chiefhogskin48 Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 ASF, as proposterous as many of the things he posted truly are, prompted me to reevaluate the history of the current foreign policy monster, authored almost exclusively by the so-called Neoconservatives. These neoconservatives are hardly conservative at all, yet now, post-Sept 11th, yield an alarmingly disproportionate amount of power over the current administration. Wolfowitz isn't necessarily the mastermind, nor is there a true mastermind or cabal, in my opinion. They are merely a group of like-minded opportunists who believe that their worldview and influence is the best thing for our nation. Unfortunately, it's not. The reason they exert influence now is because of the blank check that the September 11th tragedy offered them. Initially, they cashed in the check legitimately, with nearly unanimous backing when rooting out and destroying Al Qaeda in 2001. But they took it steps further, boldly broadening their hunt to include nations such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. I think almost all of us, other than the blinded partisans, can agree that Iraq was not a terrorist threat, nor is North Korea. Therefore, the disturbing part of this is that the neocons were able to cash in their chips even further by targeting nations unrelated to the original goal. Of course it was nice to take out Iraq, or more importantly Saddam, but why now? He is no more threatening now than he had been in the past... perhaps less so. And war with Iraq under the current political climate was extremely damaging to our position in the world. We aren't the evil empire by ANY means, but the neocons are doing their darndest to make us look the part to those who are predisposed to hating us, or at least eager to criticize. Image does mean something, so I'm hesitant to say "if they dont like it, **** em!" like so many are willing to do. If you burn your bridges, you find yourself isolated. We, my friends, are isolated--- at least temporarily. It is clear that Bush will win another term, which in itself is fine, but my hope is that he cleans house. Underneath it all, I believe that he values Powell's opinion more than Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc, but Powell and the multilateralists are being suffocated and expunged from the administration. I think which side Bush chooses will define his current, and certainly future, administration. I hope he chooses to discard the neocons, who have a history of jumping on the flavor of the day in order to exert their influence on our nation (a point which I will explain in the future--- how they came to be; their unusual origins). To close I will say that I don't think these are evil men, but what they wish to accomplish under Bush's administration is not positive for our country. What are your thoughts on the issue? I will provide links later, but, rest assured,no proposterous ones like the ones ASF provides. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I think almost all of us, other than the blinded partisans, can agree that Iraq was not a terrorist threat, nor is North Korea. So you want to know what I think? I almost stopped reading the rest of your post because the above portion of your statement shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I think almost all of us, other than the blinded partisans, can agree that Iraq was not a terrorist threat, nor is North Korea. I guess supporting suicide bombers is not terrorism to you. The fact that Abu Abbas lived in Baghdad was just one big coincidence. I guess Saddam never supported Abu Nidal. The fact that Iraq trained al queda members about chemical weapons is one big right-wing lie. Oh that’s right, I am a blind fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge So you want to know what I think? I almost stopped reading the rest of your post because the above portion of your statement shows you have no idea what you are talking about. sigh.... North Korea has only promised to not only develop and produce nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, they've threatened to nuke California as well as sell them to any and all takers. Now if that doesn't qualify as terrorism to you, I think I'll take my chances with our current leadership. The argument you'd likely pose here, that these countries didn't/don't have the capability to strike us or export technology that could be used to strike us is moot. Its the same argument put forward prior to 9/11, that we were immune to a major attack here on our home soil. I take the threats that have been made deadly serious, and while there is always aggressive manuevering for power in Washington, I think it has a purpose here and generally a noble one: to keep SOB's like Hussein and his North Korean fan club from EVER possessing the means to arm terrorists or outright attack us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Air Sarge, preemptive wars are not my idea of a bright future for our country. Potential does not equal ability or desire. Perhaps the blind comment was out of line, but the conservative position (and I consider myself as such, btw) has shifted after the berating of Clinton over Kosovo and the missile attacks on Afghanistan back in the day. What would have been unacceptable under Clinton is now considered a no-brainer. I believe we must have discussion within our own party. I happen to disagree with preemptive crusading, because we have to consider more factors than just the reality of victory (which is certain at this point, thankfully) in any war we undertake. Therefore, "taking out" countries like Syria, Iran, and Cuba would not be legitimate in my eyes since they offer no direct threat to us and would do more harm than good. South Korea may be another story, but they have nukes so it may be a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I find the whole notion that the Iraq war was a preemptive war to be false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog sigh.... North Korea has only promised to not only develop and produce nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, they've threatened to nuke California as well as sell them to any and all takers. Now if that doesn't qualify as terrorism to you, I think I'll take my chances with our current leadership. The argument you'd likely pose here, that these countries didn't/don't have the capability to strike us or export technology that could be used to strike us is moot. Its the same argument put forward prior to 9/11, that we were immune to a major attack here on our home soil. I take the threats that have been made deadly serious, and while there is always aggressive manuevering for power in Washington, I think it has a purpose here and generally a noble one: to keep SOB's like Hussein and his North Korean fan club from EVER possessing the means to arm terrorists or outright attack us. I agree that N Korea is a terrible threat, especially because their threats are not even veiled, but now that they can nuke us or our friends, we will have to wait out their regime, like we are doing with Cuba. We can't afford to attack N Korea, so threatening them back won't help anything. They are blackmailers and extortionists at this point and should be rightly ignored. I don't know what else we can do. The options are limited, and far from ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted May 22, 2003 Author Share Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi I find the whole notion that the Iraq war was a preemptive war to be false It seems to me that we attacked Iraq because of their potential for evil, and of course their leader's prior inclination towards such. But ability is a whole other story. We haven't even found WMDs, which really burns me because I was hoping desperately that we would. I doubt we will, either. Also, their nuclear program was pathetic, so that is barely an issue. Back to the issue, though--- I think we will regret the neocon presence in the party if they continue to exert their influence. To sum up my point: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030520-102249-1923r.htm "Philosophically, either [Mr. Buckley] was right that building an American world empire was against conservative principles, or Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Paul Johnson — with some National Review and Wall Street Journal support — were correct that a new American colonialism was required to bring peace and democracy to the world," Mr. Devine says. "Even President Bush had said: 'America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish' — but neoconservatives were still trying to push him there anyway." I hope Bush makes the right choices, and I believe he will. Powell's continuing presence in the spotlight is encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi I find the whole notion that the Iraq war was a preemptive war to be false No offense, but how can you even say that? That makes no sense, care to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Iraq supported terrorist organizations that attacked American interests. They harbored and supported terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 I agree that N Korea is a terrible threat, especially because their threats are not even veiled, but now that they can nuke us or our friends, we will have to wait out their regime, like we are doing with Cuba. We can't afford to attack N Korea, so threatening them back won't help anything. They are blackmailers and extortionists at this point and should be rightly ignored. I don't know what else we can do. The options are limited, and far from ideal. N. Korea is an extremely complicated nut to crack. But we absolutely cannot (and will not) ignore their pursuit of nukes. Iran is another threat we can not and will not take a 'wait and see' approach with. I respect those that make the argument that Iraq was not a direct, imminent threat....you can make a decent argument in the case of Iraq. However, you cannot stand by and watch N. Korea and/or Iran actively pursue nukes and do nothing. Ain't gonna happen. I believe the US Govt has seen the light, and particularly with the nuclear hair trigger we have in Kashmir with a Pakistan and India nuclear exchange highly possible (if not inevitable), we have made a strategic decision to stop nuclear proliferation (by brute force if necessary) from this point on. The alternative, rogue states like N. Korea selling nuclear warheads to all comers, is insanity. Its human nature to defer that which entails risk and potential loss. I liken it to being kidnapped. You know rationally and statistically that your greatest chance for survival is to immediately resist, take your best shot at escape immediately. But in most cases, victims don't resist, because every minute they cooperate and take no risk is another minute they're alive. But that strategy puts you at the mercy of your abductor, often with tragic consequences. Whether you like it or not, the pressures on our government to stop rogue states from acquiring nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons will be immense. And I think you'll be surprised at the US response if N. Korea does not heed our warnings and cease and desist over the next 1-2 years. We can and will take them on militarily if we have to. And I think it will be justified to keep nuclear weapons from becoming available to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi I find the whole notion that the Iraq war was a preemptive war to be false Iraq was a pre-emptive war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Iraq was a pre-emptive war I disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 And none of you...save for Air Sarge...have seen the intelligence at a detailed level vis what has been going on in Iraq for the last 15 years or so. While your eagerness to sustain a murderer and international outlaw is very noble...."everyone deserves a third chance" right?...this tiresome complaint routinely arrives absent one critical item....an alternative plan. we will avoid the obvious and not ask what even qualifies you to assess what a threat is. is it something gross like warheads in silos? or is it something more subtle like scientists sent abroad to study biology, chemistry and physics along very specific lines? how do you know what "intent" is in the minds of dictators like Saddam? and we won't ask about your selective memory. were I you, I would be extremely worried that tons of documented biochem weapons & precursors have not been found. we know they existed. we cannot find them. destruction is only one possibility. there are others and you don't have any facts in hand to deny these possibilities. You don't get it - you don't have the facts either. You should be very nervous. this foreign policy dilemma we currently confront is much more complex than many are willing to admit. it has many leaders very worried - that is to say, it is not unreasonable to argue that there is justification for an aggressive foreign policy. the availability and portability of WMDs - whereever the source; the increased prominence and coordination among terrorist groups (and drug cartels for that matter); the clear presence of nation state support for terrorism; are all features of the international landscape and have to be dealt with. what is your plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 As you pointed out I don't have access to the information necessary to put forward a legitimate alternative, but I know that a lot of people in the intelligence field didn't think it was such a hot idea. Before the war you and I discussed its merits and you asked me if I could live with the idea of innocent Americans dying because I didn't support the idea of a pre-emptive war, now we have had the war, and as you point out, there is reason to fear that we are no safer for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Let me start by saying my own Mother is glad I'm not running things. But if I were....... 1. N. Korea - If Special Opps couldn't find a way to assassinate the current leadership, in the hopes their successor would be more open to cooperating with the the rest of the world, then we take'em out by whatever means necessary. Including nukes. I'm sure we have a sub or two off the coast that could hit them before they could unleash all of their weapons. Better to solve the issue before it gets worse than it already is. And they have done nothing to make me think they are willing to change on their own. 2. Iran - Destroy nuclear plants immediately. By whatever means necessary. 3. Terrorism - With another coalition of the willing, every known terrorist sanctuary/training camp in the world would be hit. With or without the host country's approval. (I'd make them an offer they couldn't refuse;) ) And when I say terrorist, I don't just mean Islamic. I mean ANY terrorist. IRA, Red Brigade, etc... A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. Then....... We take the names of major cities in the countries that support terrorism around the world, and put them on a spinning wheel. Any acts of terrorism would be dealt with like this. After a day like the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia, you spin the wheel. The winner is nuked. Case closed. I believe after the first time, a second wouldn't be needed. But if so, give it a spin. We could call it "Wheel of Misfortune". For those that fear what Russia or China might do I say this. If they want an all out war, fine. Lets dance. That would get rid of more ICBM's than any treaty ever could. Last man standing wins. "Give me liberty, or give me death" - Patrick Henry "Living in fear is not living" - Ax Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed above are not necessarily the views and opinions of the author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Well I do believe that the war in Iraq is the first phase in what is going to be a very long continous battle. Iran is next IMO. They are the real culprits in the recent (1979-) phenomen of State sponsored terrorism. Iraq, as the first move, provides us with a number of strategic advantges. First Iran is now surrounded by us. With all the turmoil in Iran right now they are certainly not likeing the US military being in their front & back yards. Iran has been in need of a major ass kicking for a long long time now. Why do you think that they have been buying nuclear technology from the Russians & Chinese? It certainly is not for energy needs. It's only a matter of time before we will have to address this very sobering fact. Secondly, if Saudia Arabia becomes unstable because their brand of religious zealotry is really flaming the extreme within the Muslim world, we have Iraq's oil resources as back-up for our needs. SA will have to deal with their contribution to the terroist menance or we will. I think a lot of people really have domestic blinders on when discussing this. This will continue past our lifetime in all probability. Religious conflicts have been a staple of human existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Yomar...true enough...but we have removed one set of doubts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted May 24, 2003 Author Share Posted May 24, 2003 Originally posted by aREDSKIN Well I do believe that the war in Iraq is the first phase in what is going to be a very long continous battle. Iran is next IMO. They are the real culprits in the recent (1979-) phenomen of State sponsored terrorism. Iraq, as the first move, provides us with a number of strategic advantges. First Iran is now surrounded by us. With all the turmoil in Iran right now they are certainly not likeing the US military being in their front & back yards. Iran has been in need of a major ass kicking for a long long time now. Why do you think that they have been buying nuclear technology from the Russians & Chinese? It certainly is not for energy needs. It's only a matter of time before we will have to address this very sobering fact. Secondly, if Saudia Arabia becomes unstable because their brand of religious zealotry is really flaming the extreme within the Muslim world, we have Iraq's oil resources as back-up for our needs. SA will have to deal with their contribution to the terroist menance or we will. I think a lot of people really have domestic blinders on when discussing this. This will continue past our lifetime in all probability. Religious conflicts have been a staple of human existence. Iran is next? I sure hope not. We honestly don't have the resources to keep fighting costly, globablly unpopular wars. Democracies have never been adept at nation-building unless there is a requisite structure in place, as in Japan and Germany. We can see in Iraq how hard it is, and will be, to bring them back even to the standard of living they enjoyed pre-1991. I don't think Bush wants this either. But the neocons certainly do, and they make no bones about it. Just a casual sift through the Weekly Standard archives can tell us this much. They desire to reinvigorate the Cold war mentality with different players--- the arabs in place of the Soviets. But it is a more complicated issue than the Cold War in some ways. With the Soviets, it was all of nothing... nuclear annihilation or calm peace. But the Muslim world wages war in a different way, and perceive an attack on one as an attack on all. A holy war, followed by jihad. Though some may argue that we've already stirred up the hornets nest, I just don't see the use of precipitating a clash of civilizations and in doing so creating more extremists. Iran hates us, but is war an appropriate response? Same goes for Syria, Egypt, Pakistan. This type of war-mongering would be unprecedented in the recent history of our nation. I am not proposing this to be a conspiracy theory, especially not a "Jewish" one (an idea that has become in vogue). It is just a battle within the republican party between the ex-liberal neocons, ultrahawkish and pro-imperial hegemony as they are, and some members of the old republican party who wish to pursue reasoned diplomacy, including Powell. The necons advised Bush to attack Iraq on Sept 22nd, 11 days after the famed Sept. 11th attack, by pinning the blame on Saddam. Bush declined--- thankfully. If this isn't diabolical to the core, I don't know what is. Nationalism is wonderful, but they advocate deceptive policies that use national tragedies as pretext for illegitimate invasions. That's not nationalism, it's guileful deceit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Sorry Cheifhogskin48 the wheels are already in motion. Iran is next!!! Pentagon sets sights on a new Tehran regime UK and state department reject blunt approach Julian Borger in Washington and Dan De Luce in Tehran Saturday May 24, 2003 The Guardian The Pentagon has proposed a policy of regime change in Iran, after reports that al-Qaida leaders are coordinating terrorist attacks from Iran. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,962611,00.html Another too. -Mercury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 lucki: I understand you've stated you (completly unsubstantiated) opinion that Iraq was not a preemptive war. Could you please explain to me whether you believe: Iraq wasn't a war. Or, Iraq was a response (to what). . . Ax: I understand a desire for a foreign policy "We'll kick anybody's * we want, any time we feel like it, just because we can. If we happen to attack the wrong place, so what? It still sends a message. (And, nobody better object to it, either). As long as there's some kind of retaliation, somewhere, then that's good enough." After all, we've seen how well that works for the Isralis. Concerning N Korea: I can understand (and agree with) the feeling that any country that officially announces that their policy is to manufacture nukes and sell them, and to anounce that the're no longer willing to follow their promise to stop invading neighboring countries, is a country that needs to be dealt with. (And, I don't necessarily mean paying them off). I suspect (without any inside information) that the main reason we're not doing so is not because we're afraid we can't, (although, if we're not sure how China will react, then the possibility of us losing does need to be considered), but because we've been asked not to by South Korea. Since any war with the North will likely have, shall we say, consequences in the South, and since we consider them an ally, (and since, so far, these weapons are a much bigger threat to the South than they are to us), I do think they're entitled to a vote on the issue. My policy, were I President, would to be looking for some lever I can use to get China to lean on the North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 The Iraq war was a response to Saddam's support of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 I suspect (without any inside information) that the main reason we're not doing so is not because we're afraid we can't, (although, if we're not sure how China will react, then the possibility of us losing does need to be considered), Sorry Larry, you're way off base here. We could flatten North Korea in pretty short order, but the one thing holding us back is the fact that the north can drop a large amount of conventional ordinance on the south. I'm not in position to say how much, but it is a LARGE amount. Not to mention the nasty stuff they have. The amount of short term damage they could do is the only thing saving their a$$ right now. But make no mistake, north korea doesn't want any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Sarge, I don't think any single country wants "a piece of us". But what our country is looking at is the big picture... If we go in and take out N. Korea, are they going to use Nukes as a response? are others going to get involved? is WWIII going to be the result? Nukes change the picture...if Iraq had them and was able to use them, this war would have taken a different face. No single country can take us on, not even Russia, but you know, who wants to live in a world of nuclear winter and effed up mutants..?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.