| Author | Message | ||
     Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 142 Registered: 9-2003 |
Al Qaeda is working well at having most of the entire Democratic presidential appeasement delegation unwittingly helping them in that quest. The Democrats' approach to the Islamic terrorists has been following along the lines of Europe's response to Hitler prior to World War II. There are just too few people around today who remember what appeasement brought then. Time to relearn the lesson, I suppose. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 73 Registered: 1-2003 |
And by the way Mont, The experts at the State Dept and the DOD are SUPPORTING the war and the WMD premise (remember Colin Powell at the UN?) There are some dissenters in these depts... thats a good thing, but they are the tiny almost undetectable minority in the Govt. that are going against the vast majority opinion of government experts. You say "The government employs career professionals in the Departments of State and Defense to provide data and analysis for important decisions. " The question here is why you ignore these same experts you cite. | ||
| strawberry Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1431 Registered: 10-2001 |
Al Qaeda is also working well in Iraq right now. hmmmm.. How did that happen? Coordination before the war, that's how. "That moment has directly affected my foreign policy. See, it changed the nature of the presidency. It changed the security arrangements of the United States of America. I vowed to the American people I would never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001." --President George W. Bush | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 144 Registered: 9-2003 |
It should be accepted that there are no easy solutions for assisting Iraq now that Saddam is no longer in control. So, let's get real. There are many who say they want no retreat, but they do want a turnover of Iraq to the U.N. Fine with me, but get real. Do you truly believe that the U.N. is capable of handling what needs to be done? Didn't they recently pull back from the providing the minimal support they were offering? No honest person can really believe that what we are struggling to accomplish can be achieved by "Kofi Annan's blue helmets." Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups at work in Iraq need to be stopped. The entire "free" world should be working together towards that goal. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 64 Registered: 11-2003 |
Iranian President Khatami, "We recognize the Iraqi Governin Council and we believe it is capable, with the Iraqi people of managing the affairs of the country and taking measures leading toward independence." | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 1616 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, Strawman, we made Iraq available to Al Qaeda by destabilizing it with no serious plan (and far too few personnel) for quickly restoring order. We don't even have enough staff to guard the rpg, missile and other weapons stockpiles. Funny how those things have a way of walking off. What are we trying to do, arm the enemy???? And defense of oil production consists of a few guys with cell phones. Al Qaeda, and every other terrorist organization, flourishes in social chaos. No prior coordination was necessary and there is no real evidence that there was any. Just ask the intelligence analysts in D.C. But it certainly does seem that any number of terrorists and t-wannabes are heeding bin Laden's call to come to Iraq. But Rummy's argument that that's exactly where we want them would be laughable if it weren't at the expense of the lives of our military personnel. Also, perhaps Donald should ask the Turks and Iraqi Kurds today if they think all the Al-Qaeda folks are being "contained" in Iraq. Yep, the Iraqi situation is surely under control and headed in the right direction for our national security, don't you think? Cathy | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 145 Registered: 9-2003 |
So one must then ask, (WWND), or what would Nakaille do? We removed Saddam from control and you twist it by calling it "destabilizing." We do have a "serious plan," but not one that happens overnight. It is also a plan that is subject to change based upon any number of factors, but thankfully not political polling. I agree that "Al Qaeda, and every other terrorist organization, flourishes in social chaos." But please inform as to how change in that region can be achieved without some form of social chaos? I am curious, WWND? Pull out? I am not trying to pin you down, just searching for a solution. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2003 |
Ali al-Khudair, an active promoter of anti-western terrorism, whose followers have in the past committed suicide bombings and attacks upon government facilities within Saudi Arabia has been jailed by the Saudi authorities. Likely coaxed, al-khudair denounced his own previous "fatwas" and said the recent bombing were the work of criminals. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1897 Registered: 12-2001  |
Cliff Harris provides some fine examples of the type of arguments employed by the Bush Administration to justify their policies. It is a mixture of statements with which nobody would disagree followed by conclusions that have no real connection to the statement. This topic started off as a debate as to whether the stated reasons for invading Iraq were credible. In point of fact, the assertions by fact or innuendo that Iraq had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have not been supported by six months of post-invasion investigations. Moreover, most of the Bush Administration now admits that Hussein was not in league with Al Qaeda. This is not surprising given that Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies. Cliff Harris then takes us off on a wonderful tangent in which he charges that Democrats are appeasing Al Qaeda. Cliff does not elaborate on the mechanism of this appeasement. Evidently, because Democrats disagree with Bush’s shaky case for invading Iraq, they are appeasing Al Qaeda. I suppose this means that exercising our duty as citizens of a democracy to disagree with our government is now equivalent to appeasing our enemies. Cliff does demonstrate that appeasement is a bad thing. Clearly, attempts to appease Hitler only made the problem worse. Certainly, France and Britain missed two good opportunities to stop Hitler. The first was when he remilitarized the Rhineland. The second was when he was allowed to annex the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia leaving that country without defensible borders. There are a couple of reasons why France and Britain engaged in appeasement. Part of it was certainly the frightful cost of World War I. France lost 1 in 28 of her citizens and Britain, 1 in 57. 1 in 28! Imagine that! Instead of individual names on our war memorials, we could have entries for the men of Columbia High School Class of 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, because practically everyone of them would have been killed in combat. We have never been tested like that. Another more interesting reason for this appeasement is that capitalists of the day (i.e. Republicans) saw Hitler as a bulwark against Communism and were content to overlook his mistreatment of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals to name three. Interestingly enough, Reagan and Bush Sr. were content to appease Saddam Hussein back in the days when we saw Iraq as a bulwark against the Islamic Revolution spreading from Iran. They overlooked his manufacture and use of chemical weapons. They didn’t react particularly strongly when his air force “accidentally” lit up USS Stark with two Exocet missiles in 1987. Now, back to the central topic. So far, Cliff has noted that appeasement is bad. But he hasn’t explained how Democrats are appeasing anybody unless exercising our democratic DUTY to disagree with our government when it is wrong is a form of appeasement. Strawberry helpfully notes that Al Qaeda is now operating in Iraq and offers that as proof of prior collaboration with Hussein. This is nonsense, of course, since none of the insurgents in Iraq are acting in a particularly effective manner. They can be deadly, but they aren’t particularly organized. Cliff goes on to assert that we have a plan in Iraq. More accurately, the Bush Administration is cobbling together a plan as quickly as they can. The initial plan was an assumption that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and shower us with flowers. This is evidenced by von Rumsfeld’s remarkable statement that he doesn’t think it logical that the occupation should require more troops than the invasion. Now, having supported Bush in his destabilization of Iraq, he resorts to the time-honored techniques of challenging Bush’s critics (e.g. C. Bataille) to explain what they would do. In some ways, this is a valid question but is also a dodge of the fundamental issue. Bush invaded Iraq without a good plan except for the major combat phase. He has destabilized the region. There is no assurance that we will be successful. He did all of this when there were perfectly good alternatives to going to war. He could have delayed for a year. Bush continues to up the ante with cynical assertions that tyranny must be resisted everywhere (except where our tyrants are in charge). But I am fine with all of this. I just want all supporters of the Bush foreign policy to make sure that their sons and daughters are serving in the U.S Armed Forces, preferably in combat units. This isn’t some argument about language arts in our schools. This is a situation where we are putting our soldiers in mortal danger. If you believe Bush is right, put your skin in the game. | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 146 Registered: 9-2003 |
Oh, I get it now. My skin means my relatives. It doesn't matter that my co-workers already died as a result of the planes attacking the WTC. Now you want only the children of Bush supporters to face mortal danger. Last time I looked it was a volunteer army. And don't start that crap about no other jobs being available. You long for peace? You think you can achieve peaceful ends simply by offering to negotiate in good faith with the people behind the attacks? Get real. tjohn when you are dealing with lunatics that teach their children to hate and suggest to those same children that is wonderful for them to strap on a bomb and kill innocents, those people aren't going to set down and listen to your plans for peace. They are going to kill you. Wake up, if we pull out it will invite the terrorists to become even more agressive. They will continue to spread simply because they know that they can. Do you really want to allow their bullying tactics to have a chance to work? Get off your high horse and think about it for a minute. I am sick and tired of listening to you complain about everything Bush does. It doesn't matter what his motives are. Bush is a leader. No he is not perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than Gore would have been. America and the free world has entered a new era where Islamic fundamentalists are seeking to hold on to old customs and do it by using violence and death. Their world is lost somewhere in the past, it oppresses people and women in particular. Now for what is very obvious to most, but seemingly not to you. How are democrats appeasing? By fueling the fires of discontent so blatently that it encourages Al Qaeda and other terrorists. by finding fault with each and everything that Bush tries to do, regardless of what it is. You hate the man so much it blinds you to even think that he can try to do something that might be the right thing to do. Can't you see that? It upsets me to know that if Howard Dean is elected, he has plans to do what? Do you know? Does he? Most of all you continue to find fault with Bush at every turn, however you never offer uo a solution or solid alternative. It is always negative Bush bashing at every opportunity. Why not surprise everybody and give us a run down of the course of action that you or your handlers would take if given the chance. Peace, and love tjohn. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 262 Registered: 6-2003 |
Concerning the opinions of professionals within the government service, I posted this a few months back: Since career officials are not allowed to disagree publicly with elected officials and their cabinet appointees, and since resignation in protest effectively destroys their diplomatic careers, the resignation of three such officials is a serious matter. Subsequent events have shown that the U.S. occupation force is not maintaining order, and Mr. Wolfowitz himself got a taste of the problem when his hotel in Baghdad was subjected to a rocket attack. Finally, the inadequate management of tactical intelligence in Iraq was documented by the U.S. Army's own Center for Army Lessons Learned in the October Issue of their Newsletter (BTW, the previous link is to a page in www.globalsecurity.org because the DoD quickly withdrew the version on the CALL site itself). Not only did CALL discover the Army was short of intelligence analysts in Iraq, but that in operations they were usually assigned to raid teams in the position where they were most likely to be killed. My original post has more details and links to articles in the Washington Post and Slate about the CALL findings and the subsequent Pentagon cover-up. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10455 Registered: 10-2001  |
Why does the UN waste our time with worries like this? http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/11/20/un.alqaeda/index.html Who cares? Let AQ have their chemical weapons. It's no big deal. I'm sure if we just call up Osama and ask him to leave us alone, he'll comply. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Please check out Fringe's Excellent Website: http://hometown.aol.com/njfabian | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 263 Registered: 6-2003 |
Reports like this usually state a consensus position of the world's governments. The issue here is not the information itself, but its official acknowledgement by the governmental bodies that can act on the information. Government process is usually slow (and international process even slower). However, we have to accept its slowness as the price of collective strength. The U.S. cannot defeat al Queda unilaterally and must therefore work with others through the best possible means. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2449 Registered: 10-1999  |
Mr. Harris wrote at 10:35 p.m. Is that it, then? No matter what the President does, nobody is allowed to say, "Excuse me, but was that really the most sensible way to get the job done?" If that's the way you feel, then there really is no point in engaging in a discussion with you. Mr. Harris also wrote: There was a story in the Star-Ledger in early October. I copied some of it down; it's no longer on their site. It went like this:
| ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10456 Registered: 10-2001 |
Reports like this usually state a consensus position of the world's governments. The issue here is not the information itself, but its official acknowledgement by the governmental bodies that can act on the information. The same body by the way that passed many unenforced resolutions on Iraq that called for complete disclosure on WMD but never did anything about it Government process is usually slow (and international process even slower). Exactly the problem. However, we have to accept its slowness as the price of collective strength. We don't have to accept anything when it comes to our security. We don't have to sit back and wait for the UN to come to consensus because they won't. And if by chance they do, you will say the consensus was the result of "bullying" by the USA. So here's a reminder for you about what happens when we get too comfortable...  The U.S. cannot defeat al Queda unilaterally and must therefore work with others through the best possible means. Yessirree. But we'll do what we have to with or without them as long as Bush is in office ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Please check out Fringe's Excellent Website: http://hometown.aol.com/njfabian | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5731 Registered: 4-1998  |
It's unclear how much a near unilateral invasion of a country that did not have the weapons we thought it did nor committed the 9-11 attack has sapped away from our efforts to defeat Al Qaida and kill or capture bin laden (you know, the guy who did 9-11). It's easy to lash out at visible targets like Iraq, but is that the way to go? I ask because I really don't know. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1898 Registered: 12-2001 |
Cliff, You seemed to have confirmed that criticism of our government when it is wrong is now to be considered appeasement of our enemies. Teddy Roosevelt thought that such criticism was our duty as Americans. I guess times have changed. I still don't understand how criticizing Bush's unilateral invasion of Iraq amounts to appeasement of Al Qaeda. The last time I checked, even the Bush Administration had acknowledged that Hussein wasn't providing Al Qaeda with meaningful support. Finally, our president deserves exactly as much as a CEO for trying his best - nothing, a trip home. As with CEOs, the only thing I expect from our president is results. Now, you do raise a fair question in asking how a Democratic president will deal with Iraq. I would expect the answer to be more or less what Bush is doing. We certainly can't cut and run without having made a serious effort to make it work. OTOH, we can't stay there forever either - at least not with a volunteer army. You can well believe that interest in active or reserve service will decrease if there is a strong probability of being sent to a place such as Iraq. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 74 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Now, you do raise a fair question in asking how a Democratic president will deal with Iraq. I would expect the answer to be more or less what Bush is doing" having your cake and eating it too... | ||
| strawberry Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1433 Registered: 10-2001 |
It's pretty clear Dave Ross will be voting for Clark. "That moment has directly affected my foreign policy. See, it changed the nature of the presidency. It changed the security arrangements of the United States of America. I vowed to the American people I would never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001." --President George W. Bush | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2450 Registered: 10-1999 |
These discussions, here and nationwide, have become predictable: I think we should have done more in Afghanistan before turning to Iraq.Look, kids, 9-11 is not the all-purpose response to any criticism of the Administration's policies. |
