Hundreds of cars waiting in the heat to slowly pass through one of the dozens of checkpoints and searches they must endure every day. The constant roar of generators. The smell of fuel, of sewage, of kabobs. Automatic weapons pointed at your head out of military vehicles, out of SUVs with tinted windows. Mountains of garbage. Rumors of the latest assassination or explosion. Welcome to the new Iraq, same as the old Iraq -- even if Barack Obama has declared George W. Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom over and announced the beginning of his own Operation New Dawn, and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has declared Iraq sovereign and independent.
Iraq has had several declarations of sovereignty since the first one in June 2004. As with earlier milestones, it's not clear what exactly this one means. Since the Americans have declared the end of combat operations, U.S. Stryker and MRAP vehicles can be seen conducting patrols without Iraqi escorts in parts of the country and the Americans continue to conduct unilateral military operations in Mosul and elsewhere, even if under the guise of "force protection" or "countering improvised explosive devices." American military officers in Iraq told me they were irate with the politically driven announcement from the White House that combat troops had withdrawn. Those remaining still consider themselves combat troops, and commanders say there is little change in their rules of engagement -- they will still respond to threats pre-emptively.
Iraq is still being held back from full independence -- and not merely by the presence of 50,000 U.S. soldiers. The Status of Forces Agreement, which stipulates that U.S. forces will be totally out by 2011, deprives Iraq of full sovereignty. The U.N.'s Chapter 7 sanctions force Iraq to pay 5 percent of its oil revenues in reparations, mostly to the Kuwaitis, denying Iraqis full sovereignty and isolating them from the international financial community. Saudi and Iranian interference, both political and financial, has also limited Iraq's scope for democracy and sovereignty. Throughout the occupation, major decisions concerning the shape of Iraq have been made by the Americans with no input or say by the Iraqis: the economic system, the political regime, the army and its loyalties, the control over airspace, and the formation of all kinds of militias and tribal military groups. The effects will linger for decades, regardless of any future milestones the United States might want to announce.
The Americans, meanwhile, worry about losing their leverage at a time when concerns still run high about a renewed insurgency, Shiite militias, and the explosion of the Arab-Kurdish powder keg everybody's been talking about for the last seven years. Many in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad wonder what Obama's vision for Iraq is. By the summer of 2006, Bush woke up every day and wanted to know what was happening in Iraq. Obama is much more detached.
American diplomats also worry that they will soon lose their ability to understand and influence the country. In addition to Baghdad, there will soon be only four other posts. Much of the south will be without any U.S. presence: There will be no Americans between Basra and Baghdad, no Americans in Anbar or Salahuddin provinces. Some in the embassy fear they are abandoning the "Shiite heartland." The diplomats still in the country will have less mobility and access, even if they are nominally taking the lead over the military, because it will be harder to find military escorts when they want to travel. "You can't commute to a relationship," I was told.
At best, unable to secure areas to visit by helicopter or communicate with Iraqis navigating the hassle of trying to get into the Green Zone, the diplomats in the four outposts will act as listening posts or trip wires. They hope to be viewed as the honest broker between Kurds and Arabs in northern Iraq, where the American focus has shifted as part of the consolidation of "strategic gain."
But staffers complain that they lack the funding to do their job right, even though the four posts outside Baghdad are going to be very expensive. They say the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq but is now pinching its pennies over secretarial salaries.
One hope for change rested on this year's national election, held on March 7, which ended in a virtual tie between former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya party and Maliki's State of Law Coalition. The election nonetheless did represent a milestone in the country's political evolution. Regardless of the outcome -- Maliki contested but could not overturn the vote count -- the elections will not precipitate a return to civil war. The state is strong, and the security forces take their work seriously -- perhaps too seriously. The sectarian militias have been beaten and marginalized, and the Sunnis have accepted their loss in the civil war.
But the controversies surrounding the still-unresolved contest point to some serious long-term political rifts. The increased pace of the U.S. withdrawal coupled with the still-unresolved state of the political map and meddling by the United States, the Saudis, Iran, and even Turkey, has lead to a vicious zero-sum competition as Iraqi leaders jockey for power.
Maliki was a popular candidate, supported by Iraqis for having crushed both Sunni and Shiite armed groups, and he came in first as an individual politician, with Allawi a distant second. But Maliki's candidates came a close second to Iraqiya -- a surprise after Allawi's dismal performance in 2005.
On the Allawi side are Sunnis, restless with perceived Iranian influence in the country. Opposition to Maliki often centers on his suspected ties to Iran -- an allegation that echoes the tendentious Sunni notion that an Arab cannot have a strong Shiite identity without being pro-Iranian. And notwithstanding the Bush administration's "80 percent" approach -- focusing on the Shiites and Kurds and ignoring the Sunnis -- the group's frustration could lead to destabilization. Sunnis might not be able to overthrow the new Shiite sectarian order, but they can still mount a limited challenge to it. The Kurds, with only the mountains as their friends (to paraphrase a Kurdish proverb), were able to destabilize Iraq for 80 years. Sunni Arabs are present in much more of the country and have allies throughout the Arab world who can supply them well enough to destabilize Iraq more than the Kurds ever could.
The Americans want to keep Allawi around for exactly that reason: They see him as mollifying Sunni anger. "We would like to see an important role for Allawi," U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey said in an August press conference, arguing that the Shiite ex-Baathist was able to organize a historic shift in the post-war political dynamic by coalescing Sunni and secular forces behind a new democratic process. U.S. diplomats in Baghdad tell me that outgoing U.S. commander Gen. Raymond Odierno is extremely worried about a renewed insurgency if Allawi's Iraqiya list isn't satisfied.
Allawi can't simply be made prime minister, given that he doesn't have support from across the political spectrum. Instead he may be given an enhanced presidency with increased powers, coupled with some checks -- including term limits -- on Prime Minister Maliki.
Shiites and members of Maliki's cadre, meanwhile, are not at all pleased with the idea of a President Allawi. Oil Minister Hussein Shahrastani, who is close to Maliki, has warned the Americans that many in the Shiite elite would see a powerful Allawi presidency as a coup, overthrowing the new order and restoring the bad old Saddam days. Many in Maliki's party are strongly anti-Sunni, just as many in Allawi's party are strongly anti-Shiite, and they fear the repetition of history.
Maliki has told confidants that if he leaves office, everything he has worked for over the last four years will fall apart. He believes that he almost singlehandedly rebuilt the Iraqi state. Without him there is no State of Law party, since it was built around his reputation and Maliki is the individual candidate who won the most votes. The Sadrists would then become the most powerful Shiite bloc and the clock would turn back to the anarchy and misery of 2006.
It's hard to disagree. The prime minister has amassed a vast and relatively stable infrastructure of power. Removing him and his advisors and security institutions at a time like this could be disastrous. Maliki has managed to win over skeptical Sunnis after his 2008 attack on Shiite militias and remake himself into a candidate perceived by many as a secular nationalist.
The Americans certainly believe there are no non-Maliki scenarios, given the risk of the Sadrists taking over. "We've done the math," General Stephen Lanza, the outgoing U.S. military spokesman, said at an event in August.
"We have no real power or authority here," U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey said. "We have no right to interject ourselves in any kind of threatening way. The only thing we have said that comes close to a rethink of our policies is if you had a government where the Sadrists played a critical role, we would really have to ask whether we can have much of a future in this country given their political position." Beyond exiting the country, Jeffrey said, the United States might back off on its vigorous push to convince the United Nations to remove the Chapter 7 sanctions on Iraq, if the Sadrists were to take a dominant role in the government. "We probably wouldn't be too enthused with that mission," said Jeffrey, "and there are a thousand other examples like that." For their part, the Sadrists refuse to meet with the Americans.
The Sadrists are, however, talking with Allawi, offering support in return for control over the Ministry of the Interior and the release of at least 2,000 of their men from Iraqi detention. Allawi has justified his flirtation with the violently anti-American Sadrists on the grounds that they are merely misguided and can be controlled.
It's a move that could seriously backfire. Maliki says privately that the Sadrists are dangerous. He doesn't believe that Allawi can control them, insisting that he comes from their world and he knows them. He insists that it's not within his legal power to simply free their prisoners. And the Kurds have been dismayed by Allawi's dalliance with the Sadrists; they don't want the Sadrists to be the kingmakers. The Kurds also worry that many of the dominant Sunni politicians in Allawi's list are hostile to their vision of the boundary dividing Kurdistan from the rest of Iraq. Because of this, the Kurds now oppose an Allawi premiership and have thrown their support behind Maliki.
Frustrated with his string of PR defeats, Allawi has taken refuge in confidence-boosting visits to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, and Syria. But none of that helps him much in Baghdad, where it matters, and it certainly doesn't help him in Iran, where an Allawi premiership would be seen as a victory for Tehran's regional rivals, the Saudis, not to mention a victory for the Baathists. Iran prefers Maliki, even if their relationship is not nearly as close as it's been made out to be by the Sunnis.
In fact, Iraq's powerful neighbor has failed to achieve many of its goals in Iraq. Iran has pawns in Iraq but not proxies. Even the Iran-formed Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq actually dislikes Iran. Its members, former Iraqi exiles who came together in Tehran during Saddam's rule, remember the humiliation of being looked down upon by Iranians for being Arabs. Shiite parties have their own power base as well, and don't need Iranian support. Still, the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad remains very active, and the Americans refuse to meet with him -- a surprising change given the meetings that took place under the Bush administration.
As for the Turks, they want to turn the Kurdish regional government in the north into a Turkish vassal state. They are also deeply involved in Baghdad. Ambassador Jeffrey maintains that Turkey can live with a Maliki premiership, and this is true, although Turkey prefers Allawi; the Turkish ambassador dislikes Maliki and helped organize the Iraqiya list. (Maliki took this personally and temporarily stripped the Turkish ambassador of his access to the Green Zone.)
In a sad sense, none of this maneuvering actually matters all that much. Regardless of who becomes prime minister or president, Iraq is about to become increasingly authoritarian. Oil revenues will not kick in for several years, so services are not going to improve. Even when revenues reach Iraqi coffers, infrastructure costs will eat them up for the near future. The lack of services means the government will face street-level dissatisfaction and become harsher and more dictatorial in response -- even if a democratic façade persists.
For Iraqis, then, there is no end in sight. Since the occupation began in 2003, more than 70,000 Iraqis have been killed. Many more have been injured. There are millions of new widows and orphans. Millions have fled their homes. Tens of thousands of Iraqi men have spent years in prisons. The new Iraqi state is among the most corrupt in the world. It is only effective at being brutal and providing a minimum level of security. It fails to provide adequate services to its people, millions of whom are barely able to survive. Iraqis are traumatized. Every day there are assassinations with silenced pistols and the small magnetic car bombs known as sticky bombs. In neighboring countries, hundreds of thousands of refugees languish in exile, sectarianism is on the upswing, and weapons, tactics, and veterans of the Iraqi jihad are spreading.
Seven years after the disastrous American invasion, the cruelest irony in Iraq is that, in a perverse way, the neoconservative dream of creating a moderate, democratic U.S. ally in the region to counterbalance Iran and Saudi Arabia has come to fruition. But even if violence in Iraq continues to decline and the government becomes a model of democracy, no one will look to Iraq as a leader. People in the region remember -- even if the West has forgotten -- the seven years of chaos, violence, and terror. To them, this is what Iraq symbolizes. Thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other failed U.S. policies in the broader Middle East, the United States has lost most of its influence on Arab people, even if it can still exert pressure on some Arab regimes.
Last week, the Western media descended upon Iraq for one last embed, for a look at the "legacy," to ask Iraqis whether it was "worth it." On the night of August 31st, I overheard one American TV producer trying to find an Iraqi family that would be watching Obama's speech on Iraq live. Obama's speech was aired at 3 a.m. in Baghdad. But Obama did not address Iraqis in his speech. And they weren't interested, anyway. Most Iraqis were awake at that hour, but they were lying in bed sweltering, unable to sleep, waiting for the electricity to come back on so they could power their air conditioners.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm ten thousand percent certain none of you read the article and I'm just as certain most of you never will.
I read the article. I also read a similar, less emotionally manupulative article in The Times last week. It was written better. Less corny.
Well I can't post that. Thats in the before time and it's on paper. I didn't find the article particularly emotionally manipulating personally. Whats so bad about it?
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm ten thousand percent certain none of you read the article and I'm just as certain most of you never will.
I read the article. I also read a similar, less emotionally manupulative article in The Times last week. It was written better. Less corny.
Well I can't post that. Thats in the before time and it's on paper. I didn't find the article particularly emotionally manipulating personally. Whats so bad about it?
I dunno babe, I'm just not into the whole 'lying in bed sweltering, unable to sleep, waiting for the electricity to come back on so they could power their air conditioner' thing. I mean, what are we supposed to say? 'Woah, so life in Iraq is BAD? Well, I'll be damned...'
It's just... I dunno, I don't want to start a whole UK vs. USA thing because that's not my intention, but there seems to be an instinct to go straight for the heart-strings on your side of the pond, that sort of 'folksy' thing (see: Joe The Plumber). Maybe I'm just a repressed Brit.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm ten thousand percent certain none of you read the article and I'm just as certain most of you never will.
I read the article. I also read a similar, less emotionally manupulative article in The Times last week. It was written better. Less corny.
Well I can't post that. Thats in the before time and it's on paper. I didn't find the article particularly emotionally manipulating personally. Whats so bad about it?
I dunno babe, I'm just not into the whole 'lying in bed sweltering, unable to sleep, waiting for the electricity to come back on so they could power their air conditioner' thing. I mean, what are we supposed to say? 'Woah, so life in Iraq is BAD? Well, I'll be damned...'
It's just... I dunno, I don't want to start a whole UK vs. USA thing because that's not my intention, but there seems to be an instinct to go straight for the heart-strings on your side of the pond, that sort of 'folksy' thing (see: Joe The Plumber). Maybe I'm just a repressed Brit.
Is it a play at the heartstrings when it's a general portrayal of reality? Also you guys were calling the Faulklands tough the other week and trading around single tears and showing war tattoos so don't go talkin' bout heart strings buddy.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm ten thousand percent certain none of you read the article and I'm just as certain most of you never will.
I read the article. I also read a similar, less emotionally manupulative article in The Times last week. It was written better. Less corny.
Well I can't post that. Thats in the before time and it's on paper. I didn't find the article particularly emotionally manipulating personally. Whats so bad about it?
I dunno babe, I'm just not into the whole 'lying in bed sweltering, unable to sleep, waiting for the electricity to come back on so they could power their air conditioner' thing. I mean, what are we supposed to say? 'Woah, so life in Iraq is BAD? Well, I'll be damned...'
It's just... I dunno, I don't want to start a whole UK vs. USA thing because that's not my intention, but there seems to be an instinct to go straight for the heart-strings on your side of the pond, that sort of 'folksy' thing (see: Joe The Plumber). Maybe I'm just a repressed Brit.
Is it a play at the heartstrings when it's a general portrayal of reality? Also you guys were calling the Faulklands tough the other week and trading around single tears and showing war tattoos so don't go talkin' bout heart strings buddy.
Who? Me? What did I say about The Falklands? I didn't fight in that particular conflict, given that I was born during it. In England.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm ten thousand percent certain none of you read the article and I'm just as certain most of you never will.
I read the article. I also read a similar, less emotionally manupulative article in The Times last week. It was written better. Less corny.
Well I can't post that. Thats in the before time and it's on paper. I didn't find the article particularly emotionally manipulating personally. Whats so bad about it?
I dunno babe, I'm just not into the whole 'lying in bed sweltering, unable to sleep, waiting for the electricity to come back on so they could power their air conditioner' thing. I mean, what are we supposed to say? 'Woah, so life in Iraq is BAD? Well, I'll be damned...'
It's just... I dunno, I don't want to start a whole UK vs. USA thing because that's not my intention, but there seems to be an instinct to go straight for the heart-strings on your side of the pond, that sort of 'folksy' thing (see: Joe The Plumber). Maybe I'm just a repressed Brit.
Is it a play at the heartstrings when it's a general portrayal of reality? Also you guys were calling the Faulklands tough the other week and trading around single tears and showing war tattoos so don't go talkin' bout heart strings buddy.
Who? Me? What did I say about The Falklands? I didn't fight in that particular conflict, given that I was born during it. In England.
It's certainly an interesting article, and the unfortunate situation over there is complex and I don't think there's going to be an easy answer to any of it.
In general I thought the article was decently well-written, although I will say the part at the end was pretty sketchy. I understand they hit on the number of casualties and talked about the daily "silenced pistol" and "sticky bomb" assassinations, but summing up an article that touches on the political and cultural complexities of the country in a relatively informative manner, then ties it into the suffering and disinterest of the Iraqi people with a line about not having air conditioning strikes me as somewhat strange.
I think I get the point the author was trying to make, but the ending made the whole thing feel weird. The ending just has some weird implications, it could go in a lot of directions from there.
Thats not true. The guys that make bricks win, and the guys that make windows win. And of course the brick and window-makers friends win. Everyone else gets a brick to the face or their window smashed.
Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
To be totally honest, I probably don't give a damn about people I don't know personally. So...
Regardless, to the extent that I do give a damn about Iraqi civillians, I strongly disagree with the article's tone that they're worse off now than they were, but I also accept that's a matter of opinion, and really depends on what your priorities in life are.
Under Saddam there was organization, a modicum of prosperity, and I think that the average Iraqi who was willing to shut up and do their job would be relatively happy. While all that was going on, Saddam was murdering huge numbers of people, probably more than are being lost to the current violence, and the country was generally poisoning itself with violence and oppression.
Now it has a chance to change that course. All the badness you see going on now is the result of all those decades of corruption and oppression. It doesn't go away over night, and there's no guarantee that it WILL go away. But at least now there's a possibility that it can.
The average civillian probably doesn't see much benefit right now, and most probably have it worse. I wouldn't disagree with an Iraqi saying that America made their life worse.
But I do think that America has given Iraq a chance for a MUCH better future.
I also think the US deserves some credit for the generally altruistic mission it attempted in Iraq. I don't think it was executed especially well, nor was the outcome a great success, but it was more success than failure, and was done with good intentions.
People like to screech about the warmongers, the military industrial complex, Halliburton and war profiteering, but at the end of the day, the war in Iraq was, at its core, a foolishly optimistic attempt to do good in the world.
LunaHound wrote:Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
Why is that?
Because they(Iraqi citizens) don't give a damn about themselves.
Nice derailment attempt.
@LunaHound, a lot of people not unnaturally feel ashamed for the sorry mess their countries have made of things -- let's not forget that the UK was right in there too -- but they are sick of the whole thing and just want to get out.
LunaHound wrote:Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
Why is that?
Because they(Iraqi citizens) don't give a damn about themselves.
Nice derailment attempt.
@LunaHound, a lot of people not unnaturally feel ashamed for the sorry mess their countries have made of things -- let's not forget that the UK was right in there too -- but they are sick of the whole thing and just want to get out.
I know KK , very often i just want to see if they are willing to admit that. Or will it be like
jp400 wrote:Now if only we had a way to erase it all and start over.....
I cant ever imagine ( if there are ghosts and after life ) What is going on in the head of the Iraq civilian if they know thats how countries deals with them.
And what rage the ones still alive must deal with.
I know KK , very often i just want to see if they are willing to admit that. Or will it be like
jp400 wrote:Now if only we had a way to erase it all and start over.....
I cant ever imagine ( if there are ghosts and after life ) What is going on in the head of the Iraq civilian if they know thats how countries deals with them.
And what rage the ones still alive must deal with.
You mean you wonder what an Iraqi would be thinking if they read this thread? Yeah.
I wasn't trying to derail anything. From what I saw of the Iraqi people, if money isn't involved, they just don't care. Now then, why should you help someone who chooses not to help themselves? Sure they'll "help" if they're getting money out of it, but that's the only reason they do it. Again, just my observations from my experiances.
Apart from not invading in the first place, I don't know if the outcome could of been much different. As soon as you got rid of Saddam a whole can of mega size worms was opened up it was too big a task for anyone.
My feeling of US forces, from what I've seen over the years, is that they great at bringing the "rain", but not so good at the follow up part. It seems to me it only takes a few "sneaky beaky" attacks and your forces snap, they want to take out city blocks / cities in response. which isn't great at making you friends. You also seem to take great offense if you aren't welcomed as liberating heroes, you get frustrated if people fail to thnakful for what you've done for them.
Us Brits have the experience of Northern Ireland, but Iraq is on a much bigger scale, so harder to deal with. Plus I believe we weren't getting clear messages from the politicians from home. You can also say that the Iraqi's are blame as well, especially when you consider the numbers. How many insurgents v general population? They could of all said, no, enough is enough and stood up / informed on them. This could of then led to the forces being able to sort out the electricity / water and other services.
Perhaps if the West had been genuine in it's intentions we would of been trusted more. In hindsight, and I don't know if it was done, wouldn't the sensible thing been to get the main representatives of the main factions together and said "look we know you don't want us here and don't like us, so what do we do about it?" Once everyone has vented, the negotiations can start. We expected Israel to take attacks on the chin so that peace talks can proceed, but we didn't do that ourselves.
Phryxis wrote:
It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.
They blamed the fething weather on him... of course Iraq was all his fault.
It's as if he orchestrated, pushed, then ran into the ground the entire war! Come on, this is some of the lamest trolling I've ever seen, to pretend that iraq wasn't a war all of Bush and Rumsfelds making is simply putting your head in the fething sand.
Phryxis wrote:Would it provoke too much arguing if I were to suggest that pretty much ANY American President was going to go to war in Iraq after 9/11?
Don't know... I'm pretty sure it's wrong, though. Afghanistan was inevitable, because it was directly tied to 9/11. There were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq (although Bush liked to tie the two together as often as possible) so it wasn't as automatic a connection.
I would point to heavy non-partisan support he got heading into the thing as evidence that pretty much everyone wanted to go attack something.
It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.
I think you're making a big mistake in assuming the level of bi-partisan support he received was an inherent state of affairs. Bush led the call to war, and given the mood at the time and the information presented by the administration people were happy to follow and afraid to oppose, but the causes and reasoning for the war came entirely from Bush and his administration. In the wake of 9/11 the President was claiming that Saddam had WMDs and represented a real threat to the world, and people followed.
At which point you ask yourself is another President would have viewed that same intel and have decided that Hussein had a WMD program that represented a real threat to the world. The answer is almost certainly 'no'.
Phryxis wrote:Under Saddam there was organization, a modicum of prosperity, and I think that the average Iraqi who was willing to shut up and do their job would be relatively happy. While all that was going on, Saddam was murdering huge numbers of people, probably more than are being lost to the current violence, and the country was generally poisoning itself with violence and oppression.
People talk about Saddam's death toll a lot, but they typically omit the fact that almost all the killings were during and in the wake of the Iran Iraq war, with another spike following the first Gulf War. When his power was established, he wasn't killing lots of people. This is by no means a defence of Saddam, he was a bastard, but the idea that loads of people would have died in the 2000s with Saddam at the helm is not true.
If you want to go about invading countries to stop murder go to Zimbabwe, or to the Sudan.
I also think the US deserves some credit for the generally altruistic mission it attempted in Iraq. I don't think it was executed especially well, nor was the outcome a great success, but it was more success than failure, and was done with good intentions.
I think the US should place a great deal of pride in the conduct of it's troops. They were by no means perfect, but peacekeeping is incredibly difficult at the best of times, and despite the incredibly poor pre-planning they completed the task assigned extremely well.
People like to screech about the warmongers, the military industrial complex, Halliburton and war profiteering, but at the end of the day, the war in Iraq was, at its core, a foolishly optimistic attempt to do good in the world.
Sufficiently stupid altruism is indistinguishable from evil.
While the plan was to create a wonderful democratic middle east, the big lesson was that people are complex, and don't work like grand world visions expect they will. Invasions based around grand visions will get loads of people killed and achieve little, whether the intent is altruistic or not.
CrashUSAR wrote:Because they(Iraqi citizens) don't give a damn about themselves.
Wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:They blamed the fething weather on him... of course Iraq was all his fault.
No, people blamed him for appointing a man who gave an inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina. Which is very obviously different, and I refuse to believe you're so stupid you can't tell that. As such, I have to ask why you're happy to believe things you know to be nonsense.
Because it's easier to blame them than admit any level of responsibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:I cant ever imagine ( if there are ghosts and after life ) What is going on in the head of the Iraq civilian if they know thats how countries deals with them.
And what rage the ones still alive must deal with.
They listen to Bush talk about the issue, and never recognise the slightest fault, so they throw their shoes at his head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CrashUSAR wrote:Seb - Read my follow-up post, that in hindsight, I should have attached to my first.
I'm not sure it helped, dude. Are you claiming there's a greater level of altruism elsewhere in the world, a less mercenary approach? Do think that matters much at all to the problem compared to, you know, the inherent level of survival that kicks in when you're on your own in a war zone?
Seb - You raise a valid point. I go back to "advise and assist" at some point in the near to semi-near future. I'll update you all on the behavior of the Iraqi people (again, in my own opinion) then.
LunaHound wrote:Certainly doesnt that just proof how barbaric they are?
If a guy sent his army in to blew up a load of it up for reasons that were never really explained, and then held a press conference to talk about how well everything was going, throwing a shoe at him would be my least barbaric response.
Throwing the shoe was a very symbolic response. It's a HUGE insult to show someone the sole of your foot/shoe, you may was well be saying "you're lower than the crap beneath my feet."
LunaHound wrote:Certainly doesnt that just proof how barbaric they are?
If a guy sent his army in to blew up a load of it up for reasons that were never really explained, and then held a press conference to talk about how well everything was going, throwing a shoe at him would be my least barbaric response.
Kilkrazy wrote:Well that's true, but everyone who also supported it shares a part of the burden of guilt. That's why a lot of people are so defensive about it.
True, but it's international affairs, it's incredibly complex. Everyone gets stuff wrong all the time. What matters is learning from it, being honest about what really happened, and trying to make a better choice next time.
For what its worth, I was opposed to the war but still managed to be very wrong about the whole thing. I believed there were chemical weapons (I mean, what government would be so stupid as to make WMDs the reason for the war when they weren't going to find any once they invaded?) but felt it set a dangerous precedent for pre-emptive invasion. Abandoning the basic element of sovereignty would encourage other countries to militarise and build WMDs of their own.
Turns out I was wrong on both counts. Bush's government really was stupid enough to make WMDs the core reason, and didn't realise there might be a problem when they invaded and couldn't find any. But then the whole thing was such a debacle that it looks like no-one will be invading anywhere for long time without a really good reason (although I might be wrong on that count, the drums for an invasion of Iran are already beating...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CrashUSAR wrote:Seb - You raise a valid point. I go back to "advise and assist" at some point in the near to semi-near future. I'll update you all on the behavior of the Iraqi people (again, in my own opinion) then.
Cheers. I am reluctant to try and explain things to someone who's actually been there, and if your point is that what happens to the Iraqis from here is up to them, then I agree. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect huge levels of altruism and long term nation building vision from people who've been living day to day.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm ten thousand percent certain none of you read the article and I'm just as certain most of you never will.
I read the article. I also read a similar, less emotionally manupulative article in The Times last week. It was written better. Less corny.
Well I can't post that. Thats in the before time and it's on paper. I didn't find the article particularly emotionally manipulating personally. Whats so bad about it?
I dunno babe, I'm just not into the whole 'lying in bed sweltering, unable to sleep, waiting for the electricity to come back on so they could power their air conditioner' thing. I mean, what are we supposed to say? 'Woah, so life in Iraq is BAD? Well, I'll be damned...'
It's just... I dunno, I don't want to start a whole UK vs. USA thing because that's not my intention, but there seems to be an instinct to go straight for the heart-strings on your side of the pond, that sort of 'folksy' thing (see: Joe The Plumber). Maybe I'm just a repressed Brit.
Thats ok. IN the US is Its a left/right thing. Yellow journalism has been pulling at heartstrings since before the War of Northern Aggression. Its what we do. After all, won't someone think of the children!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phryxis wrote:Is it me, or was it slightly anti-Obama?
LunaHound wrote:Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
Why is that?
Why should I? I don't give a gak about Canada. Why would I care about Iraq?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
sebster wrote:
LunaHound wrote:Certainly doesnt that just proof how barbaric they are?
If a guy sent his army in to blew up a load of it up for reasons that were never really explained, and then held a press conference to talk about how well everything was going, throwing a shoe at him would be my least barbaric response.
CrashUSAR wrote:Throwing the shoe was a very symbolic response. It's a HUGE insult to show someone the sole of your foot/shoe, you may was well be saying "you're lower than the crap beneath my feet."
And here I was thinking it was some sort of friendly compliment.
Frazzled wrote:
LunaHound wrote:Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
Why is that?
Why should I? I don't give a gak about Canada. Why would I care about Iraq?
LunaHound wrote:
sebster wrote:
LunaHound wrote:Certainly doesnt that just proof how barbaric they are?
If a guy sent his army in to blew up a load of it up for reasons that were never really explained, and then held a press conference to talk about how well everything was going, throwing a shoe at him would be my least barbaric response.
Wolfstan wrote:
My feeling of US forces, from what I've seen over the years, is that they great at bringing the "rain", but not so good at the follow up part. It seems to me it only takes a few "sneaky beaky" attacks and your forces snap, they want to take out city blocks / cities in response. which isn't great at making you friends. You also seem to take great offense if you aren't welcomed as liberating heroes, you get frustrated if people fail to thnakful for what you've done for them.
Well it's a good thing you don't know a damn thing about US Forces then, cause your impression is dead wrong.
A nuke will let you go back in time and get rid of one slightly stupid President?
Would it provoke too much arguing if I were to suggest that pretty much ANY American President was going to go to war in Iraq after 9/11?
I would point to heavy non-partisan support he got heading into the thing as evidence that pretty much everyone wanted to go attack something.
It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.
I would think so. It took a lot of hype and build up for the war to get started.We can also point to the heavy use of "SADDAM HAS WMDs" and other such sensationalist lines such as Saddam's industrial plastic shredder where he threw dissidents to his regime (which turned out to be completely false) probably drummed up support for the campaign which could have easily been avoided.
Throwing the shoe was a very symbolic response. It's a HUGE insult to show someone the sole of your foot/shoe, you may was well be saying "you're lower than the crap beneath my feet."
As an Arab myself, I always wondered why people always come to mystifying conclusions about the whole shoe throwing thing. Shoes are dirty, so I throw shoes at people I hate because of that. End of Story. It's like throwing rotten tomatoes in the west.
Or I'm just confused and throwing my shoe at someone in the US will get me a thank you?
Wolfstan wrote:
My feeling of US forces, from what I've seen over the years, is that they great at bringing the "rain", but not so good at the follow up part. It seems to me it only takes a few "sneaky beaky" attacks and your forces snap, they want to take out city blocks / cities in response. which isn't great at making you friends. You also seem to take great offense if you aren't welcomed as liberating heroes, you get frustrated if people fail to thnakful for what you've done for them.
Well it's a good thing you don't know a damn thing about US Forces then, cause your impression is dead wrong.
Cite examples to the contrary then. Wolfstan isn't saying that the US forces aren't good 'war fighters', he's saying that they don't have a great record in policing actions. I'm inclined to agree, and I'm not the only one.
Frazzled wrote:All of western Europe
North Africa
Germany
Japan
South Korea
Bosnia
Kosovo
And keep in mind to that alot of these places there is joint occupational history with other organizations, whether it is the UN or the Allies.
Allies and UN at best irrelevant, at worst a hindrance.
It was a joint effort in the Balkans, Germany post WWII and South Korea following the Korean War.
It is solidarity with the rest of the allies America has that is key.
It was US nukes and forces that kept the Russians out.
Its US troops in South Korea now.
Kosovo would not have happened without the US airpower. Don't kid yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Besides, who cares? Historically, we kept the peace by keeping the terrritories or just obliterating them and leaving. We should return to that.
Frazzled wrote:
It was US nukes and forces that kept the Russians out.
Actually, it was a combined effort. The Soviets were conventionally superior to the US until the mid-70's. Prior to that it would have taken the combined force of Britain, France, and the US to halt a Soviet armored push.
As for nuclear deterrent: Britain possessed nuclear weapons following 1952, and France following 1960.
Frazzled wrote:
Kosovo would not have happened without the US airpower. Don't kid yourself.
Or NATO ground forces, most of which were provided by other nations.
Frazzled wrote:
Besides, who cares? Historically, we kept the peace by keeping the terrritories or just obliterating them and leaving. We should return to that.
It hasn't worked like that since the 30 Years War.
The US 'brought the rain' and the UN followed through, which means the US did virtually nothing because we don't contribute significantly to NATO missions.
Frazzled wrote:
Kosovo
The US 'brought the rain' and contributed relatively little to the followup.
Phryxis wrote:
It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.
They blamed the fething weather on him... of course Iraq was all his fault.
It's as if he orchestrated, pushed, then ran into the ground the entire war! Come on, this is some of the lamest trolling I've ever seen, to pretend that iraq wasn't a war all of Bush and Rumsfelds making is simply putting your head in the fething sand.
There was an awful lot of bi-partisan support, man.
I think it's more oblivious to act like the Democrats didn't vote to go to war as well.
Kilkrazy wrote:Whoever voted for it, it was still a bad decision.
I still can't make up my mind about whether or not it was a bad decision originally. I mean the Husseins we pretty bad guys. That said, the way the war has been handled since the invasion has been absolute foolishness.
LunaHound wrote:Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
Why is that?
Because they(Iraqi citizens) don't give a damn about themselves.
Oh care to explain that a bit more? So the Iraqis don`t give a damn that their country is in ruins due to a certain nations fondness, for bombing other countrys to ruins and then leave? And that said mess is also a mix of VERY complex factors?
LunaHound wrote:Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
Why is that?
Because they(Iraqi citizens) don't give a damn about themselves.
Oh care to explain that a bit more? So the Iraqis don`t give a damn that their country is in ruins due to a certain nations fondness, for bombing other countrys to ruins and then leave? And that said mess is also a mix of VERY complex factors?
Actually its their fondness for blowing each other up, thats done that.
LunaHound wrote:Seems like not many people that posted in the thread give a damn about the Iraq civilians.
Why is that?
Because they(Iraqi citizens) don't give a damn about themselves.
Oh care to explain that a bit more? So the Iraqis don`t give a damn that their country is in ruins due to a certain nations fondness, for bombing other countrys to ruins and then leave? And that said mess is also a mix of VERY complex factors?
Actually its their fondness for blowing each other up, thats done that.
I thought most of the insurgents were from Iran?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Whoever voted for it, it was still a bad decision.
I still can't make up my mind about whether or not it was a bad decision originally. I mean the Husseins we pretty bad guys. That said, the way the war has been handled since the invasion has been absolute foolishness.
Reasons for going to war with Iraq.
1. The Husseins are bad guys.
They were in the 80s when we supported them. They were at the end of the first Gulf War when we flubbed the opportunity to get rid of them. There are lots of other bad guys around. National sovereignty.
2. WMDs.
No, actually. The evidence was very thin.
3. Stop Al Qaeda and terrorism generally.
No. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. Saddam did not sponsor state terrorism.
Other factors.
Overstretch while we were still engaged in Afghanistan. This has not turned out well so far either.
Come on, this is some of the lamest trolling I've ever seen, to pretend that iraq wasn't a war all of Bush and Rumsfelds making is simply putting your head in the fething sand.
Right, cause the "wise" and "enlightened" view would be to assume that a nation of 300 million, plus various European states, were all "tricked" into going to war in Iraq, by a guy who I'm sure you constantly refer to as "stupid."
We were all "tricked" by an "idiot."
That's your story? Sure, you go with that.
If you want America to take responsibility, then America needs to take responsibility. Not George W. Bush.
There were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq
Define "ties." Did Saddam fund the hijackers, train them, etc. etc.? No, not at all. Was the situation in Iraq cited repeatedly by AQ as a reason for their action? Yes. The US was sitting in Saudi Arabia with a bunch of soldiers and planes, and was basically waging a long running, low grade air war on Iraq. Meanwhile, sanctions were in place making life hard for Iraqis, and harder because Saddam used the sanctions as a club/excuse to kill off dissidents.
This was an unteneble solution. The decision to "finish" the "Iraq problem" after 9/11 follows very directly. It was certainly not inevitable, but it was logical enough that it garnered widespread support.
In the wake of 9/11 the President was claiming that Saddam had WMDs and represented a real threat to the world, and people followed.
I have never believed that this argument carried much weight with actual decisionmakers who are thinking in geopolitical terms. The WMD issue was a (poorly chosen) appeal to the populace, designed to portray a clear and present danger. The "nationbuilding" project was the real core motivation to Bush's policy, and I think that was understood by leadership here and in Europe.
This is by no means a defence of Saddam, he was a bastard, but the idea that loads of people would have died in the 2000s with Saddam at the helm is not true.
I think it absolutely is true, but perhaps not via direct action. As you point out, Saddam had periods of martial crackdown, where his soldiers would go and slaughter large sections of populace. This happened after the first Gulf War as the population thought they might be able to get rid of him. And, of course, there was the constant low level of killing that all dictatorships rely on.
However, the sanctions were another story. I think the numbers are inflated, but many people claim that millions of Iraqi children were dying due to the sanctions. I think that's high, and I think a lot of it was Saddam manipulating things to kill off dissident populations, thus getting the PR victim benefit AND getting rid of opponents, but the fact remains that there was some level of death going on due to sanctions.
The only options there were to remove the sanctions, thus destroying the credibility of sanctions as a negotiating tool for all future situations, or to remove Saddam directly. The latter choice was a fairly direct and logical continuation of AMERICAN foreign policy.
Invasions based around grand visions will get loads of people killed and achieve little, whether the intent is altruistic or not.
We're still in the very near term. People tend to forget how bad things were, and geopolitics are carried out over decades. We absolutely destroyed Japan and Germany, and they're in a better place now. That's not to say that Iraq WILL be the same, that's just to say that it can be.
I think what you're identifying is not that grand visions don't work, because sometimes they do. What grand visions fail to do is to live up to the promises that got them funded. Iraq isn't roses and peace marches, clearly. That doesn't make it a failure, and that doesn't mean that in 20 years it won't look better in hindsight.
Frazzled wrote:Actually its their fondness for blowing each other up, thats done that.
This is my favourite thing ever.
'We're great at policing, look at all those places we've policed that went fine.'
'What about the ones where it didn't go so well?'
'That wasn't our fault. The people there did violent stuff - it was there fault.'
'But isn't policing all about stopping people who want to do bad things?'
'USA! USA! USA!'
Right, cause the "wise" and "enlightened" view would be to assume that a nation of 300 million, plus various European states, were all "tricked" into going to war in Iraq, by a guy who I'm sure you constantly refer to as "stupid."
We were all "tricked" by an "idiot."
That's your story? Sure, you go with that.
If you want America to take responsibility, then America needs to take responsibility. Not George W. Bush.
Blame where blame is deserved, but all is not equal. Despite bi partisan support it was the bush administrations decision to invade and their shady dealings that generated spurious (and later know to be false) evidence. The American people were tricked by an administration that picked and chose which reports to convey to the people and which to trump and embellish. The rest of our government should not have gone along with it, but this was not an even deal. This was a man telling us of a bomb at our back door and the rest of the government believing him. Iraq is one of the greatest policy mistakes of our generation, and it's handling early by a team of political loyalists, it's civilian staffing with political loyalists, and the silencing of early opposition even from knowledgeable people in the field speaks very strongly of a level of failure that should be unconchinable in a president. Thats the exact kind of thing you impeach people for, and it speaks mountains of Americas inability to come to terms with it's own ability to make mistakes that half a decade later it still didn't have the stomach to follow it's own laws. I don't think Bush is a special idiot, but I generally think that the American public is somewhat dim and easily led astray by bright lights cheery smiles and an "enemy" to shake our fists at, and he wanted to finish his daddies war.
Phryxis wrote:Right, cause the "wise" and "enlightened" view would be to assume that a nation of 300 million, plus various European states, were all "tricked" into going to war in Iraq, by a guy who I'm sure you constantly refer to as "stupid."
Being politically skilled does not make one wise in the ways of world affairs. Bush was perhaps the most extreme example we've seen of this, but he isn't the only case, and he certainly won't be the last.
And most people didn't take much to be tricked, not when there's a desire for some kind of revenge post 911.
And I'd be surprised if any countries were tricked into following Iraq. I know here at home there was little if any belief in the WMD stories, we had a whistleblower from our intelligence services come out and state exactly that. Government trashed him and carried on supporting the invasion anyway. Having a sensible reason to invade was a lot less important than maintaining goodwill with the US, because if we aren't the US' deputy in the pacific, we aren't anything. I suspect other nations of the willing made similar judgements.
If you want America to take responsibility, then America needs to take responsibility. Not George W. Bush.
It isn't about responsibility or blame. It's about understanding power dynamics and how people with strict control on information can frame a debate.
Define "ties." Did Saddam fund the hijackers, train them, etc. etc.? No, not at all. Was the situation in Iraq cited repeatedly by AQ as a reason for their action? Yes. The US was sitting in Saudi Arabia with a bunch of soldiers and planes, and was basically waging a long running, low grade air war on Iraq. Meanwhile, sanctions were in place making life hard for Iraqis, and harder because Saddam used the sanctions as a club/excuse to kill off dissidents.
I would define that as 'not ties'. Being one of dozens of things AQ was pissed off about doesn't really make much of a case for invading Iraq.
I have never believed that this argument carried much weight with actual decisionmakers who are thinking in geopolitical terms. The WMD issue was a (poorly chosen) appeal to the populace, designed to portray a clear and present danger. The "nationbuilding" project was the real core motivation to Bush's policy, and I think that was understood by leadership here and in Europe.
It absolutely was, and it's why people protested so much. It's really bad idea to go about invading other people's countries because you believe that if you can just knock over their government then a new, free and prosperous society will emerge. As we've just seen.
However, the sanctions were another story. I think the numbers are inflated, but many people claim that millions of Iraqi children were dying due to the sanctions. I think that's high, and I think a lot of it was Saddam manipulating things to kill off dissident populations, thus getting the PR victim benefit AND getting rid of opponents, but the fact remains that there was some level of death going on due to sanctions.
The figures weren't just high, they were ludicrous. Basically a stat was taken from a single outbreak of, if I recall correctly it was cholera, at a children's hospital. Some people protesting the sanctions took that figure and multiplied it by the total population, ignoring that that hospital had a much higher than average number of children because it was a children's hospital, but more importantly ignored that it was specific, short-term outbreak. They then assumed that rate of death was happening across the country, in every year of the sanctions, to come up with 500,000 dead children.
They then took that figure and challenged Madelaine Albright with it, and she famously said she thought the sanctions were worth that cost. Suddenly the figure had legitimacy, despite being completely made up.
The only options there were to remove the sanctions, thus destroying the credibility of sanctions as a negotiating tool for all future situations, or to remove Saddam directly. The latter choice was a fairly direct and logical continuation of AMERICAN foreign policy.
We have sanctions on Iran right now. At some point they'll result in a shortage that'll get somebody killed. When do we invade?
We're still in the very near term. People tend to forget how bad things were, and geopolitics are carried out over decades. We absolutely destroyed Japan and Germany, and they're in a better place now. That's not to say that Iraq WILL be the same, that's just to say that it can be.
I think what you're identifying is not that grand visions don't work, because sometimes they do. What grand visions fail to do is to live up to the promises that got them funded. Iraq isn't roses and peace marches, clearly. That doesn't make it a failure, and that doesn't mean that in 20 years it won't look better in hindsight.
Grand vision might not be the best term, as a grand vision can be broad guideline to reaching some future goal, and many grand visions can be very sensible, and have worked.
What I'm talking about as stupid and doomed to failure are these geo-political gambits, where a big idea is formed, then countries are squeezed into it to make it work. When those kinds of plans meet with reality all the assumptions made to keep the model working are shown up and then the model falls apart. That's basically what happened in Iraq, the big idea of Iraq accepting the US as conquerors, allowing an easy transition and a rapid transformation to a better society didn't happen. The rest of the Middle East didn't suddenly fall in love with US style democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:You might consider your comments Sebster. If we hadn't gone for a police action, you'd be speaking Japanese.
You're claiming the Japanese had the capability or the will to occupy Australia? That's just odd.
Meanwhile, I'm certainly not denying the value of the US in defeating the Japanese, it was a great and incredible thing that you guys did. I'm laughing at how a guy can celebrate the successful police actions of his country, but ignore any instance where they fail to police properly.
By that logic, every policemen ever has been completely awesome. Why even that sheriff that has a man in his town shot everyday is awesome, it's just the population that's unruly.
Right, cause the "wise" and "enlightened" view would be to assume that a nation of 300 million, plus various European states, were all "tricked" into going to war in Iraq, by a guy who I'm sure you constantly refer to as "stupid."
We were all "tricked" by an "idiot."
That's your story? Sure, you go with that.
If you want America to take responsibility, then America needs to take responsibility. Not George W. Bush.
Blame where blame is deserved, but all is not equal. Despite bi partisan support it was the bush administrations decision to invade and their shady dealings that generated spurious (and later know to be false) evidence. The American people were tricked by an administration that picked and chose which reports to convey to the people and which to trump and embellish. The rest of our government should not have gone along with it, but this was not an even deal. This was a man telling us of a bomb at our back door and the rest of the government believing him. Iraq is one of the greatest policy mistakes of our generation, and it's handling early by a team of political loyalists, it's civilian staffing with political loyalists, and the silencing of early opposition even from knowledgeable people in the field speaks very strongly of a level of failure that should be unconchinable in a president. Thats the exact kind of thing you impeach people for, and it speaks mountains of Americas inability to come to terms with it's own ability to make mistakes that half a decade later it still didn't have the stomach to follow it's own laws. I don't think Bush is a special idiot, but I generally think that the American public is somewhat dim and easily led astray by bright lights cheery smiles and an "enemy" to shake our fists at, and he wanted to finish his daddies war.
Standard Huffington Post nonsense and a convenient excuse. Bill Clinton had been bombing them for years because they kept lighting up and shooting at our aircraft-which was an immediate restart of hostilities.
The excuse stinks of Obama whining like a little boy that everything's someone else's fault.
Right, cause the "wise" and "enlightened" view would be to assume that a nation of 300 million, plus various European states, were all "tricked" into going to war in Iraq, by a guy who I'm sure you constantly refer to as "stupid."
We were all "tricked" by an "idiot."
That's your story? Sure, you go with that.
If you want America to take responsibility, then America needs to take responsibility. Not George W. Bush.
Blame where blame is deserved, but all is not equal. Despite bi partisan support it was the bush administrations decision to invade and their shady dealings that generated spurious (and later know to be false) evidence.
That is such a cop-out, Shuma.
If Congress hadn't voted to go, overwhelmingly I might add, the war wouldn't have happened.
While getting Saddam Hussein out of power was a decent goal...the aftermath and the reasons for invading turned out to be pretty gakky. I like referencing the pictures of soldiers wearing woodlands camo kevlar on top of their desert BDU's as an example of how ill prepared the US and its allies were for such actions.
As for "police actions" and holding a country after invading it...seems like no country's great at it. Allied forces are great at logistics and the conventional warfare stuff like flying across the world and bombing a country that citizens would struggle to locate on a map...but that stuff's easy compared to trying to force change on a people.
Hell, allied nations can't even get the Japanese to stop their arguably senseless dolphin and whale slaughters...good luck trying to change values and beliefs that go much deeper than maritime traditions!
Right, cause the "wise" and "enlightened" view would be to assume that a nation of 300 million, plus various European states, were all "tricked" into going to war in Iraq, by a guy who I'm sure you constantly refer to as "stupid."
We were all "tricked" by an "idiot."
That's your story? Sure, you go with that.
If you want America to take responsibility, then America needs to take responsibility. Not George W. Bush.
Blame where blame is deserved, but all is not equal. Despite bi partisan support it was the bush administrations decision to invade and their shady dealings that generated spurious (and later know to be false) evidence. The American people were tricked by an administration that picked and chose which reports to convey to the people and which to trump and embellish. The rest of our government should not have gone along with it, but this was not an even deal. This was a man telling us of a bomb at our back door and the rest of the government believing him. Iraq is one of the greatest policy mistakes of our generation, and it's handling early by a team of political loyalists, it's civilian staffing with political loyalists, and the silencing of early opposition even from knowledgeable people in the field speaks very strongly of a level of failure that should be unconchinable in a president. Thats the exact kind of thing you impeach people for, and it speaks mountains of Americas inability to come to terms with it's own ability to make mistakes that half a decade later it still didn't have the stomach to follow it's own laws. I don't think Bush is a special idiot, but I generally think that the American public is somewhat dim and easily led astray by bright lights cheery smiles and an "enemy" to shake our fists at, and he wanted to finish his daddies war.
Standard Huffington Post nonsense and a convenient excuse. Bill Clinton had been bombing them for years because they kept lighting up and shooting at our aircraft-which was an immediate restart of hostilities.
The excuse stinks of Obama whining like a little boy that everything's someone else's fault.
Says the man that is on record repeatedly as wanting to nuke the country and kill everyone in it.
That is such a cop-out, Shuma.
If Congress hadn't voted to go, overwhelmingly I might add, the war wouldn't have happened.
And if the administration had not brought it before congress with false evidence creating a fake picture of a made up country we probably wouldn't have gone in. Congress exists to rubber stamp or revise things, they rubber stamped the war as it was presented to them and us. They were lied too, in some cases knowingly as was the American populace at large. After that it continues to be bushes war, the commander in chief is the highest military and civilian posting in the land. He and his direct team made many decisions that cost a lot of money, lives, time, and prestige. He repeatedly rebuked the constitution and international law and he staffed the civilian wing of the force sent into iraq with his own party loyalists. This isn't a cop out, this is you not understanding the position of a president in wartime. The economic collapse wasn't really his fault. Katrina wasn't something he magicked the sky into doing. Iraq was something he and his administration spent months preparing to present to congress as an urgent action and he then spent years running the effort into the ground through mismanagement.
Yes..it's come up once or twice, he rises above the near constant cracks about deportation of prisoners like..like... like a person from a really fat nation on a ...hmm.. they overtook them..? ..bugger...anyway...
Point was more this somewhat odd idea that "conquered" nations are suddenly forced to start speaking the tongue of their conquerors. That doesn't really happen, especially in the modern age.
Unless you conquer them in insidious means : with things like music, films, fast food etc etc.
..that said... you'll never take our extra letters from our "through", despite your spelling being sensible !
If Congress hadn't voted to go, overwhelmingly I might add, the war wouldn't have happened.
And if the administration had not brought it before congress with false evidence creating a fake picture of a made up country we probably wouldn't have gone in. Congress exists to rubber stamp or revise things, they rubber stamped the war as it was presented to them and us. They were lied too, in some cases knowingly as was the American populace at large. After that it continues to be bushes war, the commander in chief is the highest military and civilian posting in the land. He and his direct team made many decisions that cost a lot of money, lives, time, and prestige. He repeatedly rebuked the constitution and international law and he staffed the civilian wing of the force sent into iraq with his own party loyalists. This isn't a cop out, this is you not understanding the position of a president in wartime. The economic collapse wasn't really his fault. Katrina wasn't something he magicked the sky into doing. Iraq was something he and his administration spent months preparing to present to congress as an urgent action and he then spent years running the effort into the ground through mismanagement.
Huh?
I'm pretty sure that one of the things I learned in middle school civics is that the Congress is one of the checks and balances of Presidential power. Who doesn't understand what, now? "Congress exists to rubber stamp or revise things"? Did you type that with a straight face?
I'm sure that all of those back-pedaling opportunists are also using the same cop-out spin tactic, but the truth is that they voted for it. Not that your premise is even all that sound, since we can't know whether or not the Administration knowingly lied about anything.
I don't like how the war has gone over the last few years either, but let's keep it real in here for a minute.
I'm pretty sure that one of the things I learned in middle school civics is that the Congress is one of the checks and balances of Presidential power.
Kind of like how they were consulted for wiretapping? For illegal extradition? For offshore internent camps? For military actions across the pakistani border? The congress acts as a check and balance for most non wartime activities, one of the things Bush and his administration was known for is the belief that the president has carte blanche to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the country during wartime without congressional or court approval. It constantly provoked the ire of constitutionalists and the courts.
Who doesn't understand what, now? "Congress exists to rubber stamp or revise things"? Did you type that with a straight face?
Yes, because thats what they do. They receive documents that they either aprove, deny, or revise. Thats how they perform their "checks and balances". They also perform inquiries, investigations, and write a lot of requests but those actions can be blocked by the commander in chief (and were for most of the war). I'm sorry if they didn't actually teach you very much in middle school, don't worry, once you get into high school you start learning the good stuff.
I'm sure that all of those back-pedaling opportunists are also using the same cop-out spin tactic, but the truth is that they voted for it. Not that your premise is even all that sound, since we can't know whether or not the Administration knowingly lied about anything.
Yes, we can.
"In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public."
ShumaGorath wrote:"In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public."
At this point there are probably a few dozen books you could read about it.
But I don't think you will.
I know that you're at least smart enough to know that for every "I hate Dubya" book you pull out of your ass there's another book out there that would say the exact opposite.
Phryxis wrote:
It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.
They blamed the fething weather on him... of course Iraq was all his fault.
It's as if he orchestrated, pushed, then ran into the ground the entire war! Come on, this is some of the lamest trolling I've ever seen, to pretend that iraq wasn't a war all of Bush and Rumsfelds making is simply putting your head in the fething sand.
There was an awful lot of bi-partisan support, man.
I think it's more oblivious to act like the Democrats didn't vote to go to war as well.
Politicians with something to gain (political and/or financial) went along with the war, be they democrat, republican, whatever...
So yes, your right greed, self-centered grand standing and shot-sighted flag waving is not limited to any one party...
I'm pretty sure that one of the things I learned in middle school civics is that the Congress is one of the checks and balances of Presidential power.
Kind of like how they were consulted for wiretapping? For illegal extradition? For offshore internent camps? For military actions across the pakistani border? The congress acts as a check and balance for most non wartime activities, one of the things Bush and his administration was known for is the belief that the president has carte blanche to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the country during wartime without congressional or court approval. It constantly provoked the ire of constitutionalists and the courts.
Who doesn't understand what, now? "Congress exists to rubber stamp or revise things"? Did you type that with a straight face?
Yes, because thats what they do. They receive documents that they either aprove, deny, or revise. Thats how they perform their "checks and balances". They also perform inquiries, investigations, and write a lot of requests but those actions can be blocked by the commander in chief (and were for most of the war). I'm sorry if they didn't actually teach you very much in middle school, don't worry, once you get into high school you start learning the good stuff.
I'm sure that all of those back-pedaling opportunists are also using the same cop-out spin tactic, but the truth is that they voted for it. Not that your premise is even all that sound, since we can't know whether or not the Administration knowingly lied about anything.
Yes, we can.
"In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to reexamine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. A major part of this program was a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and headed by Douglas Feith to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. The questionable intelligence acquired by the OSP was "stovepiped" to Cheney and presented to the public."
At this point there are probably a few dozen books you could read about it.
But I don't think you will.
I don't like how the war has gone over the last few years either, but let's keep it real in here for a minute.
Thats all on you broderbun.
You knowledge of how Congress works lacks several additional details. At any point Congress could pass a law mandating a stopping any of those activities. Indeed the War Powers Act is such legislation. More importantly, they could have yanked funding which would have stopped activities in a heartbeat. THATS how the checks and balances work.
Whilst a degree of backstory is useful, perhaps even necessary in parts, the topic for discussion in this thread is to do with what America has left behind in Iraq, not a rehashing for the 12,346th time of the why they went there.
I appreciate that there will have to be slight divergent onto related topics, but this is going well off topic.
I suspect it is far, far too early to see what America ( and the other countries) have left behind, but let's at least see if we can go anywhere with the actual topic.
Messrs, 'Rain & 'gorath, leave this is directed at the pair of you especially here, alas.
There is no denying that Bush and Blair were both economical avec le actualitie in preparing thier countries and legislatures for a war decision.
In both cases, they were not unanimously supported either by the population or the representatives, but they got their votes through, thus spreading the responsibility.
I would venture to argue that this had to be done precisely because the casus belli was so weak.
Exactly why this happened in individual cases is not important. We have to understand that people do things for all kinds of stupid and selfish reasons.
The important thing is whether we can now recognise if the decision taken was a good one or a bad one, so that in future we can improve our decisions.
Anyone who thinks we are finished with the middle east and violent extreme Islamism is sadly mistaken.
I know that you're at least smart enough to know that for every "I hate Dubya" book you pull out of your ass there's another book out there that would say the exact opposite.
brohemoth.
If every book, no matter the author or content, that disagrees with your worldview concerning the lack of culpability over operation Iraqi Freedom is an "I hate Dubya" tome then you're not going to come out of this decade particularly well educated.
Broseidon.
You knowledge of how Congress works lacks several additional details. At any point Congress could pass a law mandating a stopping any of those activities. Indeed the War Powers Act is such legislation. More importantly, they could have yanked funding which would have stopped activities in a heartbeat. THATS how the checks and balances work.
Unless they mime the budgets then it would appear that that was covered when I stated that they rubber stamp, revise, or deny documents. Thanks for playing though, how 'bout you spin the wheel again?
I suspect it is far, far too early to see what America ( and the other countries) have left behind, but let's at least see if we can go anywhere with the actual topic.
Messrs, 'Rain & 'gorath, leave this is directed at the pair of you especially here, alas.
You can't let the opposition get in the last word when I'm outnumbered! Besides, I believe that the run up to the war and it's prosecution at least in it's early stages are an important part of the consideration when concerning it's presence and future. People frame their knowledge of the current with their knowledge of the past, and when interested parties in Iraq and at home seek someone to blame for the inevitable fallout from the conflict, however that comes, it will be through the lens of it's beginning to it's end. Not simply the snapshot reality of the current. It would be nice though if we could make it a more encompassing conversation though, arguing about it being bushes war is a bit too single minded for useful consideration of the whole of the event.
Kilkrazy wrote:There is no denying that Bush and Blair were both economical avec le actualitie in preparing thier countries and legislatures for a war decision.
In both cases, they were not unanimously supported either by the population or the representatives, but they got their votes through, thus spreading the responsibility.
I would venture to argue that this had to be done precisely because the casus belli was so weak.
Exactly why this happened in individual cases is not important. We have to understand that people do things for all kinds of stupid and selfish reasons.
The important thing is whether we can now recognise if the decision taken was a good one or a bad one, so that in future we can improve our decisions.
Anyone who thinks we are finished with the middle east and violent extreme Islamism is sadly mistaken.
Hey Mod listen to the warning from the, er other Mod! Stay OT! Mod fight!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
I know that you're at least smart enough to know that for every "I hate Dubya" book you pull out of your ass there's another book out there that would say the exact opposite.
brohemoth.
If every book, no matter the author or content, that disagrees with your worldview concerning the lack of culpability over operation Iraqi Freedom is an "I hate Dubya" tome then you're not going to come out of this decade particularly well educated.
Broseidon.
You knowledge of how Congress works lacks several additional details. At any point Congress could pass a law mandating a stopping any of those activities. Indeed the War Powers Act is such legislation. More importantly, they could have yanked funding which would have stopped activities in a heartbeat. THATS how the checks and balances work.
Unless they mime the budgets then it would appear that that was covered when I stated that they rubber stamp, revise, or deny documents. Thanks for playing though, how 'bout you spin the wheel again?
I suspect it is far, far too early to see what America ( and the other countries) have left behind, but let's at least see if we can go anywhere with the actual topic.
Messrs, 'Rain & 'gorath, leave this is directed at the pair of you especially here, alas.
You can't let the opposition get in the last word when I'm outnumbered! Besides, I believe that the run up to the war and it's prosecution at least in it's early stages are an important part of the consideration when concerning it's presence and future. People frame their knowledge of the current with their knowledge of the past, and when interested parties in Iraq and at home seek someone to blame for the inevitable fallout from the conflict, however that comes, it will be through the lens of it's beginning to it's end. Not simply the snapshot reality of the current. It would be nice though if we could make it a more encompassing conversation though, arguing about it being bushes war is a bit too single minded for useful consideration of the whole of the event.
I'll be good .
ANNH! Wrong again. Congress proposes spending bills. they can unilaterally pass a veto proof majority spending bill in about 7 minutes. 6 if they are heading out for the weekend.
ANNH! Wrong again. Congress proposes spending bills. they can unilaterally pass a veto proof majority spending bill in about 7 minutes. 6 if they are heading out for the weekend.
I fail to see how that contradicts what I said. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Phryxis wrote:
The only options there were to remove the sanctions, thus destroying the credibility of sanctions as a negotiating tool for all future situations, or to remove Saddam directly.
The express goal of the sanctions was the removal of WMDs from Iraqi control. This had been accomplished during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration maintained the sanctions because the neoconservative agenda involved removing Saddam from power. Given that Iraq did not possess WMDs, the sanctions could have been dropped at any time without compromising their future legitimacy; even considering the Iraq Liberation Act.
Phryxis wrote:
The latter choice was a fairly direct and logical continuation of AMERICAN foreign policy.
That doesn't necessarily indicate that it was the correct choice. American foreign policy tends to be aggressive by nature; particularly the neoconservative brand of American foreign policy. However, there is no self-evident reason to continue down a given path of decision making. Any change in position, even one that continues along a previous course, necessitates an evaluation of the possible outcomes of the change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
ANNH! Wrong again. Congress proposes spending bills. they can unilaterally pass a veto proof majority spending bill in about 7 minutes. 6 if they are heading out for the weekend.
I fail to see how that contradicts what I said. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
I'm pretty sure its exactly the same thing you said.
I'm also pretty sure that Frazzled designs most of his posts to be inflammatory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Bill Clinton had been bombing them for years because they kept lighting up and shooting at our aircraft-which was an immediate restart of hostilities.
By "for years" do you mean "twice"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats a police action.
No, no it isn't. The very suggestion is ludicrous. Police action is a term for military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war. The euphemism didn't even exist prior to the Cold War.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Standard Huffington Post nonsense and a convenient excuse. Bill Clinton had been bombing them for years because they kept lighting up and shooting at our aircraft-which was an immediate restart of hostilities.
The excuse stinks of Obama whining like a little boy that everything's someone else's fault.
Wait, what? Its "Standard Huntington Post nonsense" to suggest that the Commander in Chief (the office of which Congress almost always defers to in matters of war) bears more responsibility for military action than Congress?
Note also that Shuma didn't absolve any part of the government from blame, he merely claimed that the Commander in Chief, the person who directly oversees the military, deserves more of it than the group that, historically, rubber stamps his decisions.
Its almost like you don't read anything before responding to it.
A nuke will let you go back in time and get rid of one slightly stupid President?
Would it provoke too much arguing if I were to suggest that pretty much ANY American President was going to go to war in Iraq after 9/11?
I would point to heavy non-partisan support he got heading into the thing as evidence that pretty much everyone wanted to go attack something.
It's a shame that people like to blame "our" decisions on Bush.
Excellent point. As I recall at the time, everyone was clapping hands and yelling hooray for Bush.
I think a better point would be to note that they would have clapped and hooped and hollered about any mideastern or southasian country invasion when the administration trumps up fake WMD reports, fake Al-Queda ties, and a fake recent history in a region of the world that the vast majority of Americans know truly little about.
Relapse wrote:
Excellent point. As I recall at the time, everyone was clapping hands and yelling hooray for Bush.
The final vote was a 60/40 split yea/nay. Hardly 'everyone', even in a generalized sense.
Personally, I doubt that most Democratic President's would have invaded Iraq. The reaction to the decision by former Democratic politicians and appointees was almost universally negative.
I do, however, agree that most Republican Presidents would have invaded Iraq. If nothing else, the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment heavily favored foreign interventionism.
Blame where blame is deserved, but all is not equal.
Clearly, no one person is more responsible for the decision to go to war in Iraq than George W. Bush. But this was an AMERICAN war, as I said. It's born out of American foreign policy that spans decades, numerous Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. To simply blame it on Bush is not insightful, nor is it valuable.
Iraq is one of the greatest policy mistakes of our generation
To say this now, before history has had its say, is profoundly ignorant. It could be that you'll be proven right. It's quite likely, in fact, that the outcome will prove less favorable than was hoped or promised. But the outcome has not been decided yet, and the fact that you don't know that demonstrates that you're a broken clock, and correct only by chance.
failure that should be unconchinable in a president
Yes. Quite. He's so evil, he's almost diablobilical. My rage with him is so profound, it's almost rendering me unconchis. Seriously, dude, for a professional whiny pedant, I'd think you'd have the correct spelling of unconscionable in your toolbox.
Thats the exact kind of thing you impeach people for
No. It's not. You do NOT impeach people for policy decisions. You don't even impeach them for lying or misleading the public. You impeach them for breaking the law, and even then, you should only do it when they break the law in a way that's material to the conduct of their Presidential duties.
That's why I have never supported the impeachment of Clinton. Even though he broke the law, it was not relevant to his duties as President. It only served to create rancor, and to confuse partisan zealots like you as to what the actual purpose of impeachment is.
I don't think Bush is a special idiot, but I generally think that the American public is somewhat dim and easily led astray by bright lights cheery smiles and an "enemy" to shake our fists at, and he wanted to finish his daddies war.
So I'm a troll, and I'm sticking my head in the sand, because the REAL insight here is that "Americans are dumb" and "Bush wanted to finish daddy's war." Deep thinking, dude. I'm pretty sure dogma isn't going to invite you to any NSA cocktail parties with insights like that.
Bush was perhaps the most extreme example we've seen of this, but he isn't the only case, and he certainly won't be the last.
I'm pretty sure you just implied that GWB was politically skilled. I'm pretty sure that's a suggestion so wrong that everything written within three paragraphs of it is also wrong by association.
I mean, come on, dude. I don't hate GWB like most of these bandwagoners, but the guy was not "politically skilled."
It's about understanding power dynamics and how people with strict control on information can frame a debate.
It's also about understanding foreign policy. If you're dwelling on how a war was sold to the public, you're pretty far from understanding what foreign policy is about. It's virtually NEVER about the mainstream narrative. It's never a mystery, it's never hard to understand, it's just not the popular narrative.
Iraq was about "cleaning up our problems." 9/11 made those problems much more obvious and pressing.
We have sanctions on Iran right now. At some point they'll result in a shortage that'll get somebody killed. When do we invade?
You wouldn't employ sanctions if the presumed outcome was always invasion.
There's a lot going on. It's not just "sanctions then invade." The sanctions provide a framework/context for many things to happen besides Iranians not having bluejeans. It's a chance to rally/demonstrate international support. If China and Russia can be brought on board with the sanctions, shown to be in agreement with their terms and scope, that sends a message to Iran.
The sanctions are part of an international diplomatic process. They're not just a "save the date" card for a subsequent invasion.
Clearly, no one person is more responsible for the decision to go to war in Iraq than George W. Bush. But this was an AMERICAN war, as I said. It's born out of American foreign policy that spans decades, numerous Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. To simply blame it on Bush is not insightful, nor is it valuable.
And this article didn't strive to imply that the war, which was hardly popular from it's inception, was bushes folly alone. It's not like he is millions of people. I was arguing primiarilly against the concept that it was a war anyone would have fought, and I personally don't believe that the majority of presidential candidates would have engaged in the theatre in the same way.
To say this now, before history has had its say, is profoundly ignorant. It could be that you'll be proven right. It's quite likely, in fact, that the outcome will prove less favorable than was hoped or promised. But the outcome has not been decided yet, and the fact that you don't know that demonstrates that you're a broken clock, and correct only by chance.
I don't know the future? Thanks for reminding me!
Yes. Quite. He's so evil, he's almost diablobilical. My rage with him is so profound, it's almost rendering me unconchis. Seriously, dude, for a professional whiny pedant, I'd think you'd have the correct spelling of unconscionable in your toolbox.
I like conch shells? The level of ineptitude is unconscionable, not really the decision making. To chose political gains (loading the diplomatic missions in iraq with untrained party loyalists and firing generals who speak out for instance) is.
No. It's not. You do NOT impeach people for policy decisions. You don't even impeach them for lying or misleading the public. You impeach them for breaking the law, and even then, you should only do it when they break the law in a way that's material to the conduct of their Presidential duties.
George Bush broke the law numerous times while in office. He was renowned for it. His battles with the courts concerning constitutional matters as well as unlawful orders given and unethical content (which is illegal pending an inquiry) were a hallmark of his presidential style. Remember Dick Cheneys roving CIA hit squad and his invisible giant safe in his office? Also I would argue that lying to the public to incite an unlawful war is in fact illegal.
That's why I have never supported the impeachment of Clinton. Even though he broke the law, it was not relevant to his duties as President. It only served to create rancor, and to confuse partisan zealots like you as to what the actual purpose of impeachment is.
Which is why impeachment for bush would be far more poignant. He actually did things to deserve it that cost this country dearly in the short and most likely the long term.
So I'm a troll, and I'm sticking my head in the sand, because the REAL insight here is that "Americans are dumb" and "Bush wanted to finish daddy's war." Deep thinking, dude. I'm pretty sure dogma isn't going to invite you to any NSA cocktail parties with insights like that.
You're a troll for initially trying to put words in my mouth and because you do it constantly no matter what we're talking about or really who you are responding too. I've never hidden my disdain for the general ineptitude of the american populace concerning how many opportunities it has to improve itself.
And this article didn't strive to imply that the war, which was hardly popular from it's inception, was bushes folly alone.
No, it didn't. You did. I realize you think Bush was foolish, and in a minority. The problem is that there was a reasonable basis for his decision, and it was supported by a majority at the time.
Say what you will, but I'm not going to dismiss the political/rhetorical convenience of blaming everything on Bush.
I don't know the future? Thanks for reminding me!
No problem. I find that you frequently need to be reminded of things you don't know. It's just an added bonus that you're so enthusiastically thankful.
To chose political gains (loading the diplomatic missions in iraq with untrained party loyalists and firing generals who speak out for instance) is.
I wonder what Stanley McChrystal would think of your perceptions? No, I know, McChrystal needed to go, and Obama had no choice. The guys Bush got rid of, they were just honorable whistleblowers. I always forget, dissent is only for the left.
Politicians hook up their friends. Republicans do it, Democrats do it. Oh, I know. Republicans do it RECKLESSLY and with CRITICAL POSITIONS! If you say so.
George Bush broke the law numerous times while in office.
So we're substituting your personal opinion for actual legal findings? Cool.
Also I would argue that lying to the public to incite an unlawful war is in fact illegal.
Ok, and you'd be wrong. I guess in addition to reminding you all the things you don't know, I need to remind you what you're not: a lawyer.
But please, point out the legal statute that says a President can't lie. While you're at it, point out the part that says "especially when it matters."
No, it didn't. You did. I realize you think Bush was foolish, and in a minority. The problem is that there was a reasonable basis for his decision, and it was supported by a majority at the time.
Say what you will, but I'm not going to dismiss the political/rhetorical convenience of blaming everything on Bush.
I'm rebuking the idea that he isn't the most culpable person. Many people had a hand, but he had the final say in nearly every matter concerned. He isn't without a much larger share of blame for the events than anyone else, logically he is the first most will point too. Personally I would lay a larger piece of the pie on Rumsfeld, but without knowing the day to day interior politics of the Bush whitehouse it falls on the commander himself. It's not convenience to blame everything on Bush, I would just as strongly rebuke any standing political leader that was for the Iraq war at the time.
No problem. I find that you frequently need to be reminded of things you don't know. It's just an added bonus that you're so enthusiastically thankful.
Glad we've covered this. Next time I need to be flamed pointlessly I'll shoot you a PM!
I wonder what Stanley McChrystal would think of your perceptions?
He broke chain of command and insulted his superiors in a public venue on a major publication. The military plays by different standards and his removal was precipitated by his own poor judgement. The placement of unqualified loyalists into positions of power in Iraq was precipitated by the poor judgement of those that put them there. Obama had a few choices, he could keep the general around with the air of hostility he generated or they could replace him with a much more successful commander. They chose the latter and decided to absorb the brunt of the political fallout it generated. Mchrystal was good, but the situation in afghanistan wasn't.
No, I know, McChrystal needed to go, and Obama had no choice. The guys Bush got rid of, they were just honorable whistleblowers. I always forget, dissent is only for the left.
Mchrystal was let go for calling his superiors names, Shinseki was let go for noting that the mission was woefully ill prepared for what it was going to face. If you can't see the difference then... Actually, no. I'm just not surprised. You often seem to lack the ability to understand the "subtle" differences between things that are very visibly different.
Politicians hook up their friends. Republicans do it, Democrats do it. Oh, I know. Republicans do it RECKLESSLY and with CRITICAL POSITIONS! If you say so.
Because Obama is rushing to load up the mideastern consulates with party loyalists straight out of college. Yeah. Right. Good one buddy!
Does it occur to you that there are actual causes for the endemic and chronic failure in the reconstruction and administration efforts in both Iraq and afghanistan? Or do you think such a poor job was being done because it's hot down there?
So we're substituting your personal opinion for actual legal findings? Cool.
Mine and the supreme, legislative, and lower courts. Military courts too actually. Really just courts. It's courts that we're using the legal findings for.
I know you don't like those though, so I understand your reticence to accept them.
Ok, and you'd be wrong.
I think the term "unlawful war" would mean that I'm right by the definition of unlawful, but constitutional and governmental law doesn't really result in penalties all the time.
I guess in addition to reminding you all the things you don't know, I need to remind you what you're not: a lawyer.
I'm also not a fish, but I can still see that you're drowning here.
But please, point out the legal statute that says a President can't lie. While you're at it, point out the part that says "especially when it matters."
Depends on what laws you wish to use. The actions of his administration broke a significant number of federal laws, but they did it in a matter that can not be prosecuted. Torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture of enemy combatants? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability through the reclassification of what constitutes torture. Wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being party to wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability and the ability to delay the courts and to tie the issue indefinitely until wiretapping is later legalized on case by case basis by a secret judge.
Most people understand the concept of presidential platitudes and the ways in which a president cant break numerous laws while walking away from it without blinking an eye. It takes a casual perusal of the average news story during the bush administration to see how he was doing it.
As for lying to the public, I stated "Lying to the public to incite an unlawful war". Lying to the public in matters of national security is something civilians are tried for often. If the fething balloon kids parents get jail time for pretending their kid got whisked away into the sky why is an elected leader immune when his decision cost hundreds of thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly while costing the nation billions and significant lost prestige and power? I mean, I know that helicopter they used to search for the boy was pricey, but I think it's a little less then comparable when you look at how much was spent overall.
Mchrystal was let go for calling his superiors names, Shinseki was let go for noting that the mission was woefully ill prepared for what it was going to face.
Actually, in the terms you're describing it, I'd say Shinseki was the worse of the two. In actual reality, I don't think it was that way, but in your own words, it certainly is.
I'd rather a General was rude than he was publicly questioning the decisions/preparation going into war. The former is merely unprofessional, the latter severely undermines public confidence.
In reality, I agree that McChrystal put himself in a very poor position, and Shinseki did less so, but I think it's convenient that you find McChrystal's dismissal to be TOTALLY understandable and Shinseki's to be so out of line as to draw Bush's ethics into question.
In my eyes, they're both cases of Generals being dismissed for not showing the attitude their commander in chief needed. It's funny, though, how when I find the choices of Obama and Bush to be pretty similar, I'm an extremist. When you find Obama to be justifiable, and Bush to be "unconshinible," you're the rational one.
I think the term "unlawful war" would mean that I'm right by the definition of unlawful, but constitutional and governmental law doesn't really result in penalties all the time.
So because you saw a sign that said "illegal war" on it, you think that means something? It doesn't.
The war was not unlawful. If you'd like to show me where it violated law, I'd be happy to laugh at you and remind you again of all the things you don't know.
You literally don't know the difference between legal findings and coffee shop rhetoric.
The actions of his administration broke a significant number of federal laws, but they did it in a matter that can not be prosecuted.
Ahh, right, the old "illegal, but can't be prosecuted," situation. Look, dude, you're pretending that rhetoric is legal basis. Some people sought to block some of Bush's policy on legal grounds. That doesn't make it illegal. It means that some people wanted to challenge the idea that it was.
For example, Obama got his Obamacare, and certain state governments are trying to get rulings that block elements of it. By your logic, Obama has broken the law. Only, he hasn't.
The entire concept of judicial review is less than foundational. It's certainly how things are run today, but originally the idea was that legislators decided what was law, and if they said it was law, that made it legal. The fact is, "who says what the law is" is actually a complicated question in government, and it's not just "whoever wins gets to call the other guy a criminal."
Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't torture. Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't use illegal wiretaps. These are complex matters, that you're trying to treat like pot possession. "The law" is different when you're in the business of authoring it or executing on it. In many cases you will be expected to do things before it's officially determined if it's even legal. You have your legal counsel publish an opinion, then you do it. If it's subsequently decided that it was not legal, then a law may be written on the subject, an executive order may be drafted, and precedent is set.
But before there's any of that, there's just "do what you're going to do, and publish an opinion." Overturning the opinion doesn't equal "you criminal." I know you love the rhetorical weight of calling people criminals, but it's not reality.
Your ignornance on the subject doesn't make GWB a lawbreaker. It makes you ignorant.
If the fething balloon kids parents get jail time for pretending their kid got whisked away into the sky why is an elected leader immune when his decision cost hundreds of thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly while costing the nation billions and significant lost prestige and power?
Ok, got it. Your musings on "how it aughta be" is now the basis for our legal code. You better let Eric Holder know when you're available to fill him in on all your ideas.
Even if lying were illegal, and it's not, Bush didn't lie. He just presented his slanted version of the facts, which led to his desired conclusion. You're two degrees removed from reality. Lying's not illegal. No lie was told.
You want to criminalize rhetoric you don't like. For somebody who deals almost exclusively in very dubious rhetoric, that seems like an unwise stance to take.
Actually, in the terms you're describing it, I'd say Shinseki was the worse of the two. In actual reality, I don't think it was that way, but in your own words, it certainly is.
I'd rather a General was rude than he was publicly questioning the decisions/preparation going into war. The former is merely unprofessional, the latter severely undermines public confidence.
In reality, I agree that McChrystal put himself in a very poor position, and Shinseki did less so, but I think it's convenient that you find McChrystal's dismissal to be TOTALLY understandable and Shinseki's to be so out of line as to draw Bush's ethics into question.
Shinseki was doing his job and providing a sincere military analysis that was later proven right. McChrystal was being a tool and calling his superiors names in rolling stone magazine. Like I said though, I didn't really expect you to understand the vast differences between them. You have an axe to grind and a man to defend.
In my eyes, they're both cases of Generals being dismissed for not showing the attitude their commander in chief needed. It's funny, though, how when I find the choices of Obama and Bush to be pretty similar, I'm an extremist. When you find Obama to be justifiable, and Bush to be "unconshinible," you're the rational one.
Yes. I am.
So because you saw a sign that said "illegal war" on it, you think that means something? It doesn't.
The war was not unlawful. If you'd like to show me where it violated law, I'd be happy to laugh at you and remind you again of all the things you don't know.
You literally don't know the difference between legal findings and coffee shop rhetoric.
With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[9] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” [10]
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[11]
Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq.[9]
The US and UK governments, along with others, stated (as is detailed in the first four paragraphs of the joint resolution)[12] that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and not a war of aggression as the US and UK were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion.[13][14] Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild,[15] a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal.[16][17][18]
The ICC can find only individuals to have committed crimes, not governments.[19] However, the unauthorized use of force or threat of use of force by a member state of the UN violates the UN Charter.[9]
Not that you care about the U.N.
Ahh, right, the old "illegal, but can't be prosecuted," situation. Look, dude, you're pretending that rhetoric is legal basis. Some people sought to block some of Bush's policy on legal grounds. That doesn't make it illegal. It means that some people wanted to challenge the idea that it was.
For example, Obama got his Obamacare, and certain state governments are trying to get rulings that block elements of it. By your logic, Obama has broken the law. Only, he hasn't.
The writing of a law, and the taking of actions that are unlawful are different things. I think you're being kind of dumb here. Are you doing it intentionally?
The entire concept of judicial review is less than foundational. It's certainly how things are run today, but originally the idea was that legislators decided what was law, and if they said it was law, that made it legal. The fact is, "who says what the law is" is actually a complicated question in government, and it's not just "whoever wins gets to call the other guy a criminal."
I know, which is why I insist that bush and his administration performed illegal actions. If it was "whoever wins gets to call the other guy a criminal" I would just throw up my hands and declare him the winner.
Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't torture. Bush's lawyers would argue that they didn't use illegal wiretaps. These are complex matters, that you're trying to treat like pot possession.
They are very simple matters with very complex legal proceedings tied to them. The question of whether torture was committed is far less central to the question of whether it was knowingly done (which it has now been proven is so by certain cabinet members) and even less prudent then the question of what constitutes torture. However these questions are only prudent specifically because the activities were being engaged in. The wiretapping issue is even less gray, with bush knowingly approving of it for months before any sort of judicial review even touched it.
"The law" is different when you're in the business of authoring it or executing on it. In many cases you will be expected to do things before it's officially determined if it's even legal. You have your legal counsel publish an opinion, then you do it. If it's subsequently decided that it was not legal, then a law may be written on the subject, an executive order may be drafted, and precedent is set.
Except both wiretapping without a warrant and torture have been illegal for a very long time. They broke the law then sought to change it. That's not how U.S. law works.
But before there's any of that, there's just "do what you're going to do, and publish an opinion." Overturning the opinion doesn't equal "you criminal." I know you love the rhetorical weight of calling people criminals, but it's not reality.
A criminal is someone that has committed a crime. You can be a criminal without being prosecuted. It's a term based more in the absolutes of reality, kind of like how something can be red even if you aren't looking at it. I believe they have committed a crime (well, several). Criminal is not strictly a legal term. They are suspects in ongoing legal reviews, and they have been found guilty of unethical practices (especially in Cheneys case). However without prosecution they are not convicts or felons. I would have used more concrete terms if they were warranted. They weren't and I did not.
but thanks for trying to straighten me out. Maybe next time you'll read my posts at the grade level required to parse the language appropriately.
Your ignornance on the subject doesn't make GWB a lawbreaker. It makes you ignorant.
Says captain indefensible ad-hominim man with the power to obfuscate opinions and pretend that agression equates to righteous indigence borne from truthful knowledge.
Ok, got it. Your musings on "how it aughta be" is now the basis for our legal code. You better let Eric Holder know when you're available to fill him in on all your ideas.
Oh. Ok. You really do just lack such a basic level of grade school education that you think that conviction under a court of law is the only way someone can commit a crime. You should probably take some logical theory classes at some point, you're really missing out there.
Even if lying were illegal, and it's not, Bush didn't lie. He just presented his slanted version of the facts, which led to his desired conclusion. You're two degrees removed from reality. Lying's not illegal. No lie was told.
Presenting intentionally falsified national security information to congress is a crime. It has been for a long time. Plenty of lies were told by quite a few people. Lies are lies when they aren't true. Much of what was told was a lie. The bits and pieces that were intentionally falsified or intentionally made misleading are far more important than the general volume of lies. Unintentional mistruths are a fact of life, the misrepresentation of critical security information that leads the country directly into war is a treasonous act.
You want to criminalize rhetoric you don't like. For somebody who deals almost exclusively in very dubious rhetoric, that seems like an unwise stance to take.
I don't want do to anything, I don't have any classes tomorrow. Thats not true. I want to play starcraft.
Well, no, I don't really care about the UN, but despite not caring about it, I can tell the difference between it and: "Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild, a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal"
Obviously you can't. But thanks for proving my point. People can have an opinion. It doesn't make something legal or illegal. It means that in THEIR OPINION, it's illegal.
In the opinion of the Birthers, Obama isn't a legal US President. Who cares?
The wiretapping issue is even less gray, with bush knowingly approving of it for months before any sort of judicial review even touched it.
Again, in the opinion of the Bush administration the wiretapping was legal. In the opinion of the Bush administration there was no torture. They felt that they were NOT breaking any laws.
I don't deny that there's a debate. I deny that there has been a final ruling on this issue. Judges have agreed with your position, judges have disagreed with your position.
I can repeat this, but you're not listening. You want to call people "criminals" and you're going to repeat yourself until I get bored of reminding you what reality looks like.
You really do just lack such a basic level of grade school education that you think that conviction under a court of law is the only way someone can commit a crime.
If you can't defeat my arguments, make up ones for me, and argue with those, eh?
You just sloppily suggested that it seems to you that if falsifying statements to a police officer is a crime, then falsifying rhetoric to the American people DEFINITELY should be a crime. Your legal basis was "it seems like it aughta be illegal."
When I pointed out how infantile that is, you said "I know you are, but what am I." And I already told you. Infantile.
Plenty of lies were told by quite a few people.
Do we need to review what a "lie" is? Obama said that if we had a stimulus package, unemployment wouldn't go over 8%. It did. He was wrong. Impeachment time?
Nope.
Unintentional mistruths are a fact of life, the misrepresentation of critical security information that leads the country directly into war is a treasonous act.
But, yeah, I'm sure you can prove that many in the Bush administration told inentional mistruths. I know you don't believe me, but in addition to not being a lawyer, you're also not a mind reader.
And treason? What enemy was aided and comforted?
Or did we just catch you throwing around empty rhetoric again?
Well, no, I don't really care about the UN, but despite not caring about it, I can tell the difference between it and: "Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild, a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal"
The inquiry as to the lagality of the war could easily be brought before the security council, and it's unlikely that without the veto power (which the U.S. has) the war would be considered illegal. But then, by that logic we could have demolished canada and done the same. The heuristics of international conflict legality is a labarynthian process with a giant topkill called the veto vote at the top. It doesn't make it actually "legal" it just makes the world unable to enforce it's own laws.
Obviously you can't. But thanks for proving my point. People can have an opinion. It doesn't make something legal or illegal. It means that in THEIR OPINION, it's illegal.
Snore. Keep treading that logical loop buddy. Things can only be illegal once prosecuted, got it. Looks like every bank robber to ever escape, every murderer to ever go free, and every nation to impune on the soveregnity of another without reprisal are all innocent because they weren't found guilty by whatever law system they were local too. Glad to know that in phryxis' world as long as I can get away with it it can't be illegal.
In the opinion of the Birthers, Obama isn't a legal US President. Who cares?
Doublesnore.
Again, in the opinion of the Bush administration the wiretapping was legal. In the opinion of the Bush administration there was no torture. They felt that they were NOT breaking any laws.
That doesn't actually matter. Their opinions are irrelevant, only the laws. They were found to have acted unjustly in the wiretapping case and the supreme court has repeatedly rebuked their right to torture. That means it's illegal. That means when they did it it was illegal (since it was) and it still is. They don't will law into being.
I don't deny that there's a debate. I deny that there has been a final ruling on this issue. Judges have agreed with your position, judges have disagreed with your position.
More have agreed then disagreed and the concept of violating law and then defending the act in court through loopholes and "national security" (wiretapping without a warrant is still illegal) is not one that holds up in court (it just never makes it there to be cast down). The reason charges have never been levied is because of the power of the state secrets and patriot acts to shut down legal proceedings indefinitely. Is it legal simply because they have the power to shut down the courts?
If you can't defeat my arguments, make up ones for me, and argue with those, eh?
You've been restating the same argument of precedence post facto the entire time. It's been wrong the entire time. I've defeated it numerous times. You just don't actually care. Lawmaking doesn't work that way and the only reason it was gotten away with is through interference in the courts.
You just sloppily suggested that it seems to you that if falsifying statements to a police officer is a crime, then falsifying rhetoric to the American people DEFINITELY should be a crime. Your legal basis was "it seems like it aughta be illegal."
Except it's actually treason under the circumstances of national security and war to intentionally mislead congress and the American people in such a way by arguably every definition of the term in this situation.
When I pointed out how infantile that is, you said "I know you are, but what am I." And I already told you. Infantile.
Snore again. You haven't pointed anything out. You don't have a very firm grasp of either american lawmaking or jurisprudence.
But, yeah, I'm sure you can prove that many in the Bush administration told inentional mistruths. I know you don't believe me, but in addition to not being a lawyer, you're also not a mind reader.
It's been fairly well proven that they were aware of the spurious nature of the intel and that it was designed to produce the truths they wanted despite an intentional lack of credibility.
And treason? What enemy was aided and comforted?
Depending on who you would classify as an enemy, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, China, and venezuela among others. Iran specifically has been greatly aided by the conflict and is a proclaimed enemy of this state. It is also a treasonous act to bring war on America which is arguable in it's definition (only previously used for civil war convictions) but through which a disastrous war under falsified pretenses could under some definitions be considered.
Or did we just catch you throwing around empty rhetoric again?
Actually in matters of politics it is irrelevant whether an executive deliberately told lies or merely contrived a situation in which the evidence he relied on could be plausibly presented as being derived from third party sources which were believe to be reliable, but actually turned out not to be.
In this case, Bush's reliance on Blair's "dodgy dossier" as part of the evidence for promotion of war.
The key point is whether people believed him then, and how they feel about that now the true situation has been exposed.
I'll explain the point in easily understandable terms.
Let's suppose there's a tramp who has got a couple of litre cans of sterno.
One of his tramp friends uses half a litre to light a camp stove. His first can of sterno is now half full.
Another of his tramp friends opens the other can and drinks three quarters of it, so it is only a quarter full.
You'll notice that the second can is lower than the first one, although the reason why is completely different.
Just because it is lower doesn't mean it was fine for the first tramp to waste good sterno on cooking, when he could have got a nutritious meal at McDonalds for just a dollar.
The full survey that is being referenced in both those blog posts is located here.
Interestingly, 48% of respondents reported that voted for John McCain in the last election, compared to 45% who claimed a vote for Obama, and 7% who claimed that they didn't remember. The survey also reports that the partisan affiliation of all respondents was split 40/40/20 between Republicans/Democrats/Independents, and that 44% of Ohio residents identify as independent, 40% identify as conservative, and 16% identify as liberal.
The numbers regarding political self-identification could indicate many things, but given the result of past elections it seems likely that the mass of independent voters describe a lack of serious, traditional political bias across the state. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, we can discard political bias as a relevant factor. The numbers on partisan affiliation appear more deterministic; being especially illustrative of the close nature of all Presidential elections in Ohio. However, taken in the context of the report on voting in the lat election, they tell an interesting story. Obama took Ohio, and yet most non-neutral respondents indicated that they voted for McCain. Statistically, this tells us that the majority of the neutral respondents in fact voted for Obama. Given that there is a similar margin of neutral parties in the statistic Frazlzed is citing, it is possible to conclude that the margin has been artificially distorted by the absence of a forced choice; meaning that the numbers for Obama could up to 7 points higher. Even if they were only 3 points higher, the results would be placed into statistical equivalence due to the small sample size and wide margin of error.
This is why, once I'm elected to the Whitehouse in 2012 -- " A red in the Whitehouse in '12, why not eh You've tried the "best" now try the drunk!?" --- my gun control policy will be to limit gun ownership to loud, flamboyant, brightly dressed, "Tom Jones" type listening people.
People like that never go $%%^&&*&* and come into work and try to kill you with hunting rifles and "assault weapons".
Or get depressed and dance in the moonlight wearing their mothers skin, whilst wailing a chant to our dark overlord Beelzebub. The skin on their drums flayed from the hide of the mailman/postman.
Indeed. I shall put an end to my experiment in mirroring your own "debate" style back at you. It is indeed somewhat liberating and entertaining to simply spout insulting obfuscation at somebody, but it's not very useful.
Instead, I'll be clear on my opinion...
I think you're treating rhetoric as reality. Bush is a "criminal" the Iraq war was "unlawful," etc. etc.
You say that even as you recognize that the UN will never pass a resolution condemnin the war as unlawful. You also are no doubt aware that the Supreme Court would probably side with Bush, and if a Republican gets another appointee in the near future, even moreso.
Which is my point. Legal findings are both more political and more subjective than we would like to admit.
Now, I'm not saying that you have to be found guilty in order to have broken a law. That's a very strict standard, and not a bad one, but it's not the only one. Clearly one can break the law and not be caught, not be prosecuted, etc.
But you insist on your rhetoric. Bush is a "criminal." I accept that's your opinion. I accept that people agree with you. But it's not a fact, and it's not something that you can say without drifting off into the land of rhetoric.
If you said to me "George W Bush's policies have drawn strong and widespread legal criticism, and are believed by many to have broken the law" I would agree.
But that would be a fact, and not nearly as rhetorically rewarding. Doesn't make for a good bumper sticker, and, quite frankly, you're a little too enamoured of bumper sticker thinking.
I say that because you seem like a smart guy, you just don't always know the difference between fact and opinion when it comes to your hot button issues. Like most any left-leaning American, you get constant reinforcement of your views, to the point that you consider them facts.
But they're not facts. They're opinions. The Iraq war was not, point of fact, unlawful. The argument has been made. Some will agree, some will not. I don't mean to suggest that it WAS lawful. In my opinion, it was, or, at least, is within the framework of how things are done. But that's my opinion.
You'll no doubt argue that jurisprudence isn't about opinion, it's about objective facts. But it's really not.
At the end of the day, if the laws are all read, and everything is tracked, and reviewed and the critical verbiage is found, it will always come down to something being legal "when sufficient justification is present."
And what's "sufficient justification?"
It's an opinion. It's whatever the party that happens to have the most Supreme Court justices says it is. It's whatever is politically expedient at the time. Whatever. It's not objective fact.
And don't get me wrong, I respect your right to have an opinion, to consider it correct, and to stick to your guns. If you think Bush was a criminal, then good for you. But if you're talking to me, and to many other people, you have to know that's NOT reality. You have to understand that it's not a universal opinion, and if you refuse to speak in terms that are irrefutible, then you're dealing in rhetoric, and not fact.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of question here about how we should conduct our policy. There are questions about wiretapping, about when the battlefield spills into the homeland, as it will when terrorism is a primary weapon. We need to be thinking about answers to these questions in a realistic fashion. They'll confront Barack Obama. They'll confront the next President.
GWB was trying to protect the country with every single option at his disposal. We EXPECT him to go right up to the very edge of legality, to do everything that is in his power. If he steps over, we need to be thoughtful and make clear rulings on what is, and is not permissible. That's what this debate SHOULD be about. By turning it into "Bush is evil, without him there's no problem, just admit how evil he is and vote Democrat," we solve no problems. We just give you the partisan win you want, and then leave your candidate in just as much of a bind when it comes to responding to new conflicts, new challenges and new technologies.
Indeed. I shall put an end to my experiment in mirroring your own "debate" style back at you. It is indeed somewhat liberating and entertaining to simply spout insulting obfuscation at somebody, but it's not very useful.
Were you doing that? It seemed like you were posting in the method you always do, with little substance and constant insistence of ad hominim and intentional misinterpretations of the opposing argument. I'm pretty sure you're just continuing to do that with a less then skillful dodge here.
Instead, I'll be clear on my opinion...
I think you're treating rhetoric as reality. Bush is a "criminal" the Iraq war was "unlawful," etc. etc.
You say that even as you recognize that the UN will never pass a resolution condemnin the war as unlawful. You also are no doubt aware that the Supreme Court would probably side with Bush, and if a Republican gets another appointee in the near future, even moreso.
Which is my point. Legal findings are both more political and more subjective than we would like to admit.
Now, I'm not saying that you have to be found guilty in order to have broken a law. That's a very strict standard, and not a bad one, but it's not the only one. Clearly one can break the law and not be caught, not be prosecuted, etc.
But you insist on your rhetoric. Bush is a "criminal." I accept that's your opinion. I accept that people agree with you. But it's not a fact, and it's not something that you can say without drifting off into the land of rhetoric.
If you said to me "George W Bush's policies have drawn strong and widespread legal criticism, and are believed by many to have broken the law" I would agree.
But that would be a fact, and not nearly as rhetorically rewarding. Doesn't make for a good bumper sticker, and, quite frankly, you're a little too enamoured of bumper sticker thinking.
I say that because you seem like a smart guy, you just don't always know the difference between fact and opinion when it comes to your hot button issues. Like most any left-leaning American, you get constant reinforcement of your views, to the point that you consider them facts.
But they're not facts. They're opinions. The Iraq war was not, point of fact, unlawful. The argument has been made. Some will agree, some will not. I don't mean to suggest that it WAS lawful. In my opinion, it was, or, at least, is within the framework of how things are done. But that's my opinion.
You'll no doubt argue that jurisprudence isn't about opinion, it's about objective facts. But it's really not.
At the end of the day, if the laws are all read, and everything is tracked, and reviewed and the critical verbiage is found, it will always come down to something being legal "when sufficient justification is present."
And what's "sufficient justification?"
It's an opinion. It's whatever the party that happens to have the most Supreme Court justices says it is. It's whatever is politically expedient at the time. Whatever. It's not objective fact.
And don't get me wrong, I respect your right to have an opinion, to consider it correct, and to stick to your guns. If you think Bush was a criminal, then good for you. But if you're talking to me, and to many other people, you have to know that's NOT reality. You have to understand that it's not a universal opinion, and if you refuse to speak in terms that are irrefutible, then you're dealing in rhetoric, and not fact.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of question here about how we should conduct our policy. There are questions about wiretapping, about when the battlefield spills into the homeland, as it will when terrorism is a primary weapon. We need to be thinking about answers to these questions in a realistic fashion. They'll confront Barack Obama. They'll confront the next President.
GWB was trying to protect the country with every single option at his disposal. We EXPECT him to go right up to the very edge of legality, to do everything that is in his power. If he steps over, we need to be thoughtful and make clear rulings on what is, and is not permissible. That's what this debate SHOULD be about. By turning it into "Bush is evil, without him there's no problem, just admit how evil he is and vote Democrat," we solve no problems. We just give you the partisan win you want, and then leave your candidate in just as much of a bind when it comes to responding to new conflicts, new challenges and new technologies.
crim·i·nal [krim-uh-nl] Show IPA –adjective 1. of the nature of or involving crime. 2. guilty of crime. 3. Law . of or pertaining to crime or its punishment: a criminal proceeding. 4. senseless; foolish: It's criminal to waste so much good food. 5. exorbitant; grossly overpriced: They charge absolutely criminal prices. –noun 6. a person guilty or convicted of a crime.
There we go, now that thats cleared up, lets look at what I've actually been saying. Not what you've been reading in whatever fantastical bizzaro world your screen resides in.
And this article didn't strive to imply that the war, which was hardly popular from it's inception, was bushes folly alone. It's not like he is millions of people. I was arguing primiarilly against the concept that it was a war anyone would have fought, and I personally don't believe that the majority of presidential candidates would have engaged in the theatre in the same way.
Depends on what laws you wish to use. The actions of his administration broke a significant number of federal laws, but they did it in a matter that can not be prosecuted. Torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture? Illegal. Knowingly allowing torture of enemy combatants? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability through the reclassification of what constitutes torture. Wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being party to wiretapping without a warrant? Illegal. Being a president? Plausible deniability and the ability to delay the courts and to tie the issue indefinitely until wiretapping is later legalized on case by case basis by a secret judge.
Most people understand the concept of presidential platitudes and the ways in which a president cant break numerous laws while walking away from it without blinking an eye. It takes a casual perusal of the average news story during the bush administration to see how he was doing it.
A criminal is someone that has committed a crime. You can be a criminal without being prosecuted. It's a term based more in the absolutes of reality, kind of like how something can be red even if you aren't looking at it. I believe they have committed a crime (well, several). Criminal is not strictly a legal term. They are suspects in ongoing legal reviews, and they have been found guilty of unethical practices (especially in Cheneys case). However without prosecution they are not convicts or felons. I would have used more concrete terms if they were warranted. They weren't and I did not.
That doesn't actually matter. Their opinions are irrelevant, only the laws. They were found to have acted unjustly in the wiretapping case and the supreme court has repeatedly rebuked their right to torture. That means it's illegal. That means when they did it it was illegal (since it was) and it still is. They don't will law into being.
I used the word criminal. The bush administration is guilty of several crimes and has been found guilty of acting in a criminal fashion on numerous occasions. We have already hashed over all of this. I'm well aware of the fact that he is not a felon, and I started out by stating that much of the legality of the issues presented remained in court or were surreptitiously hidden from the public eye. I also started out by stating that a criminal is not always a felon and that not every free man is innocent. Criminal is a term that pertains often to legalistics but is not a strictly legal term. You are and have been well aware of my intention in using the word from the beginning as well as my usage of the term illegal for the conflict. Things don't become illegal once they are determined such, they are illegal from the start and are then judged to be so. The egg doesn't come before the chicken in this. We have repeatedly rehashed the came conceptual argument of post facto criminality and innocence under dubious inability to prosecute, but a man can be guilty while walking free. You know this as well as I. Laws, especially international ones are a representation of popular belief and popular enforcement Iraq was not a popular war internationally and rapidly became widely unpopular nationally. It's legal defenses are few and far between and often predicated on the sincerity of incorrect intelligence. It has not been found to be illegal internationally, but then I've been arguing from the inception that it doesn't have to be declared illegal to be illegal. The post facto declaration doesn't inherently change the nature of reality, it's simply a declaration of intent by an adjudicating body. Given the state of world politics it's likely physically impossible for the war to be declared illegal due to the security councils veto vote, and in such a case no war the U.S. declares could ever be deemed illegal. It's a testament to the weakness of that system, not the innocence of all nations.
You understand very well the grounds upon which I have been arguing, you have roughly restated (while disagreeing with) them in the post which I am quoting. You wish me to use a subtler, less accusatory tone when discussing the concepts, but you also seem to think I an obligated to do so if I wish to remain respectful or understandable as a discussion partner. If I must state that bush is "believed by many to have broken the law" then why can I not speak as one such believer? Do I have to opt out my own existence for the sake of arguing the subject? Every time we are on opposite sides of an argument you inherently misrepresent my posts and intentions. You have done it in every clash since you started posting here. It's the nature of your argumentative style and it's highly visible. I do not go around reading the socialist times and listening to kanye state that bush doesn't like black people on repeat and I most certainly don't just hover around blaming bush for all problems. Considering half of your posts alluded directly or indirectly to that is a testament to just how little you really had to say concerning this topic. It's boring. It makes me .
You wish me to use a subtler, less accusatory tone when discussing the concepts, but you also seem to think I an obligated to do so if I wish to remain respectful or understandable as a discussion partner.
And then...
Every time we are on opposite sides of an argument you inherently misrepresent my posts and intentions.
These two quotes add up to you being wrong. Not wrong about Bush, just meta-wrong. You've been arguing in bad faith. You've been repeatedly presenting yoru opinions as facts, and you refuse to take direct responsibility for doing so.
On some level I've assumed all along that you're smart enough to know that your opinion on the legalities is mere opinion. But - and your self quotes don't change this at all - you've spent this thread repeatedly suggesting that Bush IS a criminal, that, regardless of any legal conclusion, it's a simple fact that he broke the law.
If the person you're debating with is saying that they don't believe one of your suggestions in a fact, you have (at least) two choices: you can restate your belief that it IS a fact, or concede that it is not a fact, but remain convinced of its truth.
You chose to do the former. You suggested it was FACT that Bush has broken laws, as opposed to your interpretation that Bush broke these laws. You did so repeatedly. Then, when I told you that you're arguing in bad faith, you cry about me not listening to what you're saying, even as you suggest that you can't say anything besides what you believe.
That's why you're meta wrong. On one hand, you suggest it's ridiculous of me to expect you to use a less accusatory tone, and then on the other, you suggest I'm misrepresenting you by claiming you're using an excessively accusatory tone.
Bottom line, you're quite aware of when you're being dogmatic and partisan, but you refuse to take any responsibility for it.
In my opinion, I'm actually less dogmatic and partisan than you are (which isn't saying much), but I'm also willing to admit my bias. You're pretty much unwilling to admit bias as a policy.
These two quotes add up to you being wrong. Not wrong about Bush, just meta-wrong. You've been arguing in bad faith. You've been repeatedly presenting yoru opinions as facts, and you refuse to take direct responsibility for doing so.
I believe that I am correct, thus I also believe that my opinions are facts. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.
On some level I've assumed all along that you're smart enough to know that your opinion on the legalities is mere opinion. But - and your self quotes don't change this at all - you've spent this thread repeatedly suggesting that Bush IS a criminal, that, regardless of any legal conclusion, it's a simple fact that he broke the law.
Yes. I know. I've been saying that.
If the person you're debating with is saying that they don't believe one of your suggestions in a fact, you have (at least) two choices: you can restate your belief that it IS a fact, or concede that it is not a fact, but remain convinced of its truth.
And I have been restating the belief that it is a fact and backing that with logical theory, law, and quotes that you didn't like much.
You chose to do the former. You suggested it was FACT that Bush has broken laws, as opposed to your interpretation that Bush broke these laws.
Yes. As I am likely to believe that my own interpretations are correct, and given that if they are correct they are then facts it is logical to assume that I am going to treat my interpretations as facts when I present them.
You did so repeatedly. Then, when I told you that you're arguing in bad faith, you cry about me not listening to what you're saying, even as you suggest that you can't say anything besides what you believe.
That would make sense, but you haven't so much as used the term bad faith before, let alone actually accused me of doing so in a fashion that would avoid my accusation that you are re-characterizing my arguments to fit your own.
That's why you're meta wrong. On one hand, you suggest it's ridiculous of me to expect you to use a less accusatory tone, and then on the other, you suggest I'm misrepresenting you by claiming you're using an excessively accusatory tone.
I didn't use the term ridiculous, in fact I just pointed out the logical flaw in you wishing to have me quote that other people believe what I do while excising my own belief from the conversation. You're doing that thing where you mischaracterize and misquote me again.
Bottom line, you're quite aware of when you're being dogmatic and partisan, but you refuse to take any responsibility for it.
I'm assuming that was directed at yourself though thats probably more fair then I should be. I guess I can't tell the difference between dogmatism and partisan opinions because I get all of my opinions from "coffee shop rhetoric".
In my opinion, I'm actually less dogmatic and partisan than you are (which isn't saying much), but I'm also willing to admit my bias. You're pretty much unwilling to admit bias as a policy.
So I'm more bias then you and unwilling to admit being bias while you are readily able to admit being bias only so long as you are less so. Nice backhanded anticomplimentacusocritisism.
I believe that I am correct, thus I also believe that my opinions are facts. The concepts are not mutually exclusive.
No, but they also don't directly follow.
One can believe oneself to be correct, but not be so certain of it as to consider it fact.
Again, I think if you're going to idolize dogma, you're going to need to pay a lot closer attention. What's it say in his sig?
"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance."
You're QUITE certain of your knowledge. In fact, you rarely speak in anything other than a tone of utmost certainty of your correctness. I would think both dogma and Bertrand Russel would find you rather unfortunate. Oh, right, and of course I would as well.
One can believe oneself to be correct, but not be so certain of it as to consider it fact.
Again, I think if you're going to idolize dogma, you're going to need to pay a lot closer attention. What's it say in his sig?
"Dogmatism is like pragmatism as watermelons are like the moon. Both have dark sides and seeds, but you can't eat pragmatism."
"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance."
I don't think thats what it says.
You're QUITE certain of your knowledge. In fact, you rarely speak in anything other than a tone of utmost certainty of your correctness. I would think both dogma and Bertrand Russel would find you rather unfortunate. Oh, right, and of course I would as well.
Is there a point at which you cease berating those you are on the other side of an argument from? I mean, I'm a rock, I can take it. But think of how poor sebster or whatwhat must feel like after you've spent 90% of every post on contentless ad hominim attacks or intentional misquotations and mischaracterizations. I bet they feel awful! I would much prefer you cease the attacks and continue the blithering. The blithering's kind of constant. I can fall asleep to it. In every response you made to me you drove home the concept that A: I don't know american law because I'm a wacky coffee house liberal, and B: I have no logical foundations for my points. Both of these ideas are swimming well against the current of my last fifty thousand posts on this forum and that water runs even faster when we just look at the debate history between the two of us.
I make an assertion, you say it's wrong and call me a socialist. I explain the logic of my assertion you say it's flawed and call me a lieberal. I explain how it is not flawed and you tell me to go back to school or equivocate to another point asserting that I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh, then you imply that I love to sit in bohemian coffee shops all day and sing about Cuba. Wash, rinse repeat. These responses to eachother have been painfully circular. It should follow from generality that I know that what I state can be proven wrong at any time. No "facts" are indisputable and no opinions can be proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. I didn't take a strong stance on this issue, I don't even fething care about this issue. These aren't really even issues anymore. The mere fact that you can act like you are debating with some sort of craven obsessed anti bush liberal, especially given that the tone of my posts did not imply that at all, is a testament to just how far you are willing to box up the people you discuss politics with into convenient little packages to better enable your own insult heavy debate style.
boy that everything's someone else's fault.
.. he seems so kind, and then you get indoors...
.