Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just because you’re provoked into doing something stupid doesn’t mean you should do that stupid (+self-destructive + awful) thing.

Mannahnin wrote:Dietrich- Not “everyone” thought Iraq had WMDs. While Congress went along with it, some of our allies (like France) were skeptical of the evidence, with (as it turns out) very good reason. The weapons inspectors didn’t think he was hiding any active program or weapons either. Some folks did speak out against the war before it happened. Reference the quote in my sig.

You are correct, not even everyone in the US thought they had WMD. But, 'everyone' in the government seemed to side with the opinion that they did. And 500 years ago, everyone knew the earth was flat too.

McCain's support of the surge is very much a 'if we're gonna do it, do it right' attitude. He's said that if the public won't support the war, and we're going to withdraw before Iraq is stable, then we should withdraw everyone tomorrow and not wait a few more years and bury a few more thousand kids. But, if we want to make Iraq stable, then the surge was the answer and we need to stay until it's stable, however long that takes.

I said at the time, my issue wasn't as much with "invade or not invade?" but "is the US public going to accept having troops in Iraq for at least 20 years?" Which, at the time even, I knew the US public wouldn't put up with it. And it will take at least 20 years before Iraq is stable. The only two times that a new democratic government has been built from the ashes of a conquered nation were with Germany and Japan at the end of WW2. And our policy makers appear to have failed to take that into consideration. Winning the war was easy, winning the 'peace' is harder.

And as Jon Stewart pointed out, the major reasons given for invading Iraq (oppressive dictator, no civil liberties, tortured and killed own people, harboring terrorist, funding terrorists, WMDs), could be said about a number of other countries - North Korea and Iran for certain, and even some of our so-called allies, such as Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we invade all of them too?

And certainly the President can influence the economy. But, Congress passes the spending bills, the President can only veto them. Spending at the Federal level needs a complete overhaul. But, I still think the economy is cyclic and that has more effect than the President, or even Congress.

Mannahnin wrote:I agree in general re: power and corruption. From my perspective, a lot of what’s gone on in the last eight years is pretty egregious and above and beyond the usual. A lot of the 90’s Enron stuff actually goes back to Bush Sr.’s administration too, though I will certainly concede that a lot of bad stuff happened during the Clinton administration as well.

And a lot of the great economy in the 90's was due to efforts under the tgovernments of Reagan and Bush I. Hence my point...you can't judge things immediately. I disagree that anything in the last eight years set new standards of corruption. Being somewhat up on my history...it hasn't. That doesn't excuse the rampant incompetence or corruption seen from 2002-2008. I just places it in history a little better. I know demonizing Bush is a fun exercise for the left, but it's counter-productive.

Mannahnin wrote:Here is where I have to completely disagree with you. There was plenty of intelligence data, and information from the inspectors, to indicate that there were most likely no WMDs. No conclusive PROOF, but you can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists, especially when you’re talking about initiating a course of action as serious and destructive as a war. It was not genius, but it was certainly not luck either. Most likely he just gave the information the time and analysis it deserved, and that many (most?) in Congress sadly did not.

I'll address the Obama side first. I don't think he had access to the same data Congress did. WHy would he? He wasn't a Senator yet, and we don't allow state politicians to run around with Top Secret information. I think he was making a judgment call. Which leads me to your first, and most critical, point. The burden of proof.

As you point out, this is where we completely disagree. I do not believe the decisionmaking calculus is the same as you do. You appear to be utilizing a Cold War paradigm, where Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) guaranteed our safety (so to speak). In the Cold War, we were dealing with a legitimate government. We could counter moves they made and vice versa. Hence, MAD was the blanket that made it a bloodless conflict. That paradigm was shattered on 9/11, having been eroding quite a bit during previous administrations (back through Reagan). When dealing with ideologies, not states, there is no MAD theory to protect the citizens from attack. Therefore, the "wait and see" approach regarding possible catastrophes is no longer such a suitable idea. At least not to my security-minded self. In Iraq, we had a country known to a) have possessed and used chemical weapons, either currently or in the past, b) be openly belligerent to the US and its interests, c) continually disregard the UN, and d) support ideological attacks (both on us and our allies). Therefore, I'd postulate the burden of proof fell on them to prove they were NOT a threat. Again, the calculus had changed. They refused to allow weapon inspectors (when they obviously had nothing to hide, that we currently know), and they remained defiant. These are not the acts of the innocent. Therefore a calculated judgment was made. Now that we know, we can claim it was in error...but in 2003 we did NOT know, and were gambling with a new world order. We still are. I don't know exactly where you live, Ragnar...but I live in DC. My wife works in the Capitol. In effect, her risk in the gamble of the Cold War paradigm is greater than yours. I'd choose to change that equation. If there is the legitimate potential of a catastrophic threat...the POTENTIAL...it should be dealt with. That's my belief. It's a bit draconian, but there you go. You can risk your life on believing in people In the nuclear navy, we had a saying...trust, but verify.

I will always support diplomacy efforts, not once, not twice, but as often as possible. But if you have a stick and never use it...as Clinton did, people start to learn that you really DON'T have a stick.

Mannahnin wrote:Certain other people had previously come to the same conclusions, before it became politically desirable to them to start a war.

• "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - Colin Powell, 24 February 2001
• "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction... And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." - Colin Powell, 15 May 2001
• "We are able to keep arms from him [Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleezza Rice, 29 July 2001

All quotes pre-911, Ragnar. Isolation was fine then.

I am no proponent of this war as it has been sold or fought. But I am waiting to judge it's totality until it is closed. We may compound the mistake of half-a**ing the effort by leaving too soon. We'll see.

Edited again for atrocious grammar.

I can't believe some Americans on here are still trying to support the war based on de-bunked theories and ignorant attitude.

I suppose you probably agree the Vietnam war was good as well.

kittenslayer wrote:I can't believe some Americans on here are still trying to support the war based on de-bunked theories and ignorant attitude.

I suppose you probably agree the Vietnam war was good as well.

I tell you, you are the king of non sequitur statements. Actually I dont know if that comment doesn't follow or if it is simply a case of speaking for others before they've had a chance to speak. What does one have to do with the other. If someone supports either one does it imply that they support the other? And what exactly does "support" mean?

We pulled our support out of Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew instead of sticking there and helping rebuild and all that did was allow groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban to grow and grab power. So there is a precedent to show what happens when you leave to early because it is easier and more politically expedient.

Ahtman wrote:We pulled our support out of Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew instead of sticking there and helping rebuild and all that did was allow groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban to grow and grab power. So there is a precedent to show what happens when you leave to early because it is easier and more politically expedient.

Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

kittenslayer wrote:Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

In what way is it the same? Is mere presence alone enough to say it is the same? This of course begs the question, since when has NATO been in Afghanistan? I mean, some of it's members are, but then that is like saying NATO is in Japan becuase there are US Marines in Japan.

I would say you are arguing the opposite, but you aren't even doing that. You are basically being the kid in a skill yard whose only response is "nu-uh". You don't make your own point, you just here someone make theirs and say "nu-uh".

As far as ignorant attitudes go, you seem to be taking the cake here. There have been people arguing both sides of it up till this point and their views, while divergent, were well argued and founded. Yours on the other hand is to jump in and try to present yourself as some enlightened being passing down bits of wisdom, and in just 7 words. I get the impression you know nothing of what you are talking about and wholly ignorant of affairs, or you are a sly internet troll. Either way, you are certainly not worth taking seriously in this arena.

Ahtman wrote:

kittenslayer wrote:Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

In what way is it the same? Is mere presence alone enough to say it is the same? This of course begs the question, since when has NATO been in Afghanistan? I mean, some of it's members are, but then that is like saying NATO is in Japan becuase there are US Marines in Japan.

I would say you are arguing the opposite, but you aren't even doing that. You are basically being the kid in a skill yard whose only response is "nu-uh". You don't make your own point, you just here someone make theirs and say "nu-uh".

As far as ignorant attitudes go, you seem to be taking the cake here. There have been people arguing both sides of it up till this point and their views, while divergent, were well argued and founded. Yours on the other hand is to jump in and try to present yourself as some enlightened being passing down bits of wisdom, and in just 7 words. I get the impression you know nothing of what you are talking about and wholly ignorant of affairs, or you are a sly internet troll. Either way, you are certainly not worth taking seriously in this arena.

* up please, When the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan they also claimed to destroy fundementalists and built schools infrastructures and give rights to women. They failed because of their true motive of using Afghaistan as another puppet state for their war against American and friends. Sort of the same * thats happening now there.

Don't get fething technical here *, quite a few Nato countries are in there, so it's not too far off to call it Nato.

I * in your mouth.

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST

I am a disabled vetran who served proudly in the US Army. I served a little time in Afghansatin but was fortunate enough not to have to go to Iraq. The war in Iraq was a farce to begin with but i was douped, being a american soldier and all at the time it wasnt my place to question why but to do. Now then we are all now aware that Obama has the nomination for the Dems. I respect Mccain a great deal for his ordeal during the nam war but in good mind i cannot bring myself to give him my vote. he is backing Bush far to much on oversea policies and as a nation we cannot afford to have another war. one of my major concers is health care..........here in the US we have to pay out the ying yang for coverage unlike you brits and canadians out there who have it all taken care of by your goverments. also there is the economy another issue that i wont bother touching on. anyway i voted for Edwards and Huckabee in the primary's and neither one of them are in the mix now so in my opion ive choosen the lesser of two evils GO OBAMA!!

nieto666 wrote:I am a disabled vetran who served proudly in the US Army. I served a little time in Afghansatin but was fortunate enough not to have to go to Iraq. The war in Iraq was a farce to begin with but i was douped, being a american soldier and all at the time it wasnt my place to question why but to do. Now then we are all now aware that Obama has the nomination for the Dems. I respect Mccain a great deal for his ordeal during the nam war but in good mind i cannot bring myself to give him my vote. he is backing Bush far to much on oversea policies and as a nation we cannot afford to have another war. one of my major concers is health care..........here in the US we have to pay out the ying yang for coverage unlike you brits and canadians out there who have it all taken care of by your goverments. also there is the economy another issue that i wont bother touching on. anyway i voted for Edwards and Huckabee in the primary's and neither one of them are in the mix now so in my opion ive choosen the lesser of two evils GO OBAMA!!

Good on ya man, I support all the troops who see through the bs.

Even tho i disagree with the actions in Afghanistan as well, but i am wondering if you've met any New Zealand troops there?

You continue to prove my point that you really don't know what you are talking about. A few NATO countries is not the same thing as NATO. You also show how little you know of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the role the US played in it. You call us ignorant but show a lack of understanding of history. I suppose the hypocrisy is what bothers me most, call westerners (New Zealand a bastion of Non-western thinking is it?) ignorant but at the same time in the Video Game forum you talk of how you want to target and virtually kill American troops. A bit blood thirsty for specific people aren't you?

in the US we have to pay out the ying yang for coverage unlike you brits and canadians out there who have it all taken care of by your goverments

Just to clarify you do know we pay for that with taxes and national insurance yes ? It's not like some glorious freebie they throw to us.

But I think a level of universal healthcare is pretty much a no brainer in a modern society. I hope America does it, although i suspect the vested interest of those running the current set up will perhaps make this almost as hard of a struggle as even talking about some form of gun control.
I hope you get through your injuries with all speed and hope.

In Iraq, we had a country known to a) have possessed and used chemical weapons, either currently or in the past, b) be openly belligerent to the US and its interests, c) continually disregard the UN, and d) support ideological attacks (both on us and our allies).

But there's a fair few countries like that in the world though right ? Why Iraq specifically as the ... hmm... victim is the wrong word.. .perhaps demonstration is a better word.

That's what other people/countries get suspicious about.

I agree that leaving too soon now we're in would be a tragedy upon a mistake. I hope this time that the mistakes of the past are learnt from, it does seem that America ( and I'm sure Britain and other countries too, to varying extents) has this horrible tendency to train and/or arm fairly horrific people-- Saddam, Al-Queda etc-- only for these self same people to turn around and bite you back when they feel they don't need you anymore.

For what's it's worth I think the war was a huge mistake and Blair, Bush et al are all culpable. Yes, I understand they may have made decisions in good faith, but the decision was wrong in the end. Their jobs are to make these calls-- which they're willing to do it seems-- but no longer seem willing to be held to account for them which is, frankly, criminal.

Just in case this comes across as standard yank bash post # X : I'm very pro America in general, and whilst the events of the war have been tragic, America has been the best ally we've had or likely to have. Given all other factors being equal in a situation I think it's important to back up and stick with your friends.

Even if, of late, you don't always recognise your friend in the way they act.

kittenslayer wrote:
Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

Impressive. What a brilliantly moronic statement.

dienekes96 wrote:I disagree that anything in the last eight years set new standards of corruption. Being somewhat up on my history...it hasn't. That doesn't excuse the rampant incompetence or corruption seen from 2002-2008. I just places it in history a little better. I know demonizing Bush is a fun exercise for the left, but it's counter-productive.

Re: the last 8 years and unprecedented bad, please reference use of torture, habeus corpus violations, warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, Contempt of Congress by the White House and senior admin officials (most egregiously Cheney), deceptive use of flawed intelligence to prosecute a war, and deliberate deception of the American public to sell a war in which thousands of innocents have died and continue to die. I am quite seriously and soberly in favor of impeachment for both Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Not that it will ever happen, and more’s the pity, as both parties could use the wake up call re: abuse of powers.

dienekes96 wrote:Which leads me to your first, and most critical, point. The burden of proof.

As you point out, this is where we completely disagree. I do not believe the decisionmaking calculus is the same as you do. You appear to be utilizing a Cold War paradigm, where Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) guaranteed our safety (so to speak). In the Cold War, we were dealing with a legitimate government. We could counter moves they made and vice versa. Hence, MAD was the blanket that made it a bloodless conflict. That paradigm was shattered on 9/11, having been eroding quite a bit during previous administrations (back through Reagan). When dealing with ideologies, not states, there is no MAD theory to protect the citizens from attack. Therefore, the "wait and see" approach regarding possible catastrophes is no longer such a suitable idea. .

Obama was most likely working with more data than I had. And based on the publically-available data and the case the White House made for war, I did not agree that it was ever a good idea. I recognize that lots of folks on multiple psrts of the political spectrum did. But the weapons inspectors, while making clear that Saddam was playing games and not being entirely honest, said all along that there was no real evidence of any current weapons or weapons program, and that more time inspecting was a much better idea than war.

It seemed clear to me (and certainly others; I’m not claiming special insight) that Saddam was posturing for the sake of his dignity and to pretend greater strength than he had. He was a dictator. That’s to be expected. Again, we’re not talking about “genius” or “luck”. I think you trivialize the decision and fail to hold people accountable when you reduce it to that false dichotomy. I made a judgment based on the data available to me. So did McCain. I would expect a person of his experience and background to be able to make a good assessment of the situation. But either he did not (and his vaunted military and foreign policy expertise failed) or he chose to back the administration anyway, in which case his integrity failed.

There has NEVER been any credible evidence to support Iraq having the capabilities to directly strike us. Those quotes from Powell and Rice show their (correct) prior assessment and awareness that Iraq was not a threat to us. That fact was unaltered by any “new paradigm”.

Iraq WAS a stable (albeit tyrannical) government, whose leader’s ideology was in conflict with Al Qaeda’s. The last occasion on which we had reason to believe Iraq had supported a terrorist act against us was the attempt on Bush Sr.’s life, for which Clinton DID respond by bombing the Iraqi intelligence headquarters. Iraq evidently got the message, because they never got involved in any attacks against us again. As a side note re: Clinton never using a stick, please bear in mind he ordered the CIA to capture or kill Ben Laden. Twice, if I remember Against All Enemies (Clarke’s book) correctly. He also carried out missile attacks on Al Qaeda camps in 1998 in an attempt to get Bin Laden. Funny concept, that- applying deadly force to the actual enemy, as opposed to an uninvolved third party that we don’t like and who happens to control critical natural resources.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

There being a new paradigm has no bearing whatsoever on the above information, and the decision to go to war with Iraq. Nor was I advocating a “wait and see” approach. That’s a straw man.

After 9/11 it became clear to everyone that active, aggressive action had to be taken against the terrorists. The Bush administration, which had earlier in the year told Richard Clarke that they did not want to hear his concerns about terrorism, started taking it seriously. Of course, the same DAY of the attacks, Bush personally started asking about a connection to Iraq (which the counter-terrorism folks knew was extremely unlikely), and in fact never stopped looking for one until a case could be made for war with Iraq. A case based on shaky evidence, as Iraq never was involved, and never was a direct threat to us.

However, even those of us who never bought into the Iraq sales campaign supported going after Al Qaeda itself in Afghanistan, and taking down the barbaric Islamist government that sheltered and supported him. And we supported hunting down Al Qaeda operatives worldwide. And we supported better airline and port security. And we supported increased training and support to our first responders- police and fire departments; who could desperately use additional training and funding. And we supported better security for nuclear plants and other critical targets. And we supported a tougher line of negotiation with Saudi Arabia for them to stop obstructing us in anti-terrorist efforts, as the nationality of 15 of the hijackers should have been able to give us some serious leverage. And we supported using the opportunity to reach out diplomatically to Iran, where there were spontaneous pro-America demonstrations in the street after 9/11, where 70% of the population is under 30 and are inexorably trending towards Western values. And where even the conservative Islamic government was immediately cooperative with our efforts in Afghanistan.

These are all areas for positive, constructive action which would actually reduce or eliminate threats from terrorists. None of them are isolationist. Please don’t confuse the two.

And most of these things have been neglected, insufficiently funded, or undermined by the Bush administration prosecuting this completely unnecessary, brutally destructive, ungodly expensive war of choice.

At this point, based on the present quality of life and security situation in Iraq, I am strongly inclined to believe that it’s irreparable. Even if we had done it right from day one, and even if we went in with a plan to rebuild on the same scale as Germany or Japan, Iraq was never even a good candidate for that kind of rebuilding. The country was formed within the last century out of territories taken from the Ottoman Empire after WWI. It’s always been strongly divided along religious lines. It’s not like Germany or Japan; those countries had unified identities and weren’t going to collapse into civil war. Right now we’re dealing with civil war, and we cannot “fix” that. No matter how many soldiers we send. Even if we weren’t exhausting and abusing our armed forces already in an effort to meet current troop needs.

FYI, I come from a military family. On 9/11 my father was stationed in a Pentagon office across the street from where it got hit. I’m pretty sensitive to the harm done to our men and women in uniform by this fiasco, and to harmful and shameful slights against them like Rumsfeld’s lies to the men about armor for the vehicles, and the situation at Walter Reed.

FYI, I come from a military family. On 9/11 my father was stationed in a Pentagon office across the street from where it got hit. I’m pretty sensitive to the harm done to our men and women in uniform by this fiasco, and to harmful and shameful slights against them like Rumsfeld’s lies to the men about armor for the vehicles, and the situation at Walter Reed.

Mannahnin wrote:

Re: the last 8 years and unprecedented bad, please reference use of torture, habeus corpus violations, warrantless wiretapping in violation of federal law, Contempt of Congress by the White House and senior admin officials (most egregiously Cheney), deceptive use of flawed intelligence to prosecute a war, and deliberate deception of the American public to sell a war in which thousands of innocents have died and continue to die.

Wow you're right. I never thought about that way. Oh wait, which adminstration are you referring to again-Bush or Johnson?

Let's not forget the Alien and Sedition Acts. Two Presidents in and the Constitution was already tossed aside.

Democrats control Congress since 2006-have earmarks and pork projects gone down?

Only congressman to have his office raided for bribe money (found in the refrigerator) R or D?

Campaign contributions from the Chinese funnelled through a monastary to the guy who invented the internet.

Dead people voting for Kennedy costing Nixon the election.

President threatening to put the SC in jail and tried to stack it by doubling the number of justices (vetoed by his own party): FDR

There are skeletons aplenty in both sides, and once they get into power they become as corrupt as the ones they throw out.

I completely agree that both parties are corrupt, and addicted to money. The campaign and lobbying systems keep them that way, and I’m very happy to have two candidates who have some interest in reforming that.

I recognize that there are lots of misdeeds in our nation’s history, many of them spectacular. Right now I’m mostly interested in stopping the current and most recent abuses, and in sending a message to the party who let those abusers represent them.

So you're sending a message to the Democrats who control the corrupt abusive Congress, or the Republicans who control the corrupt and abusive Presidency?

See the point? Claiming one is more so doesn't hold under examination. You can vote for/against candidates on their particular actions (a point for McCain on the campaign side) but not a party as a whole as the scumsucking vermin inhabit both in mass quantities.

I think Ragnar is making the point that he is selecting a candidate with the least culpability in the current situation, and the strongest statements against it's excesses.

I think he is correct that we have the two best candidates for president possible in this cycle, and probably in some time. Both are committed to trying to correct the process in some fashion, and that is very, very good news for the population.

I have long argued that corruption does not come from either major U.S. partisan ideology, but from power and influence. When the Republicans swept into the House majority in 1994, they did it by pointing out how corrupt the House Dems had become. Now the opposite is happening. And the cycle will continue. If the Dems take control of everything, they will root out the corruption - and that is a plus. As they gain in power, they will become corrupt themselves.

That said, right now they are the least corrupt of the two parties, as the Republicans were in 1994. So that's worth something.

Please provide corraboration they are less corrupt. Note I am not saying which party.

Simple. You have to have influence to be corrupt. The Dems haven't had influence since 2000. The Republicans have. Therefore, they have been in a position to be corrupt. Ergo, the majority party with the most power is the most corrupt.

Your LogicFu is indeed as brilliant as it unassailable. I would just add the codicil that the Democrats retook Congress in 2006

Republicans-President
Democrats - Congress
Balance of Terror?

To be fair, Democrats barely have congress. By no means do they have a mandate and they still more often then not are going to have to ask for help, their majority is so slim. It's more of a split Congress then a Democratic one.

I think one can say the same thing of the Presidency at this point, but I'd accept Dieneke's Rule of Corruption as a maxim.

Greed is good.

jfrazell wrote:

kittenslayer wrote:
Soviet actions and in Afghanistan is no different to Nato's actions there right now. You guys are all arguing on the assumption that Western powers wants to "help" those countries.

Impressive. What a brilliantly moronic statement.

feth up gak head.

I didn't vote in a primary as I am not a member of either party, though my relatives are. I honestly believe that political careers should be outlawed or limited to 1 term with no mutability, and that the only good politician is a dead one.

kittenslayer wrote:
But I am not an American, so my words really mean gak in this case :(

I'm going to feed the troll here so don't mind me guys.

Yep, not even a human gak. Take your anti-American rhetoric hating and shove it up your cornhole.

No point; he's banned.