| Author | Message | ||
     Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1447 Registered: 6-2003  |
Using this reasoning, Iran would be justified in developing nuclear weapons, since only the threat of retaliation would deter an aggressor like George W.M.D. Bush. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4384 Registered: 10-1999  |
Funny thing about political discourse today. Maple Man points out that Iraq was disarmed, before there was an invasion. That's a fact confirmed by the findings of the official U.S. government report. Nevertheless, that's a fact which is apparently considered unimportant, in any discussion of how to proceed in the Middle East. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 447 Registered: 9-2004 |
Using this reasoning, Iran would be justified in developing nuclear weapons, since only the threat of retaliation would deter an aggressor like George W.M.D. Bush. I feel Iran is going forward with developing nuclear weapons because of the threat the US poises. James C. Moore: If Not Now, When? Independent (UK), February 6, 2005 "Condoleezza Rice says the US has no plans to attack Iran 'at this point in time'. But recent history suggests otherwise... President Bush's rhetorical flourishes against tyranny, both in his state of the union speech and his inaugural address, have left Britain, the rest of the EU and much of America wondering if Iran will be the next target of US military might. The consternation is great, and not without cause. Under the Bush administration, a pathology has emerged for asserting foreign policy, and each step foreshadows the next: the President expounds vague principles to stir American hearts and, subsequently, lower administration officials mumble the frightening details. That's the way the US ended up occupying Iraq, and it is how any move will be made against Iran... The day after his state of the union speech, President Bush repeated his conviction that Iran was "the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism". The White House ought to have diminished credibility on such allegations after Iraq, but the American public continues, disturbingly, to listen and trust." Richard Sale: USAF Playing Cat and Mouse Games Over Iran, United Press International, January 26, 2005 "The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said. "We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq and are part of Bush administration attempts collect badly needed intelligence on Iran's possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity." Rupert Cornwell: Why the hawks are circling over Iran, The Independent, January 19, 2005 "The warning signs are aligned, as the stars in the heavens portending a great event. There are stirrings in Congress and intensified contacts with exile groups from the Middle Eastern country in question. Once more, President George W. Bush is warning that he has not ruled out the use of force to make sure that a regime linked to terrorism does not acquire weapons of mass destruction. Most sensationally of all, a highly regarded magazine carries a detailed, only partially denied report that US special force units are already carrying out missions on the ground inside that country, pinpointing sites that could be hit by air-strikes or commando raids. Reuters: Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran, Reuters, January 16, 2005 "The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday. The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites". Me thinks Bush's recent trips to Germany, France, Russia et al, is to stir-up support for a possible attack on Iran since our troops are so stretched. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1634 Registered: 1-2003  |
This argument absolutely requires that you accept one central assumption that you are leaving unstated. It assumes that there was one and only one way to set events in motion that would lead to peace in the Middle East. That is, that only a U.S. led invasion and occupation of Iraq could have accomplished this. It assumes there isn't one single alternative combination of carrots and sticks that would have brought the same result. But we don't know that for a fact because Bush didn't even try any other approach aside from threatening war, and then carrying it out. Not at all, There may have been other ways to do it, but this one works, is proven, and is successful. Why mess with success? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3207 Registered: 8-2003 |
Maple Man -- without an invasion you'd never have known Saddam didn't have WMD stockpiles in Iraq at that time. Where they are and what happened to them, no one knows or can prove. We just have Saddam's word. He never verified the destruction of them to the satisfaction of the UN, and no one -- not the French, Russians, Brits or anyone else -- would have believed Saddam didn't have them absent that information. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 185 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, Actually, there were people inside the CIA who were skeptical. But in the war's run-up the Bush admin wouldn't accept intelligence that conflicted with the information they desired. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3211 Registered: 8-2003 |
The Bush Administration had intelligence that said they had to move, and intelligence that was skeptical of the threat. You have a choice then -- move, or wait. Bush chose to move, and it's quite understandable to see why he did in a post 9/11 environment. To which you can say "well, it was political to put attention away from a (Clinton) recession. And for oil. And...and...and...." It would ring true if Bush was a crook and bereft of character, but he's not. Disagree with him -- fine. But smears on his foreign policy don't work, and didn't work in the last election cycle even with those that disagreed with him. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 253 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael Janay: You've asked whether I'm willing to give Pres. Bush credit for anything, and I believe you've made reference to "democracy on the march" in Ukraine as one of the President's achievements. Well, here goes -- I applaud President Bush's efforts to support democracy in the Ukraine (and should we also include Poland?). I'm particularly impressed with the latest result of Ukraine's new democracy, which bears a striking similarity to the position advocated by Senator Edward Kennedy for the US and supported by 60% of the US public, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll:
| ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13298 Registered: 10-2001  |
I have to say Paul, my respect or you grows each day. I appreciate that you've got the ability to criticize when it's required - regardless of party - and praise when it's warranted. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1449 Registered: 6-2003 |
It would ring true if Bush was a crook and bereft of character, but he's not...  | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 187 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, I don't recall ever saying it was to draw attention away from (a naturally occurring) recession or that it was for oil. It's been well documented that the Bush administration didn't simply get two strands of information, weigh them and then decide to go in. In fact, they bypassed the CIA analytic process and simply took in the raw data (from Chalabi and others) as fact. Remember when Rumsfeld said they knew exactly where the WMDs were? That was a result of not weeding out bad intelligence. Rumsfeld and Cheney got the info stovepiped straight to their offices. But they blamed the CIA anyway and they put in their own man, Peter Goss, who admitted he's not up to the task. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3215 Registered: 8-2003 |
That doesn't explain Tenet being entirely on board with the Administration regarding WMD. Surely he had access to both strands of information. Goss didn't say he's not up to the task of CIA director. The wire story today is he's anxious for Negroponte to come on board as he's wearing too many hats now, spending 5 hours a day prepping for the daily intelligence briefing he has to give the President. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1641 Registered: 1-2003 |
Cjc, Dave23 is right... Peter Goss isn't up to the task. Porter Goss on the other hand is doing an excellent job. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 509 Registered: 6-2004  |
Joseph Heller would be proud of that reasoning. In other words, we needed to invade in order to gather the evidence that we didn't need to invade in order to disarm Iraq.  | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3217 Registered: 8-2003 |
That's not the point, and I think you know it. Ah well.... And as I know what the Iraq War was all about, can someone explain this one? EDITORIAL Still Troubled After All These Years According to the timetable established by the Security Council, an international review this summer is supposed to determine whether the troubled Kosovo region has reached sufficient standards of governance and interethnic harmony to start talks on independence. It has not. The government is headed by a former guerrilla leader suspected of war crimes, and less than a year ago, Albanians went on an anti-Serb rampage that left 19 dead and 900 wounded. After the NATO air campaign in 1999, which drove Serbian forces from Kosovo, successive United Nations administrators avoided defining Kosovo's status. Then in 2002, the United Nations laid down the "standards before status" policy, under which Kosovo was to meet certain standards of democracy and behavior before talk of independence began. But the Serb population boycotted the provincial government, while the majority Albanians failed to seize the chance to show they can govern. With the summer deadline looming, Soren Jessen-Petersen, the U.N. envoy, told the Security Council last week that it was time to set a clear timetable on Kosovo's status. He's off base. The situation in Kosovo and Serbia is not what it was at the end of the war. Slobodan Milosevic no longer wields tyrannical power; he's a prisoner in the Hague. The Kosovo Albanians, meanwhile, have trampled the rights of the Serb minority. Under such conditions, setting an independence timetable would reward bad faith. The six-nation contact group - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia - should forcefully set out what Kosovo needs to accomplish. Work should begin immediately on a settlement, which would, at least temporarily, include a semiautonomous zone for the Serbs. That would choke off the Serb minority's hopes of seizing control again. The Albanians should need no further incentive to behave properly. The West belatedly took the lead in halting Serb atrocities. It would be a shame if it now allowed Kosovo to go from a region in which Serbs persecuted Albanians to a troubled microstate in which Albanians persecute Serbs." This is being run by the UN, and you want to turn Iraq over to them? They're also raping...sorry, running the Congo and Haitian operations. What are those escapades about? | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 510 Registered: 6-2004 |
actually, that was precisely the point you made. The fact remains however, that the U.S. and the UN had in fact disarmed Iraq in the 90s without resorting to an invasion and occupation. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7803 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cjc, why will Iraq be any different? Until we took control in Mosul the Kurds were slaughtering Sunnis by the bushel basket full. What is going to happen in Tikrit? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3218 Registered: 8-2003 |
No, that wasn't the point I made. The point was the only way to verify Saddam's claims that there wasn't a gathering threat of WMDs was by going in. Otherwise, you're relying on the word of a tyrant who wasn't entirely forthcoming with UN inspectors. Bush wasn't willing to take that chance. The stockpiles weren't there, but we still do not definitely know what happened to the stockpiles. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4400 Registered: 10-1999 |
"The point was the only way to verify Saddam's claims that there wasn't a gathering threat of WMDs was by going in. Otherwise, you're relying on the word of a tyrant who wasn't entirely forthcoming with UN inspectors." I'd still give the advantage to Maple Man in this one. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3220 Registered: 8-2003 |
Actually, Bob K, the Sunni extremists were launching against Kurds and Shia. I don't recall seeing a report of wholesale round-ups of Sunnis and killing them en masse as Kurds were. Kurds and Shia seem to be getting along, and they've made entreaties to non-fanatical Sunnis. |
