FDR quote in the point you tried to make indicates a misinterpretation of the quote.

For the record here is the paragraph containing the quote. I think his point was for Americans to take aggressive rather than passive action.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres49.html

So you'll retract your assertion that Iraq attacked us on 9/11?

Saddam was a threat to some of our Middle Eastern allies in the early 90s. After the last time we attacked, during Desert Storm, his ability to wage war diminished to almost zero. We were in more danger from an attack by Cuba than Iraq when we invaded in 2003. If you don't believe me, show me any evidence of weapons capable of reaching the US or any plans to come here and attack. Because there is absolutely no evidence of this, conclusively saying that Iraq was a threat to the US is completely and totally wrong. If that's not clear, then this discussion is a waste of time as you're not willing to stray from complete, unquestionable trust in the current administration.
It's difficult for me to understand how you can say that Iraq was a threat to us despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
The al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. The al Qaeda had absolutely zero presence in Iraq in 2003, 2004, and as late as 2005. We broke down the successful Iraqi line of defense against the al Qaeda and allowed the al Qaeda to move in. The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the so called war on terror. You need to check your timeline and your facts.
I guess you forgot about the bombing campaigns through the 90s and the sanctions. It's easy to forget 1,000,000 deaths if it's far away.
You have absolutely no idea what the al Qaeda is. Until you familiarize yourself with their goals, you'll be ignored from here on out.
1) They blow up buildings to make people want to stop attacking and invading them.
2) They blow up buildings in response to attacks on them.
3) They blow up buildings to kill targets in opposing organizations

It has nothing to do with Islam.
Bwahahaha.. Yeah I'm really lucky to have an out of control government that invades and kills without reason. Whoopty do.
The truth hurts sometimes...oy vey. You mean like the truth that Iraq could not have attacked us between 1992 and 2003? Like that truth?
Translation: I don't think I can keep up with the next round, so I forfeit.

Ordinarily, I would accept a challenge like this. But I honestly have nothing new to add. These are the same issues covered in many other threads on this topic.

I have never made the assertion that Iraq attacked the US on 9/11. If you give me the quote where you think I wrote that, I will correct it, because it had to have been a typo.

This is what I'm referring to. You said, to paraphrase, that the difference between Vietnam and Iraq was that we were attacked on 9/11. You have to realize that infers you believe that Iraq has a connection to 9/11, which I hope you would agree is incorrect.

Terrorist attacked us on our soil prior to 9/11 and may do so again. We are currently at war with terrorists. We are not at war with Iraq. We invaded Iraq and removed Saddam and his government from power, that mission was accomplished (even though many don't understand the difference between a mission and a war). In my view we do not have an issue with the Iraqi people.

I hope this adds clarity. I already know, you disagree with all of the above.

Well there's a reason I disagree with the above. You see leading up to the war in Iraq, Bush and Blair both stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The reason we invaded was that they had weapons of mass destruction. It had nothing to do with the so called war on terror. Our issue was with the Iraq government because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. So we invaded, removed the government, and started to rebuild. It was only then that the issue of terrorism came up. You see, we removed the stable government of Iraq that was keeping terrorists out. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then Iraq was an ALLY in the war on terror.

Speaking to the current conflict and assuming, for some reason, it's totally separate from the 2003 invasion and war as you are above, it's still mostly Iraqi citizens who are attacking and being attacked by the US forces. Our issue with the Iraq people is that we often treat them like shit (rape, murder, kidnapping, trespassing, torture) and they want us to get out of their country. Because of that, some of them started to fight us. The al Qaeda used that anger that was already there and have managed to get a small foothold in Iraq. The reality is that those who we are fighting in Iraq are by far more civilians in a rebellion than outside terrorist forces. Less than 5% of the forces fighting the US in Iraq are connected to al Qaeda (according to like 1000 news stories). There have been no proven connections between the rebellion in Iraq and Iran. There are Saudi fighters, but they're our ally, so we wouldn't do anything to stop that. Gotta keep that oil flowing.

Wait....are you telling me we allowed over 3,000 American soldiers to die....for ONE MAN!!! Even I don't think our government is that stupid. And , if we are at war with terrorists, why are we still in Iraq? It makes no sense to continue a Mission, once it has been accomplished, Does it?


Also, yes we do have issues with the Iraqi people....we totally F@cked up the country they live in....I would call that an issue that needs to be dealt with. Remember what we did to Viet Nam, Korea.....Somalia?

I know I'm jumping into this thread a bit, but I have been reading it a while....

This, I don't buy. You don't see Americans having an issue with Iraqis? Try telling that to the Iraqis, to the American soldiers.

If there is no issue with the Iraqi people, who are you fighting? Who is dying? Who is being displaced in the millions? Who is suffering from a tenfold increase in birth defects in less than twenty years? Need I go on?

No issue? No. More like many issues.


If you are speaking of the war in Iraq, you must be referring to the Iraq insurgency. Aren't a majority of the insurgents Iraqi? And as far as foreign fighters go, a lot of them come from places such as Egypt, Syria, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. Is the United States going to bring the "War on Terror" there too?

Sure "Mission: Remove Saddam" was accomplished, but what, exactly, is the current mission?

To Will, read some of the speeches by Bush prior to our use of military force against Iraq. Bush clearly explained that we have concerns that Saddam either had weapons of mass destruction or was planning on developing them. He also gave other reasons for the need to use military force against Iraq.

To Tecoyah - You seem to want to over simplify the issue. Perhaps using your logic 61 million people were killed for one man, Hitler. Yes-this is a reference to Hitler, I guess that is supposed to end the discussion.

To Baraka - Most of the Iraqi people want the same things most Americans want. They are honest, hard working people who want the best for their families. The want rights, they want to participate in their government (look at the numbers who voted in their elections), the want education and an opportunity to share in the wealth of the nation. Many currently live in fear from terrorists as they lived in fear under Saddam. Our fight is not with these people. Our current mission with Iraq regarding Iraq is to stabilize the country so that the Iraqi people can develop a government and assume control of the country. We have other missions under way in addition to that one.

And he was wrong, and he knew he was using outdated intel.

What you say the Iraqis want is pretty universal. And I think it still stands: Americans are fighting Iraqis, just as both Canadians and Americans are fighting Afghanis. To deny this risks romanticizing the issue. One's cultural or social status isn't abdicated by being a "terrorist" or an "insurgent."

what you see is a function of where you choose to look. for ace
http://www.cinebel.be/pics/b28131.jpg
there are only "terrorists"
a "terrorist"--like god--is the daughter of the name.
you find them everywhere, you find them nowhere, they are like the scarlet pimpernel.
seeing through the category is like putting a bizarre prism in front of your glasses and then forgetting that you've done so. the forgetting is more important than the placement, because once you've forgotten, the strange fragments that you see become the world.

it is only from that kind of viewpoint that it makes sense to draw a distinction between "the iraqi people" and "terrorists" which is like "fifth column" or the "hitlero-trotskyite wrecker".

there is no argument possible here really because the problem is that the views of "reality" at the source of ace's position and those of others are fundamentally incommensurate and ace has a deep committment it seems to his view.

personally, i long ago reached the conclusion that it doesnt matter how often it is pointed out that this view looks arbitrary except to others who share it because it is a circular argument in the end and what's worse it applies in both directions so nothing need move, nothing need change, no discussion can happen.

You raise some crucial points, roachboy....

"The Mind of Terrorism," or "Why Baudrillard Matters"

I realize the problems with using the word "terrorist" in the context in which I use. I am not blinded to that fact. However, given the pitfalls I make a choice to use the term rather than going into the details of the groups we are at war with.

Here is a quote from Baudrillard:

She does not really clarify how "we" wished it, or even who the collective "we" is (I doubt children or unborn children could be people who wished to be killed by terrorists). She talks about the immorality of "globalization" as if at some point in time some group of people sat down and decided on a "globalization" strategy the way terrorist sat down and planned 9/11 and other acts. It seems her rant is in search of some phantom reason for people wanting to kill "us".

............... the United Nations.

In the article, Baudrillard explains this. He states that we wished it as a response to the ultimate consolidation and monopolization of power--that we even fantasized about it. He describes terrorism as the singular turning of tables in such a situation. The collective "we" he applies to Western society.

And the immorality of a system, including globalization, is not dependent on conscious or collective decisions. Immorality often arises as a result of ignorance or irresponsibility.

What is a phantom isn't so much the reason for "them" wanting to kill "us," or, more accurately, to upset the balance of power; it is more the how and the who.

When we say we are at war with terrorism, of whom do we speak? And how, exactly, do we fight "them."

I think the problem I have is with his vagueness and generalizations in reference to the "western" world in relation to terrorists groups who can be clearly identified and have clearly defined goals and objectives.

Also, I do not believe there has been a consolidation and monopolization of global power. I actually believe the opposite in todays world more than any time in history there is greater participation and distribution of power than ever in the history of this planet. One example is the simple fact that a small group of terrorist can change the the course of a national political election, which occurred in Spain a few years ago.

What is "Western society". For example many in the Middle East refer to Hollywood movies and entertainment as a source corrupting their society. Most people in Western society have absolutely nothing to do with the making and distribution of Hollywood movies and forms of entertainment to the Middle East. that responsibility belongs to "Hollywood" and the people in the Middle East who demand that entertainment. Or, another example would be the globalization of let's say McDonald's Restaurants. Just because I eat a Big Mac every once and awhile, doesn't mean that I am responsible for McDonald's opening restaurants in China. That responsibility belongs to McDonald's and the Chinese, doesn't it?

How can systems be immoral? Isn't morality a human characteristic?
That presents an interesting question regarding morality. I thought that morality or lack of morality required deliberate action or deliberate inaction. You seem to suggest that morality can be accidental. Is that what you and Baudrillard are suggesting?

The "who" are the specific groups who have declared a holy war against this country. I understand the problem with using the word terrorist and terrorism in this context, but even as our enemy operates in shadows they are identifiable. In my mind it is simple - when they end their war against us, the war will be over.

ace....let me ask you a simple question.

Do you think the "who" that have declared war a holy war against the US have increased in numbers as a result of the Bush "anti-terrorism" policy and practices since 9/11, including holding Muslims at gitmo indefinitely without charges or access to counsel, allegations of torture and rendition of other Muslims, invasion of a sovereign Muslim country and the resulting loss of the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women and children, opposition to the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza......

Yes.

I don't know how many times I have said this but I think we are at war, I believe we are in a war that we did not start. I belive we are at war with an enemy that is unwilling to negotiate a peaceful resolution.

The war as a given - people will choose a side.

Some will fight with us, people who ordinarily would not be our friend but believe we have a common cause with them.

Some will fight against us, people who ordinarily would not take arms against us. They may believe their interests are more aligned with our enemy.

I think these conditions are a part of the nature of war. I don't think it changes the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the underlying issues regarding the war.

Using the Civil War as an example - their were many in the Confederacy who took arms against the Union who would not have done so under any other condition accept for the fact that in their belief the Union inappropriately declared war against their way of life. Just the fact that there was a declared war - increased the numbers of people willing to fight and die in the war. there were many reasons why people fought. In many cases individual reasons were very different than the "official" reasons stated by government leaders. There are similarities with the war against terror and our invasion/occupation of Iraq. Please spare me the - how dare I compare Iraq to the Civil War. I know they are different.

I admit Baudrillard isn't specific in his reference to "we." But his aim is not to delineate the oversimplistic binary opposition that plagues such ideas as America and Islam, globalization and terrorism. Instead, he attempts to shatter the facade placed on them by the "New World Order" by pointing out the futility of the attempts to fetishize or commoditize them. Terrorism is a concept, an idea, not something you can pinpoint. It is too far removed from the realm of the practical that you cannot target it in a war, especially when that thing you assume to be "war" is no longer within that realm either.

He points out that terrorism (and terrorists) isn't something you do (or be); rather, it is a cultural response to power. You can no sooner have a supposed war against terror than you can a war against poverty, as both of these things are responses to social and cultural conditions and therefore cannot be pinpointed to a single cause or response. They are so far removed from real conditions that we can no longer trace back to their cause (or, perhaps we never could).

By concentration and monopolization of power, I believe Baudrillard means the gains in power in the hands of government and corporations at the expense of the power lost from the hands of individuals via cultural groups. The anger within Islam is in response to this shift in power. The response with the most impact, sadly, has been a terrorist one.

The immorality of systems is a result of the immorality of people. The systems I refer to are human systems. If these systems cause or allow evils such as child labour, murders, etc, they are inherently immoral. And ignorance is no excuse: the fool who does evil may not know it, but this does not mean what he does is good; it is still evil.

This "enemy operating in the shadows" that you speak of is not unlike the "phantoms" that Baudrillard points out to us. They are everywhere. Just as America was seeing red during the height of Soviet Communism, they are feeling fear in the face of the terrorist response. If you want to fight a war against that, then you're going to need a lot more than munitions. Phantoms are invulnerable to them.

Thanks for the clarifications. Seems like we are simply in disagreement.

Are you declaring a foregone conclusion? I haven't exactly had the opportunity to disagree with you on anything. You asked a series of questions and I offered some clarifications. Did you instead mean to say you disagree with all of it?

Perhaps I made a poor assumption, I thought you agreed with Baudrillard. If you don't I apologize. I was not able to find any general concept in his writing that I found agreeable. Even when he writes terrorism is immoral, he quickly looses any basis for agreement with my views, here is the quote:

Even with the "Terrorism is immoral" sentence, my gut is telling me that he is trying to sugar coat the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. Within the concept of terrorism, I think you can look at various tactics, the worst being the indiscriminate murder of innocent people, for him to then compare "globalization" i.e. national governments working under a common set of rules and regulations to enhance trade and communication, leaves me at a loss for words.

I know Baudrillard is not making this point in his piece but there are some people who think that our military engages in act of indiscriminate murder of innocent people and are no different than "terrorists", I don't agree and really don't know how to engage those who believe that, just like I have difficulty with Baudrillard.

I can't fathom of having a world-view as simplistic as the one espoused by neocon war on terror-ists.

We were just sitting here minding our own business twiddling our thumbs going "doo-de-doo-de-doo" when suddenly and for no reason evil madmen rained death down upon our heads. Why? Because they're evil, that's why, and that's what evil people do. King George told us, he said, "These people hate freedom, and we love freedom, and that's where the clash occurs." They're bad. And we're good. So now since we're good and they're bad, we need to occupy a country that had nothing to do with it because it used to be run by another bad guy.

I don't believe our military engages in indiscriminate murder. I think our administration's decision to flex its muscle in Iraq was indiscriminate and unconsidered and led to vast civilian casualties, and vast casualties of "enemy combatants" who were perfectly peaceful individuals prior to our occupation. So it amounts to much the same thing. But I think the soldier with his boots in the sand is doing the best he can do, given the job he's been asked to accomplish.

I don't have anything to add to this, but I want to say how well you communicated what I see is the view of many of those who still support the president. Kudos.

You miss the point that some of us neocons make.

We (our government, US corporations and US consumers) are actively involved in world affairs. I don't disagree with that. We exert great influence on the world. However, our influence is not being forced, with a few exceptions. And, other nations, foreign corporations and world consumers exert great influence on the US. In our current time the globe has gotten smaller, so to speak. If this is what is considered "globalization", I can accept that, but can not accept it being labeled immoral.

We use our military or the threatened use of our military to protect our friends, to try to maintain order, freedom to travel, freedom to trade, freedom to self-govern. I know many will argue if this is an inappropriate role for our government, but our government has assumed that role. If for example Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait we don't use our military to come to Kuwait's aid in the early 90's. We have a treaty with the nation of Israel, when Israel is under threat, we provide aid in various forms. It is clear to many of us "neocons" that our interests are not always going to be in line with others and our actions may lead to conflict, but to suggest that conflict is our desire is wrong.

As a "neocon" I would be perfectly happy if we could resolve all difference through negotiation. I think one major difference in our views are that I do not think we are in a war of choice, I get the feel that you think we are.

This sentence makes me skeptical of your assertion that you're a neocon. The neocons I know of are deep in the pocket of big business, and are pushing for a state of perpetual war (why else would you declare war on an abstraction like "terror"?) and therefore perpetual profit.

So... you think we HAD to go get our hands bloody in Iraq? Why did we have to do that exactly? There aren't any weapons of mass destruction and never were, and the intelligence only said there were if the person looking at them had already chosen to go there.

OK...that's just flat assed funny. I don't care who ya are. :D

Limited Brands (symbol: LTD) the parent company of Victoria Secret is a company with a market cap of about $9 billion, I am deep in the...never mind...but aah, lost my train of thought, they are in the big business of love, so am I.:) :) :)


I guess I did not state what I meant clearly, all war is based on choice. Some choose to fight when the fight is brought to us or when we are pushed to the point where we believe we have no choice. That is in my DNA I think, I think many others have this trait, I guess some don't. Saddam invaded Kuwait. We defended Kuwait and drove Saddam out. We had an economic interest in stability in the ME, like it or not. Saddam was defeated and subject to conditions imposed by the UN. Saddam violated repeatedly UN mandates among a couple of other things. All he had to do was comply, he would still be in power. I think he was responsible for our invasion of his country.

I guess you are in part correct - I do think he was evil, and I do think he made us do it.

Poor little us. :shakehead:

This is where you and I philosophically part company, ace. In my world, human beings aren't wolves. They're evolved creatures who have complete say over how they're going to be and act in the world. The way I see the world, nobody ever MADE anybody do ANYTHING. Certainly not go to war.

Are you speaking in general terms or in absolutes. I understand people having different triggering points, but it seems that you are saying there is no point where you would feel obligated or forced to fight. Is that true?

Had Saddam attacked the US, we would have been right to respond. This is, of course, hypothetical, as Saddam couldn't have attacked the US even if he wanted to.

Are you suggesting the WTC attacks were indiscriminate murders, that terrorism is amoral?

I am speaking in absolutes, but not quite the absolute you heard.

People absolutely have control over their actions, how they relate with others, and how they respond to the events of life. Groups of people up to and including governments and societies have the same control. People (and groups of people) might pretend they DON'T have that control, and may pretend that they're forced into something by outside events or circumstances. It's much easier to pretend to be forced into things--you don't have to deal with the ramifications of your actions. But that's not the truth. The truth is, you always have a choice.

There may well be a point at which I would choose to fight. Right after 9/11, had the opportunity been present to actually fight the actual attackers, I might well have chosen to do that. At no point would I ever be forced to do anything.

To argue otherwise, frankly, is to argue for the poverty of the human spirit.

rat...you dirty bastid,

you just expressed the reaction i have to this discussion, and which i must confess that i (obviously) have not posted here. i think it moderately humorous that people will talk about personal accountability for their actions, being their own man, making their decisions and come what may - above all live for your principles (which are largely conveyed as being judeo-christian 'thou shou not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not covet, etc) - but somehow these fundamental personal principles never seem to translate to a social level. its as though when you have 10 or more people present, then all that goes to shit, and it's every man for himself, only the strongest survive...it's a dog-eat-dog world out there and by joe! we have to fight it out in this cold pragmatic tough luck horatio alger world. i've never understood the disconnect.

it's like watching a panoramic play about the fear of death and loss of ego working itself out on a worldly stage...holy shit! that's exactly what it is. well, in my humble opinion. but fear of death above principle doesn't square with the image that is publicly broadcast, and so it is not frequently discussed.

The problem with "personal accountability" is that when these "10 or more people" are "present" (as you say) you can assume that one of them has his/her own personal agenda payed for by an outside agency. The word CIA comes to mind, as an example. It's the rotten apple again.

I agree. I don't think that Saddam has ever even been to a 7/11 store - :no: never mind him having the ability to attack one! :)

In the generic sense that terrorism is a tactic, terrorism is amoral, I would argue that the people who commit terrorist acts could be considered immoral. If you agree that the threatened use of violent force to incite fear is an act of terrorism, and I walk into a den a thieves using that tactic to recover property stolen from me, I would not consider that act immoral. Although, I do see how some would. If a group with a political agenda, kills innocent people in an attempt to incite fear to advance their agenda, I would see that use of the tactic as immoral. I know I am guilty of using the term terrorist and terrorism inappropriately, but it often seem to be more efficient.

The attacks on the WTC were planned, however the human targets were random. The people who died in most cases had nothing to do with the issue the "terrorist" were advancing, so in that case I would say the murders were indiscriminate.

On a slightly tangential point: What about an administration that systematically uses fear and the looming threat of attack to further their agenda? Is that terrorism? Whether you'd say it is or not, would you say that it's immoral?

Yes.

Do you consider attacking our allies or our interests the same as a direct attack on our shores?

Do you consider aiding those who would directly attack our shores the same as a direct attack?

Was the US forced into WWII after the attack on Peril Harbor? I agree that in a theoretical view, we had the choice to ignore the attack and the declaration of war against us, but the reality is that we really had no choice in my opinion.

Some principles are in conflict as is there a conflict between our humanistic and animalistic nature. I just choose to acknowledge that. Most people are far from perfect.

I fear the loss of freedom more than I fear the loss of life.

No. Our allies all have serious militaries and can defend themselves. If they ask for help, we should help, but pretending like attacking one of us is attacking all of us is stupid.

Are we helping MI6 to uncover cells in the UK? No? Then I guess the government agrees with me.
No. Because that would mean that we are directly attacking ourselves. Guess how many US weapons (not just US made weapons, actual US military weapons) are being used by the al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgency. Just guess.

I was asking those question in a general sense, to get a better feel for your views on when you would support forceful action. In either case I would take forceful action.

If you could take (again in general terms) forceful preemptive action to prevent a direct attack on our shores would you?

I can't deal in absolutes because the situation to which we're referring wasn't absolute. Many, many, many people questioned the horrible pre-war intelligence. Shit, even I did and I don't have access to the intel. Most of Europe and Asia did. French, German, Italian, Chinese, and Russian intel said we were wrong about Saddam. Now we even know most of our own intel said we were wrong.

In a general hypothetical situation where there is a perceived threat, there had better be actual evidence before you even consider taking any action.

Let me make one thing crystal clear: not only did 2003 Saddam not have the capability to carry out an attack on our shore or on our ally's shores, but he wasn't assisting anyone else who was going to attack our shores or our ally's shores. The only people that Saddam was a threat to was his own people and even in that role he had become severely diminished since the early 90s. There was growing resistance in Iraq to the Saddam administration/dictatorship, and Iraq could have been headed for a healthy revolution, free of western occupation. That, in my opinion but also backed by precedence, would have been the best way for Saddam to have been removed from power. Sure, Iraq would have turned into a Syria or Iran, but Syria and Iran are a lot more stable than Iraq has been. Ever.