First of all I will note that your criticism of Europe and how it handles issues of being attacked was successfully repudiated, and this is clearly seen in your current arguments which have abandoned that tack. Thank you.
Again, your view is predicated on the debatable point that 9/11 should be viewed in isolation, and counterattacking the perpetrators of it is sufficient.
Again, no it is not. And unlike you, I actually have facts and reasons on my side, rather than the spin made
after the supposed facts and reasons for invasion were revealed to be conclusively false to even the most diehard.
I say this in full confidence as I am now addressing 180 degree different arguments from the same crowd I was arguing against before the invasion. My position has remained the same, with the exception of noting that my initial assessments have been proven right on Iraq and so have good reason to believe my future one's will be as well.
As before Iraq, I am fully prepared for military action against governments supporting terrorist elements, though I do believe our
first priority is to attack the single most powerful terrorist entity. That would be fighting Al-Queda and supporters of AQ. We can also pursue other entities but it should be based on relevance of their threat.
Where I reject your argument is when it becomes a blanket justification for attacking anyone and everyone at such time as we see fit.
9-11 did not put us beyond the law, or make us arbiters of the law. And by "the law" I mean the very rules of conduct we expect everyone else to play by.
You cannot counterattack, or preemptively strike a nation that poses no physical threat, nor made no threat against one's nation. Our action has set precedent which is dangerous and can be used for example by China to take Taiwan, or India to attack Pakistan. It even legimitimates attacks on Israel by surrounding nations (not that they are capable of it).
Iraq, as I have said, could be seen as a front on a more general war on fascist and fundamentalist Islamic elements throughout the Middle East. The objective not being simply the elimination of the Hussein regime, but drawing other terrorist elements into combat on terms tactically advantageous to coalition forces, and forcing Iran, Syria etc to expend resources supporting the proxy conflict. In addition, establishing a model of a functioning democracy in the Arab world.
You see, you keep repeating partisan factoids, instead of applying reason to real facts. I know the above is the current explanation, but it isn't what was said before was it? You and I both know this is what has come after the original arguments were proven beyond a doubt to be groundless.
Now here are the facts:
1) Iraq was a secular government. While totalitarian in nature (this is not in dispute), it actually posed threats to the other fascist and Islamic Fundmentalist forces sweeping the region. If you remember that is exactly why Hussein was supported by the US even as he gassed all the people we are now supposed to be shocked by. He was a greedy totalitarian dictator, but had no real connection to the threats you have posited, and do threaten our physical security.
The only way it supported terrorism (in general) was a support for Palestinian terrorist actions against Israel, and the singular revenge attempt on Bush sr. Neither were serious threats and could be dealt with later and via different mechanisms.
2) Read more seriously on the nature of asymmetric warfare. You might even just go back and look at the writings of Rumsfeld on the subject, before Bush needed to call Iraq a front which drew forces away from us to that spot. The reality is nothing as you have described. Asymmetric warfare, which is what we are engaged in, almost by definition involves enemy forces
not being able to be drawn to where military forces are for an open conflict at a "front".
Oh we opened up a fresh geographic region so that the forces you described now have a more free hand to do what they've been trying to do for years (influence Iraq), and set our troops and diplomats in a place than can be attacked more easily. So yes you do see "forces" acting there. But any decent intelligence analyst will tell you (as Rumsfeld and even Bush once explained before heading to Iraq) that that in no way absorbs enemy resources from attacking mainland USA.
We are in the exact same threat level after the invasion as before the invasion.
3) Establishing a model democracy. Once again paisano, there was a model democracy established in Iraq almost 100 years ago by the British, using almost the exact same arguments you just made. The result was Saddam Hussein.
While I am all for seeing well reasoned democracies flourish, and I cry no tears for Hussein, there is absolutely no guarantee that a democracy in Iraq will do anything for the war on terror or against the flourishing of Islamic fundamentalism or fascism.
Indeed a truly democratic Iraq cannot be allowed, and our government has already said this. They would sweep people into office in ways that would make our election look tame, with agendas we certainly would not want them pursuing. Perhaps you have not studied the actual plans for this "model" democracy? It is being called a "representational democracy". Intriguingly if we accepted it here, you probably wouldn't have had Bush in the White House nor the gains in the Senate.
But even with a representative democracy in place, rather than a real one, what is to stop Iraq from being against Israel, and individuals from pursuing actions against the US? Please let me know... oh and then pass that amazing plan on to intelligence services.
4) If we were serious about promoting democracy then why not run in and free Kuwait? How about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Oh yeah, how abut Israel (which is constructed to be only democratic for jews)? And why can't Afghanistan be the model democracy? Or why can't we simply promote our own as the model?
The truth is that removing Hussein is a potentially good thing for the Iraqi people. Hopefully it will be captilized on, though how we half-assed it does not leave a lot of room for much good soon. In other words it was a giant nation building social program promoted by Republicans at great expense to the American people for the benefit of Israelis, and to some extent the Iraqis and oil interests.
There was nothing there for protecting us and in the end may not even help the Israelis. I think that was really wishful thinking.
Your wholesale rejection of it needs to be warranted by much further evidence.
Paisano, I have been over the facts and reasons before, and I am almost certain it was with you. This is my point. The majority of voters in america simply reject the facts and rational debate that they are given, to repeat the latest rationalizations and act like they never heard anything else. True believership and partisan hackery.
It is truly pathetic, and that is why I am saddened.
As these societies are increasingly vibrant free market socities,
India yes, China no. I am not understanding where you even get the concept China is moving toward a free market society much less a vibrant one. They have more of an open market for trade between nations, but that is not the same.
Again you have dodged the point. Your criticism of Europe's inattention to the threat being posed by increases in Islamic culture is the same we will be facing in the US at some point by Chinese and Indians (and Pakistanis). Especially birth rates and free movement between the two.
Why do you believe two cultures with vastly more people will not one day influence us more than us influencing them? I think it's a bit naive to pretend we will retain the current US, while Europe loses itself. History just keeps moving and changing.
One day all our efforts will be gone, at the very least, changed.
what looks like an imminent decline of Western Europe (again I should have been more specific...I see Poland as potentially a nation on the rise).
You haven't been out of the US much have you?
Poland is on the rise? All they did was be a more avid supporter of the Iraq war... that is ALL. What makes you feel Poland is so much on the rise besides Bush promoting it so much a great ally?
You know what makes this such a laugh? My encountering all the Polish people coming to the European nation I'm in because Poland sucks politically and economically. Whoops!
By the way have you ever heard of the EU... the future of all is getting connected?
Kerry simply could not escape a 30-year record of weakness on defense and intelligence issues.
I love how 9-11 changed everything so that one could excuse anyone's previous record, except for Kerry. That includes the republicans he voted along with and that same historical "weakness" he showed. They say they are strong now, okay. He says it, not okay. Okay.
Indeed one could even excuse the demonstrably failed actions by Bush, and point out that before 9-11 he would never have endorsed any of the actions we are currently engaged in.
Yes that is the bizarre thing about the 2004 election. Anyone voting for Bush now was voting for the exact opposite policy positions of the same Bush that ran in 2000. So I guess 9-11 made everyone realize how wrong they were to vote for Bush in 2000?
Heheheh.
It is simple political hackery to pretend that Kerry or Edwards were somehow going to be less free market or soft militarily. They were not for a tax cut for the top percentage, that is all.
Has Pat Robertson been issuing fatwas ? Do you worry that the tract-handling "let me tell you about Jesus" types are wearing suicide belts ? Has Fred Phelps graduated to kidnapping and beheading ?
Heheheh... Uh there certainly are fundamentalist Xian terrorists. And indeed Pat Robertson engaged in various denunciations of our government, including suggestions that someone physically attack them (the liberals of course). Do you not remember this?
There was also the JDL's (jewish fundies) attempted assassination of a US congressman and bombing of mosques. Guess you don't remember that either.
But you are correct that the violence from Xians does not look the same as the violence from Islamic terrorist groups. They do not wear suicide belts. Okeydoke.
Christian fundamentalist terror is limited to a few very small fringe groups like the Eric Rudolph types, manageable by conventional law enforcement.
I suppose that depends on your definition of terrorism and warfare. Fundamentalist Xians and Jews are in positions of power and can use weapons of state to terrorize other groups under the guise of legitimate warfare.
Islamic groups use asymmetric warfare techniques, which ironically we taught them as being fair to use when we wanted the to be violent, which they need to use because of their lack of overt military power.
I am not trying to justify them at all. I was against them before we trained them, and I am against them now. I just disagree with your assessment that they are somehow more terrorist then other fundamentalists.
In essence you are using the no true scotsman fallacy to void xian and jewish fundamentalist connections to the more violent factions, while not allowing Islamic fundamentalists the same argument. And you are using technical differences in methods of violence to make the argument the intent is somehow different.
I do agree that routine law enforcement is not enough to deal with the problem (Xian or otherwise). Fundamentalism in general is a problem that should be dealt with socially, through programs that support tolerance and better reasoning skills. And the violent factions must be dealt with using counterterrorism intelligence resources and where necessary overt military resources.
If Kerry had done a Sister Souljah type speech denouncing the Michael Moore wing of the party, he might have won.
You just keep proving my point. This had nothing to do with substance on policy issues. Its all about style. Most republicans could individually not deliver a denouncement of actual failed policy and so voted for those rather than potentially be seen supporting Michael Moore types... whatever that means.
Look what happened to Gephardt and Lieberman.
These men had nothing new to offer, if they were put up as the democratic candidate then you might as well have voted for Bush.
Again, you are requiring acceptance of Bush policy without realistic assessment of facts and effects as qualifying criteria. You label unquestioned obedience as somehow more "centrist", and open criticism as "radical".
Most republicans simply did not want to admit that the emperor wore no clothes, and that he was prone to cry wolf on occassion. They wrapped themselves up in a festival of no specific policy, indeed contradictory ones (I will note I succeeded in making that point as well), in order to elect anyone as long as it was republican and did not seem to be critical of whatever had happened. If they did not admit a problem in large enough numbers, they could pretend it did not exist.
This is not new under the sun. The world will not come to an end because of it (though many Xian fundamentalists are banking it will). It is just a sad statement of what occured.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
