is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

Monk, read the available documents again. It was known before we entered Iraq that absolutely no nuclear WMDs would be found. This was not even a question.Perhaps you should have been paying more attention at the time. Whether he had programs designed to try and make one was a legitimate question. While he certainly had an interest in acquiring the tech and some supplies, the only evidence that he was actively trying to acquire the supplies was throughly discredited.The evidence we provided in October was revealed to be rather embarassing forgeries BEFORE Bush mentioned them in the State of the Union address. The press should have hit him harder but there was enough rumblings that even before we went in, Bush had changed his tune such that we were not worried about nukular things he had now, but rather that he might eventually build 5 to 10 years from now.What was left unsaid is that that would only happen if we allowed him free reign, but no one (not even France) was suggesting that option.If you were suprised that we did not find nukes... you were a definite victim of the disinformation campaign. Anyone slightly in the know, knew better.As far as everything else you wrote, did you vote for Bush in 2000? If you did then you were for his policy against invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, correct? Remember he was against nation building programs?And then you can look at the quotes I supplied in my earlier reply to Tal's list of quotes. In that you will find Powell and Rice stating what Bush's stance was regarding the nature of Iraq's threat and the appropriate methods to deal with him.Having a policy in support of regime change does not require invasion, unless you decide that change must be immediate and reckless, rather than in comparison to the threat posed, keeping in mind priorities (we had just been attacked by non Iraqi groups and were still under imminent threat of attack by them), and what we'd need as far as cooperation to get the job done with a minimum loss of life.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I disagree. There was a question as to what would or would not be found in Iraq. Until we went in there no one knew for certain what would be found, not even the inspectors. There was no way the inspectors could adequately cover a country the size of Iraq with Saddam obstructing every move.Saying that it wasn't even a question slants the issues in light of post war results that WMD's were not found. It's easy to say that now and be confident that no nukes would be found because we are living in post war times where none have been found. Monday morning quarterbacking at it's finest.So I take it that your point is we should have continued the failed UN inspection strategy despite repeated and flagrant violations by Saddam.Then perhaps we should have continued the decade long failed containment policy in the hopes this would be adequate to prevent development of weapons dangerous to the world at large.Or maybe we should have continued to maintain the decade old no-fly zone policy in the hopes of preventing the continued development of the Iraqi military infrastructure.Or maybe we should have initiated another failed covert CIA operation to eliminate Saddam as Clinton did which served no purpose other than to embolden Saddam and cause him to commit atrocities against the Kurds.Or MAYBE we should have done exactly what Congress, the Clinton administration, the Bush adminstration and many others have been saying all along and that is the best solution in Iraq was the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein.

Or maybe we should have realized that there was no problem that we should be involved in in the first place and dropped the no-fly zone, dropped the containment policy, dropped the idea of a CIA overthrow and stayed out of it.The waste of precious resources here has been great. We have concentrated on one area and totally lost sight of the objective.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yea, just walk away eh? No problem, simple.... simple disaster

There is nothing you can disagree with, what I stated was a fact. Although other WMDs were a possibility, and certainly there were chemical and bio stocks, as well as a nuclear tech program, before we invaded it was already known that there would be NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS found.This is part of history and was so even before we invaded. It is not relying on monday morning quarterbacking, and if you repeat that you will simply be a liar.The program had been interrupted before it produced anything and everyone including our own intel service knew that they had no materials to produce a nuclear device. If you can remember, or simply go back and read, Powell implied that they were attempting to get the materials they would need from outside. The only material they had inside would be (at best) for dirty bombs... which are NOT nuclear devices.As it turned out the info Powell cited was thoroughly discredited before the invasion and Bush's speeches reflected this change shortly before we went in. If you don't believe me go back and look for yourself. Other weapons were a possibility, nuclear devices were a threat thought to be possible in 5 to 10 years. THAT IS WHAT BUSH SAID... BEFORE THE WAR.What I find sad is the repeated accusations of monday morning quarterbacking I get, when using knowledge that was public before the invasion. You really should be ashamed. Not at all. I agreed with the original position of Bush, Powell, and Rice. You know, the one that got him elected into office. We don't invade because nationbuilding is not a proper use of our military and Iraq presented no imminent threat to us or his neighbors.Furthermore, we were engaged in a hot war with a live enemy that had killed thousands on our soil. My feeling is they were top priority. After that would come threats from N Korea, or at the very least the AQ threat throughout Malaysia/Indonesia/Africa. And I wasn't too hot for Musharaf either.What to do with Iraq? Exactly what was recommended... That was to NOT stick with currently failed policies in Iraq, and revamp them with threat of real force if not complied with. In hopes of?????? Didn't you watch the footage that came out of Iraq? Didn't you see the analyses before and after the war? The Iraqi military was rotted out. Okay, see this is completely untrue and I have already shown this to be untrue, so what are you basing your claim on? Before 9/11 and the rise of the hawks within his administration, Bush and co were arguing NOT to invade as part of a strategy to remove Hussein. He ran for President on a platform that would never have allowed that to happen.There is only so much you can distort the facts before they break.As it stands, I don't have to choose from any of the lame stock dilemma choices you pose as a solution for Iraq. There were more and there were better.But let me get this straight, what you believe was the best solution for securing our nation from attack, was to AVOID putting our full military and intelligence community strength into fighting the organization which attacked the US, killing thousands, and with threats to do more damage, so as to instead attack a nation that posed no imminent threat to us or the region, was an enemy of the group that attacked us, that all intel said would only become a danger (including proliferation of wmd material) if we attacked, because back in 1998 Clinton and nationbuilding democrats who thought regime change would be good decided to vote for such an action?I'm sorry, that sounds good to you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. While Monk's stock dilemma choices were ridiculous in their specifics, there was merit to the fact that something had to be done with Hussein.He was a tyrant and if not kept in check one way or the other, would rise to become a threat to the region and perhaps one day... us. His ambitions were strong and clear.Is it possible we could have turned him using less stick and more carrot? I think so, as his ambition was not overtly anti-US. Indeed he loved us up till the day we stabbed him in the back after our greenlight to invade Kuwait. But I have to say his nuclear and other nonconventional weapons interests were not something we could simply back away from, even if he was US friendly.Imagine his having acquired such technology and using it against Iran. Even if they are an Islamic gov't not very friendly to the US, that would be a mess.Containment and serious inspections regimes, backed by a nice carrot-stick incentive program, as well as oversight to make sure he could not take money and starve the population, was certainly in order.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Walk away.Not exactly. Probably stay out in the first place.Iraq is a threat to the other nations in the area. It is really they who need to make a few decisions about what will happen there. We need to stop being one who makes such decisions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I disagree.Most of the problems in the middle east are the direct result of US and European meddling. It's time we stepped back and told them to start acting like nation states.There is no doubt that Iraq under Saddam was a threat to the area and his neighbors. To even hint that he could be a threat to the US in the forceable future is IMHO a stretch.But Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India, Turkey, North Korea, China and a half dozen of the former soviet republics could be described in exactly the same terms.We helped create the mess there and we need to do something to help clean up the mess we made, but I really think we're not going about it the right way. If Saddam's neighbors were not worried enough about him to do the containing, was there enough reason to think he was a threat?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Iraq is a threat to the other nations in the area. It is really they who need to make a few decisions about what will happen there. We need to stop being one who makes such decisions.

---

In theory yes, at times it would be nice to revert back to US isolationist policies of the 1920's and 30's. These policies helped delay our entrance into WWII to the benefit of our soldiers but to the detriment of Europe. Some republicans occasionally speak of a return to America's traditional policies of nonintervention, but in reality, traditional American isolationism is obsolete.

I'm certainly not recommending isolationism, far from that. There is a whole range of options between the two extremes.But we're getting way, way off topic so let's see if we can head back towards the subject.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Agreed. That is negligent and blaming the victim. Certain things need to be fixed or kept under control while repair work is done by them. He was not an immediate threat to his neighbors, and it would be a while before he could directly threaten us, if indeed he ever wanted to threaten us. I am not trying to argue that a direct threat to the US was a prime reason for doing anything. But the fact remains, uncontained and unmonitored would have allowed his threat to his neighbors to grow and emerge. No, this is not correct. Some would be and some would not. Saddam Hussein is a particular leader and has particular histories. His actions are clear and call for containment and monitoring.Most of the other countries you named do not require containment as they have not been (or their current leadership) has not been militarily aggressive.However, most do and have monitoring agreements of some kind. I am a bit puzzled why you'd think stepping back and treating Iraq as a nation state would mean something like no monitoring systems. Equal nation states do impose monitoring mechanisms on each other regarding vital issues that could escalate. Even the US and Russia have them. Why should Iraq be different? I'm not arguing that we did the right thing. I'm only arguing yoru suggestion that containment measures would not be right, was incorrect. His neighbors were concerned and were glad to have him contained by us. Some even supported the invasion. Why didn't they do it themselves? My guess is they would have but we already had the infrastructure in place and we would be more efficient at it than them.I am uncertain where you got the idea that they were not worried about his ambition and so interested in containing him?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Here's that photo that holmes mentioned, just in case you were doubting that it exists.

Page 8, please

Hey, you stealing my thunder? Thanks though as I am unsure how I would have created a direct link as you had. I'd probably have to mail it to him.On a side note, I hope you have read my additional info post in the other thread on sexuality (You said you'd be back sometime?). I gave you more food for thought from Wikipedia that I really think is helpful evidence wise and not just argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I know, I know, sorry for taking so long.There is a big culinary event going on in town and I have been trying to get my section at work looking fabulous, so I've been only able to do the "small post" threads I'm involved in.The event is pretty exciting, actually: link to infoMs. Bluestein is dedicating her large collection to the library.Anyway, many, many food writers, chefs, and other culinary people (some of them famous (at least to me ) are going to be coming through my little world and I want it to look fabulous.