The US, The UN and Iraq

Tommy

Your post was excellent---a little humorous cynicism about politicians is certainly warranted, but I liked your point about "Just" vs "unjust" most of all. I tend to want to leave that sort of philosophical charactorisation to the clergy(they have recently chimed in with their claims and counterclaims) and instead put your point in the context of "justifiable action in the furtherence of national objectives and continued survival". Let's face it, the war on terrorism and it's success or failure rests on our being able to find and destroy them where ever they find a temporary sanctuary and right now Saddam and the very large country of Iraq offers al Queda one of those sanctuaries. People say there is no evidence of a direct link between Saddam and al Queda but what if he just tells his people to turn a blind eye on al Queda activities. He also may want use the al Queda in the event he is attacked, by providing real support to al Queda in order for them to launch attacks around the world when the bombs start falling on him. Part of my strategic thinking( and I believe that of the administration) is to take the initiative away from the enemy----If we take a defensive position we must wait until they strike and then react perhaps after thousands of people die. If we take the offensive by keeping pressure on the al Queda world wide AND with the preemptive strike to take one of their sanctuaries away, they will be forced to retreat further into the mountains of Pakistan and other remote places. We lesson one threat by removing an obstacle to peaceful solutions in the rest of the Middle East.

I admit there is some gamble involved but I know of only 3 "sure things" -----death-----taxes----and ----an Ace in the hole, with an Ace up and nothing else showing around the table in 5 card stud poker.

This discussion, that is, the discussion on WHY the present US administration is directing it's attention at Iraq has become confused by events of 9-11. The two are not causally linked. The administration has been busy suggesting such, but that has been simple policy oportunism.

As early as 1992, policy formulations to remove Sadaam (or ANY power which might rise up to threaten US dominance in the world) have been floating around Washington. The authors of these plans and rationales were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others now integral parts of the administration.

The link following is to a piece from the NY Review of Books. You folks really ought to read it, if you haven't. If we don't get our history right, we all end up wasting time.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15698

Blatham

Francis FitzGerald is well know liberal author and her biased agenda is very evident in her choice of "quotes" source documents and provacative wording. This view seems to be consistent with the view of many Canadians though I can't tell if you're actually an American living in Canada.

Only the unbiased facts are useful in a discussion of this nature where everyone's motives are suspect.

"Bleeding heart" is just as meaningless a terminology as "compassionate conservative." It's misdirected and slung around as a convenient tool in a disparaging remark when its never really meant anything. Bleeding heart for what and for whom? No explanation is ever offered. It's just a sound bite with little or no substance when someone is at a loss for a solid argument. Ditto "rising hysteria." I don't see anyone foaming at the mouth here or in any of the anti-war factions. It would be nice if labeling was avoided in these threads as it's used in a condescending and dismissive form of debate that is quite frankly anethema to me (and this is only a suggestion as this forum should be supporting free speech within the limits of decency). Anyone ever been in a debating team? You'd get thrown out quickly for losing your demeanor and slinging mud. Where the free speech arguments don't pass is that this is a privatly owned site and there are rules of decorum.

Tommy -- some strong points I can't think of any argument against. Since we have no real statesmen on either side of the aisle, it will inevitably end up in an exhibition of the cheerleaders and the crowd, like a sports event.

I must agree that ad hominem fallacies are not useful in any debate.

Lightwizard

Just for the record I deny using the term "bleeding hear", I did however use "rising hysteria" one time for which I have been severely chastised. Could we please put this matter to rest.

Since I am mostly a minority of "one" I have accepted the challenge to not "lose my cool" and will, if allowed practice what I preach.

I don't know how it was picked up that you used "bleeding heart," but I'll take your word for it that it wasn't used if nobody can verify it. Nevertheless, it does give a picture of the kind of debate that would be productive here, recognizing that most of it is opinions and not that any of us are qualified to run the government. The point may be, however, that there are those in the government who aren't qualified. Do a poll of the least respected occupations and you'd nearly always find car dealer at the bottom and attorney nearby. I find politicians stump like car dealers and then try to play the defending or prosecuting attorney when they legislate.

Anyway, debate on -- I'm not the editor on this category so I'm just kibitzing.

To all

I promise to be nice so let's get on with the issues. How about it Craven, Tommy, and Hazlitt

Every forum on the site has a brief description of what can be expected within the category. Does anyone read these things? All can be found on the portal page with the link below. Politics is reproduced in its entirety. This particular discussion seems to have salvaged itself, but with so many members looking in, it may provide some suggestions and guides for future exchanges.

Rarely does an editor of Able2Know speak as an editor, rather than as a participant. This is one of those times.

http://able2know.com/index.php


"Politics - This is the forum for political discussions, opinions, questions, and general commentary. Don't be bashful; don't be rude. Keep in mind that honest, intelligent, well-intentioned people do have differences of opinion, even experts within their own fields.

Is it Politics or is it News?. Maybe it's Debate. Bring your topic anyway, and give us your opinion. Quote or link as you need to, to clarify your viewpoint, but give us your opinion - and expect to hear others. Who knows, not only may you change someone else's perspective, you might see your own change as well. Try to remember that endless pages of pasted material are seldom read and often discourage discussion, not to mention the possibility of violating some else's copyright. If in doubt, link.

If you're seeking information on an issue, this is the place to ask. Have a viewpoint to express, or a point to make? This is the place. Want to make a cute play on the name of a public figure or a member's screen name? This is not the place. Make your point on its merits, not by insult. Politics, like sex and religion, often engenders strong feelings and opinions. We expect members stick to issues, and not regress into personality politics. Even if a member does not agree with another member's view on a particular issue or personage, he needs to respect a person's right to hold these opinions. Flaming and attacking will not be tolerated, nor will the use of belittling names, either to other members, or about political figures.

Ask questions, discuss, debate, argue - don't quarrel."

Actually, Lightwizard, if you were the editor of this catagory, I'd say you were doing a darn fine job. You and Lola have done a lot to keep this one on the level we have all been hoping for.

I have been in a formal debate, by the way, and once was enough. It is almost as difficult a format in which to present ideas as a meeting governed by Robert's Rules of Order.

That's in in a nutshell, roger. I think we can all expect someone to see somone to address someone else's argument as "wrong thinking," but if it can't be backed up with anything other than lables and veiled epithets (since blatant epithets directed at another member are verboten), they're going to get called on it even if it isn't censorable. I say, pick up your epee but leave your sword at home. We shouldn't be here with the motivation draw blood as a tactic to winning an argument.

Perception, I was mistaken. It was Fishin who referred to "Bleeding Hearts."

Tommy, many good points. However, please make the distinction between containment and appeasement. They are not the same thing. It was the attempt to appease Hitler that contributed to the start of WWII. It was via containment that we won the cold war.

Perception, you assume that there is nothing to learn from someone that you label as a "well known Liberal." One of the best things that all Liberals and Conservatives can do both for their own sanity and for the good of our country is to surrender the notion that there is nothing to earn form people of different view points.

If you quote some argument that was presented in Fitzgerald's article and then give your counter arguments, you will have informed us all. If you simply brand her a "well known Liberal" all you do is raise the emotional temperature in the room.

I don't have time for my usual long winded posts but will just say this:

Recent events have changed some of my predictions.

and to perception,

My only real qualm right now ith an earlier post of yours is that you seemed to say that the only reason that India shouldn't invade Pakistan or other countries try their hand at preemptive strategy was that their militaries aren't strong enough.

While I agree that this is likely to be the reason they won't do such (in addition there is the nuclear sabrerattling to calm down some trigger fingers in the India/Pakistan conflict) I don't agree that this is the reason that they shouldn't.

If military might alone is the only reason to hold back then in an ever changing world things could get ugly for us if we lose the seat as world superpower (won't happen in my lifetime).

I don't like the notion of the criteria being military might, as said power is not related to anything that will guarantee the responsible use of it. I don't think there has been a world superpower who acted as responsibly as America has (there's always room for improvement but we get a passing grade on my report card as far as superpowers go). I think the criteria has to be something more fixed and something less unilateral. Otherwise we will not have learned the most important lessons from WW2.

Basically the idea of one country deciding what happens is not optimal. Think of it like a dictatorship (benevolent if you wish) and this is a system that is subject to missuse.

Ok, twas longwinded, but not by my standards.

BTW, Tommy, when the war comes, as it almost certainly will, I like your idea of the TV and a glass of good port.

My problem is that I gave up on TV sometime back in the seventies. But the port still sounds good. In fact, think I'll have drop about now.

Politics and the War on Iraq
I'm not sure whether cynicism is a very bad thing when looking at the Middle East situation as it is now. I agree with Perception's perception and Lightwizard's elucidation, nevertheless I still tend to think as squaddie/dogface in that soldiers , contrary to what Mr Rumsfeld said some time ago, do notlook forward to battle. Sure they'll do it , it's their task - but take it from me they'd much rather be in the PX or NAAFI shooting a line with their mates.

But to get to the point. The UN is doing a sterling job of trying to defuse an explosive situation where the US and the UK (and if they would but admit it) the European Union, would like to see a change of regime in Iraq. My hero, Politician and Statesman, but firstly a soldier, Sir Winston S Churchill said "Jaw-jaw is better than War-war", a trifle trite maybe but true nonetheless.

There are two myths currently doing the rounds. First, PM Blair is Bush's poodle. Second the war on Iraq is all about oil and the greed of the big Corporations. Bull-dust! I don't have a great deal of time for the current UK Labour Party but Tony Blair is no dog of any kind. Along with Colin Powell he was instrumental in getting George W to go the UN Resolution Route. Its all about Oil? Not it isn't. It might be a beneficial spin-off IF THE RIGHT REGIME succeeded Saddam Hussein. No Administration is going to risk the lives of thousand of soldiers and incur the wrath of the Public to secure Iraqi Oilfields.

In my opinion it has to do with fear. That was what the electoral victory was all about, it was why Congress gave President Bush a blank cheque to sort out the mortal threat posed by Saddam Hussein and any other Middle East Country or Organisation that was going to jump of the Iraqi band-wagon, should Saddam show signs of achieving his aim in the Middle East.

Let's get down to cases. Any President who is not relentless in hunting down his country's perceived enemies would be politically assassinated.
Terroism is high-tech and low-cost. A suitcase; a vial of poison in a water system; a Light aircraft with a nuclear device on board; an aersoal can in the hands of a terrorist is impossible to combat. As an IRA terrorist once infamously said, "We only need to be successful once - you need to be successful all the time". The Osama bin Laden network say "there are no innocent victims" - shades of Germany's Baader Meinhof Gang and Italy's Red Brigades. The US and the UK refuse to accept the word of Middle East Specialists that Saddam Hussein's development if Mass Destruction Weapons is linked to a Balance of Power in the Middle East. Megalomania knows no borders as we know from Hitler's invasion of the Rhineland, Poland, Austria, and so on.

Will Saddam Hussein allow Hans Blix to access to all weapons sites? I hope he does. For the result of non-compliance with the UN Resolution are too horrific to contemplate. I am not talking about a war to topple Saddam Hussein, I am talking about Saddam's defeat and the long-term cost in that bin Laden's network will have innumerable recruits.

Remember that al-Queida were lucky once and they can be lucky again.
Let's Hope that President Bush is successful in his aims - he needs all the support he can get. Political Parties should be bi-partisan.

Craven, excellent point. You are exactly right.

Hazlitt

I identified the author of Blathams link as a liberal because Blatham was trying to use her as a factual source. I find it verydifficult to accept as "fact" anything from a person who cannot conceal their agenda when
supposedly writing a factual source document.

Facts are one thing----opinions are another.

This particular person was very careful to present items after a lot of research but it was all carefully scripted to put forward one agenda.

I have always operated under the premise that facts are presented
in such a way that the reader or listener can form his/her own opinion without outside influence. I admit that what I have voiced is partly fact from my own experience and knowledge and partly opinion but I was under the impression(perhaps mistakenly) it was very obvious which was which.

I also try very hard to use pragmatism as the basis for all of my assertions but I admit that sometimes I don't submit enough factual background to provide a sound and logical argument.

One last point that I would like to make is this: It is very easy for me to become defensive and to lash out because over the years we conservatives have been subjected to the liberal bias in the news media---especially the 3 major television networks. The pendulum is starting to swing back the other way now with the fox news channel showing bias in the other direction.

I made it a must to read Paul Johnson's, a known conservative ,
A History of the American People. It's blatantly conservative bias was extremely enlightening in that I realized that every history of the United States I'd read was very neutral and without editorializing. The link mentioned about to the outline of what Bush has done in foreign policy is just reported verbatim -- one has to draw their own conclusions as to what it all means. I don't particularly like the picture it draws -- it makes me think this adminstration will find some way to withdraw from NATO, for instance. No man is an island? Well, no nation is an island, either.
That may be the prime reason for not wanting Iraq to exist in its present state as it is taking over the oilfields but I can't convince myself that oil and a vendetta against Hussein for betraying a trust that was foolish to believe in from the beginning is the real reason. That's where hating the alliances we make comes in. For a superpower, we still know how to step in ****, don't we?

Tommy

Bravo----I would like to able to say it as well----Yes I really get roiled when your PM is labeled as Bush's Poodle. He is a splendid ally and certainly has identified what must be done.

I look forward to another of your very analytical myth exploders, i.e., It's all about oil.

I also agree whole heartedly that this should be bi-partisan. The major Democrats in office realized it also and unfortuantely for them it was destructive to their party.

perception

You have, in addressing my post, made a move which, in formal logic, is referred to as an 'ad hominem' argument. Literally, this translates as 'against the man'. It is committed when, instead of trying to disprove what is asserted, one attacks the person who made the assertion. This falls within the logical category of 'fallacies of irrelevance'. Whether the author is a 'well known liberal' or an Irish elf is irrelevant.

The claim I made, which that piece gives clear evidence for, is that this administration had designed plans and rationales for an attack on Iraq since at least 1992. That's factual and the documents are noted. This administration also, I claimed, has generated a policy of single power domination. Documents are also noted for this claim.

But just in case you want to hold onto your ad hominem position, I suggest you then also read the following...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n19/liev01_.html

It doesn't much matter to me whether you or anyone else here is a democrat or a resident of Monaco or what they do for a living, but when we are in a debate here, let's do it the right way.