|
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
It's still not enough to allow them to orchestrate grand conspiracies...as JC would have you believe. |
I never implied that I did believe such a conspiracy to the level that JC has shown, and if I did lead you or anyone else to believe I am giving credence to his argument by disagreeing with many of your points then I hope it's understood now.
| quote: | Not anymore, these days. In fact, I think many Democrats call attention to those kinds of automatic Republican assertions as a reason to doubt them from the get-go...but it is for this reason that I also think Republicans are being more judicious then ever in calling for any more anti-terrorism measures. All in all, I think there is balance in this area. I'm not worried about it.  |
I wouldn't be too worried about it either if I were a Conservative or GOP supporter either, but the problems are there nonetheless. The biggest example I can discuss (and I have discussed it at length here) is the FISA Amendments. All Bush has to say is that the Democrats are aiding terrorists, and Reid jumps so high he capitulates to anything Bush wants despite the apparent discrepancies in Bush's actions and the current 1978 law. Nevermind the fact that the telecom industries took the government so seriously themselves when they cut off the FBI from their wiretaps because the Feds couldn't pay their bills on time:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110...aid_phone_bills
But that's not slowing Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who is currently pushing for retroactive immunity for the telecom industries for aiding Bush in his illegal wiretaps, which directly counters the wishes of most Democrats and the netroot supporters as the issue is continuing to traverse in the courts.
Torture is another issue with the latest torture MCA Amendment to which the Dems. caved instantly once the threats came out about aiding terrorists.
So I disagree with your thoughts based on two terrorist themes purported by this Administration to which the Dems show absolutely no spine to fight with.
| quote: | Newer weapons systems are constantly in development that are making the need for large bases and larger numbers of troops, unnecessary. It's called; "Economy of Force". You've probably heard of it. Today's military can get a LOT more done, for a lot less money and with fewer people. For example;
The newer aircraft carriers have a compliment of something like 1,000 to 1,500 fewer people that are needed to operate one than previous models.
"Smart" weapons, while expensive individually, are allowing single aircraft to take on multiple targets and hit them all, as compared to just over a decade ago, when launching a whole wing of planes to accomplish the same task with "dumb" bombs was the norm. In the end, it costs less to use smart weapons and there is less risk for crews.
The list goes on of the benefits for a technologically more advanced and hence, "smarter" military. Doing the same job with fewer people is one of them. |
I don't disagree, however can you see what you just said here contradicts your earlier statement about a larger budget on the military to which I was originally responding to?
| quote: | | Yes, like I said; Being prepared for a quick war is economically viable and is smart; Long, drawn out "Policing" wars (like what's going on now in Iraq) can ultimately bankrupt us. I hope they can get in under control over there eventually...we'll see. |
Aside of withdrawing troops in some way or fashion, how would you propose this could get under control at the current state of affairs? Consider we are starting to withdraw the SURGE! troops now and will be back to pre-SURGE! troop levels by the summer, and though the reduction of violence is evident much of what is needed to take place, i.e. the political reconciliation, has not occurrred. This will entail our troops to remain until this happens, or until we leave on our own (which I would contend would put pressure on the Iraqi gov't to move a bit faster on their own, but I digress). So given this scenario, and given how our Administration (and yes our Democratic majority-led Congress) continues to sign over so much $, what else could be done to curtail the flow of (and unaccounted for) money to this war?
| quote: | | Tsk, tsk...so much vulgarity. |
You expect any different from me since I've been here for over 7 years now?
| quote: | Well, I never said there were "operational ties". My post was clear. The facts are there, as to why we were attacked by Al Queda. You can find it for yourself, I'm sure...you're good at finding quotes.  |
It wasn't your quick summary on al Qaeda I had disagreed with, rather your leap of logic to Saddam. You made a rather strange connection to him that I think you need to clarify further.
| quote: | But will you hear anyone in our government admit that this is why we attacked Iraq? Of course not. They're not about to admit that;
A.) Al Queda hit us in a way that we can't really ever defend against (Terrorism), so we needed to remove their motive for attack.
B.) The world oil situation had changed in the decade since the first Gulf War, and having Saddam control Iraqi oil wasn't going to work for us, or for any of our allies, anymore. |
How in any way does A) lead to B)? Again I agree somewhat with your quick summary as to why al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. That's been well-documented. But to go from that to saying we invaded Iraq because of oil is again a very big leap of logic that I think you'll need to support this assertion a bit better.
And you might also want to state why we were led to believe something else entirely different by this Administration as to why we were invading, as well as justifying the "means to an end" implication you seem to be getting at by Bush's motivations for invasion by lying to Americans, lying to the world, to Congress, etc. about ties to al Qaeda and his prior knowledge on Iraq's WMD capabilities.
One other thing needs to be mentioned - if al Qaeda was truly the enemy we needed to focus on(and I believe they are), for whatever reasons you propose whether it be for oil, threats to our economy, our lives, etc., then why the fuck did we abandon going after them in Tora Bora when we had those bastards on the run, so we can invade a country that had nothing to do with the bastards that attacked us on 9/11? Because I would hope that anyone can see that if they are such a true threat, taking them out and taking their leader out when we had the chance instead of abandoning that attack to corrupt Afghan warlords would seem to be the most logical and tactical action instead of invading another country that had nothing to do with them altogether.
We wouldn't be playing oil games with them at all, if I were to follow your logic via invasion of oil regimes in the Middle East. We'd simply just kill them. Rather neat, simple, and a bit more logical.
| quote: | A government can never concede defeat. It's bad for public psyche...for its people's perception of their government. A lot of people, for example, still think Russia just "chose" to back down when Kennedy started the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Truth is; He cut a deal to pull our nuclear missiles out of Russia's close neighbor Turkey, in return for Russia taking theirs out of nearby Cuba.
And look at the way in which we attempted to put the best face on ending the Vietnam War. Nixon spoke of ending the war, but only if we could get "Peace with Honor." We couldn't just cut and run. Hence, it tooks YEARS to extricate ourselves from that mess.
To this day, many people in the Muslim world recall how we cut and run under Clinton's watch in Somalia. Many of the powers that be in this country feel that it sent the wrong message and potentially has caused irreparable harm to future military operations. Maybe that's even part of why we're having such a hard tie in Iraq, now Who knows? I'm sure that the Insurgents are hoping we'll give up at some point, if they can out-last our tolerance for war. |
I hope you do realize that it wasn't Clinton who wanted to withdraw from Somalia. Rather, it was Congress who voted to cut the funding for it, which forced Clinton's hand. Folks like McCain:
| quote: | “Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm’s way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not.”
http://www.noiraqescalation.org/press/?id=0103 |
and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
| quote: | "The narrow issue before us tonight is simply how do you leave? We are leaving, we all agree on that. … The only issue here tonight is how we leave and, in my judgment, the Byrd amendment better defines the proper exit for the United States in this most unfortunate experience in Somalia, at least since May."
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00314 |
voted in favor of the Amendment to strip the funding. It's not that I don't disagree with you entirely on this point, but I did want to point out the obvious ironies between now and then, and much of it seems to be attributed to political maneuvering rather than noble causes. Otherwise you'd see consistency in the message over time, which is clearly not the case here.
| quote: | | In the end, the world has been and always will be about showing strength to your adversaries. As soon as they perceive you're weak in any way, they'll attack you (example; The way the expansionist Japanese did in WW2, believing that we were a divided country of "Isolationists" who didn't have the stomache for war). It's part of why we can't and shouldn't give up in Iraq. |
I think you're argument and example is a bit overly simplistic. Surely you don't believe this was the only reason why the Japanese attacked us? That speaks of nothing as to the tactical opportunism involved with attacking us at Pearl Harbor. It wasn't merely a means of attack simply because they viewed us as "weak", and I think you know that.
Now again I can't disagree entirely with your premise about showing strength, but it is a bit overly simplistic on world views, especially in lieu of our current debacle in Iraq. While I can agree that there's a certain element of pride, masculinity, whatever the hell you want to call it as to why this Administration doesn't want to back down when things are not moving forward as they should, eventually common sense will have to prevail should the current situation continue, in the similar manner as it prevailed with Nixon and Kissinger having to back out of Vietnam once he realized it was a no-win situation.
Forcing democracy with a gun in the mouth works only for so long, but it completely undermines the whole idea of democracy in the first place. Wars are great for self-defense and invasion, but they do very little to help install democratic governments, ESPECIALLY in regions that have very little to no understanding what democracy means.
Only through diplomacy and through that foreign government picking itself up and moving itself along towards those goals can democracy flourish. And in the current situation where we have provided nearly all the security and have allowed the Iraqi political process to stall without true motivation to move forward, this simply will not happen for them. Eventually the next Administration will understand this (if they don't already), and will take appropriate action.
| quote: | | Oil is the other part of why we won't. And it won't matter which political party is in office. We're in Iraq for the long haul. There's just no getting around our oil needs. |
Again I find it strange how our Administration seemingly left out this apparent rationale for our invasion. Guess it wouldn't have sold very well to the American people, Congress, and to the rest of the world, would it? Funny how global threats of WMDs and al Qaeda connections took center stage instead, ain't it?
| quote: | | Again with the language! Bad Opus1, bad! |
You seriously not used to this from me yet? Guess you haven't been to the PDD for a while.
| quote: | | Anyway; Why is it that everyone trusts intel reports when they favor their P.O.V.? |
Because they were the most objective reports from unbiased sources we could possibly use? Strange concept, huh?
And it wasn't just from one report, BTW, but from all of them. Hard to consider nonpartisan reports being so biased.
| quote: | | The reports that said WMD's were there appear to have been proved wrong. |
There was intelligence that showed WMDs were nonexistent or at least nowhere near what the Administration bolstered. However those were largely ignored through the stovepipe (as those links I gave demonstrate).
It was also known and stated in such reports, i.e. Duelfer, Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence, Robb-Silberman, 911 Commission, etc. that intelligence made by those agencies that Bush utilized was not particularly strong on its merits. Operation Curveball immediately comes to mind (and examined in one of the links I gave previously).
| quote: | | But now these intel reports that prove that they never were are suddenly accurate? Who knows, maybe one day they too will be proven inaccurate? |
Yeah, and perhaps the Easter Bunny might be real someday too?
I prefer to go on the best available evidence we currently have, rather than make decisions and assertions on idle speculation.
But that's just my own personal preference.
| quote: | | All I'm saying is that Saddam had time to dispose of those weapons if he chose to. |
How could he dispose of weaponry that he did not have? Again I would encourage you to examine the Duelfer Report in detail. It explains all of Saddam's capabilities, when he had those capabilities, when he hadn't such capabilities, etc.:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/index.html
| quote: | | He still has loyalists fighting for him, even though he's dead! Maybe a loyalist whistle-blower has yet to come forward? I think anything is possible over in that mess of a country, where Americans are not really liked very much. |
See above.
| quote: | | Not much, when you take it out of context like you did |
Simply demonstrating your speculation has no substantive merit, especially when weighed against the well-known evidence we have now.
| quote: | | The Saudi Royal Family is friendly with us. No need to invade. They're willing to do business with us...maybe in part because they have a weak military, who knows? Besides; There is that little thing called "world perception" and supposed free market. We can't be exactly seen as trying to control ALL of the world oil supply. That would be grounds for starting World War Three in the eyes of the rest of the world. |
Hmmm, interesting. All this time I thought a "free-market" entails we allow businesses/countries to compete against each other with a hands-off approach, which is consented by both the consumers and sellers. And in such an environment, buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html
One would hardly say such an approach was taken by us, if we are to go by your premise as to why we invaded Iraq.
And calling the Saudis "friendly" is rather insulting, especially in lieu of their financial support of the Sunni insurgents who are killing our troops in Iraq.
Furthermore, I do hope you realize that our Administration does some rather interesting business with other dictators and countries that could hardly be called, "friendly" to us. Yet we do not invade them for their commodities, nor do we undermine your premise of a free-market with one country but not another simply because the former is more "friendly" to us.
IOW, your rationale of a "free-market" is rather selective and holds little merit.
| quote: | | Go back and re-read my post. I said I'd rather have Corporate America looking out for me, versus our economic and political adversarias. Why is it that more Liberal Americans always make the assumption that given the chance, these nations would treat us better if they had the power in their hands, than corporate America would? What "on god's green earth" makes you believe such a thing? |
It's not that I don't agree with you to a minor extent, and I certainly don't want the opposite to occur which is some totalitarian regime in control of my country either. But I must say I find it rather striking and ironic that such countries like the ones you mentioned just so happen to have us by the balls financially given how much $ we owe them, thanks in large part to our current Administration's spending and tax cut habits which have put us in the red on government revenue. Their actions have given our next generation a birth tax that has to be paid off to these socialist/totalitarian regimes across the world. Kinda sickening, really.
| quote: | World population is growing by absurd leaps and bounds. Water, food, housing, land, etc...it's all going to become more expensive. The last thing we'll be able to do is turn our backs on oil, when it's still relatively cheap and abundant comparatively, and when the infrastructure to support its use is well in place.
"Pie in the Sky Idealism"...that's all alternative fuel talk is for now. |
Only because no one in this Administration (and admittedly in previous Democratic Administrations) have moved forward with such plans to successfully wean us all foreign oil dependence yet. Now admittedly this is speculation on MY part as to what would occur if such actions were taken, simply because they haven't been taken yet. But at the current rate it's hard not to want an alternative, even with the arguments of environmentalism and global warming put aside. Strictly from an economic perspective this current usage of oil simply can not last, and the sooner we move forward from a discussion to action towards those alternatives, the better we will be prepared.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
