ASF's Kernel of Truth: Neoconservative Evils

[Ax]

Larry, your assessment of was thoughts were a little off. You think I meant;

"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.

When in reality I meant;

"We'll kick anybody's a$$ necessary, every time we have to, just because we must. When we attack countries that sponsor, promote, and support terrorism, there is no wrong place. That IS the message. (Your either with us, or your against us) As long as there is some kind of retaliation, against terrorist somewhere, then that's good enough. Until they're all dead."

And the Israelis have had to restrain themselves. My point is it's time for all of us to take off the gloves.

A lot of people say they want certain things, but are not prepared to do what it takes to get it done.

One other thing, a lesson I learned as a young man growing up. If at any time, you believed someone was about to sucker punch you, you made sure you hit them first. Every time. You might call it a preemptive strike.

[Sarge]

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.

Code,

We are not going to nuke anyone. Just isn't in the cards, unless we get nuked, then all bets are off. The idea here is the domino theory of communism, except we will apply it not to spread communism but to get rid of governments and leaders that don't know how to live in a civilized world. Iraq was just a roadbump in the road to this plan. Iran is the key to the middle east, and has been for years. They fund a large amount of the terrorist crap that goes on. They have been stirring the pot in Lebannon and with the palestinians for years. Once they are out of the way and a new government is in place (This is going to happen anyway, we just need to speed it up before they aqquire usable nukes), the rest of the piss ant countries (Syria, Saudia Arabia) will be left swinging in the wind and will either clean up their acts or face the whirlwind. Then, we will be free to deal with north korea, one way or another.

[Larry]

Unfortunately, at least in the world I grew up in, the concept of assaulting someone and claiming self-defense required a little bit more in the way of "probable cause" than "you believed someone was about to" attack you.

The world, mostly, seems willing to conceede the possibility that preemptive war might, on occasion, be necessary. The questions are as to the degree and the immediacy of the threat you are striking against. If we'd found a bunch of tents with a sign at the front gate labled "Al-Qeada Training Command", with an easal set up at the front of the room labled "Instructions: Arming the Mk 1 Fission Device", and with working arming panels and training props, I think most of the world would agree that we weren't obligated to wait for a weapon to be detonated or lose our membership in the "gentlemanly warfare club".

OTOH, if the only evidence you're willing to admit to is that once, 7-8 years ago, an Al-Qeda sympathiser (not even an actual member) met once with a member of Saddam's cabinet, and discussed unknown items; and evidence that suggests that the Iraqi government has been trying to develop weapons (which we've had for 20 years, and which every country in the UN is also trying to develop), then it's tough to convince people that we had no option other than an immediate, outright, conquering of another country, because our very survival was at stake.

(If we use the same standard of evidence concerning a link between Iraq and Al-Qeda, then it's also accurate to say that there's a link between George W and Hammas: That professor from south Florida has twice met with George (at a fundraiser), and was a known Hammas sympathizer. Would Israel be justified in invading and conquering our country (assuming they could), based on this link?)

To use a different perspective, American justice also recognizes the concept of preemptive self-defense. But, if you kill your neighbor in his home, you'd better expect to go to trial, and you'll have to prove that he was about to attack you, right that minute. (Claiming that you think he was working towards, eventually, having the ability to attack you, but you won't reveal your evidence, doesn't work very often with juries.)

And, as to the claim that I should trust my President: I think I'd have been willing to simply go on trust if we'd suddenly, with no warning (or, no warning visable at my level) invaded Iraq, and Bush had then addressed the nation and said that the attack had been absolutely necessary, apologised for not going through channels, but he had just received evidence that convinced him that this action was essential for our nation, and had to be conducted Right Now. I certainly hope that my President knows more than I do, and one reason we have a President is so somebody can make quick decisions when they're needed.

I have a problem with the concept that this war was Absolutely Essential, but we had time to spend two years getting ready for it.

I have a problem with the announcements that we've got evidence of state-sponsored terrorism going back 15 years, but none of this evidence (even the 15-year-old stuff) can be revealed. (And, I think a link needs to be a lot better than just one nation speaking politely to a group we don't like: If you don't have, say, a truckload of military weapons being transferred by a guy who's acting on orders, then all you've got is evidence that sometimes things get stolen.)

Granted, sugh things are really hard to prove. (Unless you've got some magic gizmo, or your oppoment is really dumb, or the opposion has a leak. And, even leaks are sometimes wrong, or outright fabrication). But, it's tough to claim that you don't need any evidence at all.

I have a problem with the fact that, even after the war is "over", (but, we won't say it's over, because then we'd have to comply with the Geneva Conventions), this administration can't seem to come up with one, clear, reason why we did it. (They keep trying different reasons to see which one the people're buying this week).

(And, we haven't even started on how this "war" is being fought against the Constitution.)

[Sarge]

Unfortunately, at least in the world I grew up in, the concept of assaulting someone and claiming self-defense required a little bit more in the way of "probable cause" than "you believed someone was about to" attack you.

The world, mostly, seems willing to conceede the possibility that preemptive war might, on occasion, be necessary. The questions are as to the degree and the immediacy of the threat you are striking against. If we'd found a bunch of tents with a sign at the front gate labled "Al-Qeada Training Command", with an easal set up at the front of the room labled "Instructions: Arming the Mk 1 Fission Device", and with working arming panels and training props, I think most of the world would agree that we weren't obligated to wait for a weapon to be detonated or lose our membership in the "gentlemanly warfare club".

OTOH, if the only evidence you're willing to admit to is that once, 7-8 years ago, an Al-Qeda sympathiser (not even an actual member) met once with a member of Saddam's cabinet, and discussed unknown items; and evidence that suggests that the Iraqi government has been trying to develop weapons (which we've had for 20 years, and which every country in the UN is also trying to develop), then it's tough to convince people that we had no option other than an immediate, outright, conquering of another country, because our very survival was at stake.

(If we use the same standard of evidence concerning a link between Iraq and Al-Qeda, then it's also accurate to say that there's a link between George W and Hammas: That professor from south Florida has twice met with George (at a fundraiser), and was a known Hammas sympathizer. Would Israel be justified in invading and conquering our country (assuming they could), based on this link?)

To use a different perspective, American justice also recognizes the concept of preemptive self-defense. But, if you kill your neighbor in his home, you'd better expect to go to trial, and you'll have to prove that he was about to attack you, right that minute. (Claiming that you think he was working towards, eventually, having the ability to attack you, but you won't reveal your evidence, doesn't work very often with juries.)

And, as to the claim that I should trust my President: I think I'd have been willing to simply go on trust if we'd suddenly, with no warning (or, no warning visable at my level) invaded Iraq, and Bush had then addressed the nation and said that the attack had been absolutely necessary, apologised for not going through channels, but he had just received evidence that convinced him that this action was essential for our nation, and had to be conducted Right Now. I certainly hope that my President knows more than I do, and one reason we have a President is so somebody can make quick decisions when they're needed.

I have a problem with the concept that this war was Absolutely Essential, but we had time to spend two years getting ready for it.

I have a problem with the announcements that we've got evidence of state-sponsored terrorism going back 15 years, but none of this evidence (even the 15-year-old stuff) can be revealed. (And, I think a link needs to be a lot better than just one nation speaking politely to a group we don't like: If you don't have, say, a truckload of military weapons being transferred by a guy who's acting on orders, then all you've got is evidence that sometimes things get stolen.)

Granted, sugh things are really hard to prove. (Unless you've got some magic gizmo, or your oppoment is really dumb, or the opposion has a leak. And, even leaks are sometimes wrong, or outright fabrication). But, it's tough to claim that you don't need any evidence at all.

I have a problem with the fact that, even after the war is "over", (but, we won't say it's over, because then we'd have to comply with the Geneva Conventions), this administration can't seem to come up with one, clear, reason why we did it. (They keep trying different reasons to see which one the people're buying this week).

(And, we haven't even started on how this "war" is being fought against the Constitution.)

Unfortunately, your analogy of comparing the judicial system to national defense is worse than comparing apples and oranges. It renders the rest of your post invalid in the critical thinking department, but nonetheless I'll try answer some of your concerns.

Your concerns over the iraq war should no longer bother you, since it is now past tense. And we will find WMD. Bank on it.

Kicking the hell out of people takes time. We could have gone in there half-assed and gotten a bunch of people killed, but fortunately we have the luxury of time, at least for now. If the other side doesn't realize that, well, it just sucks to be them. And, if we wait too much longer, iran WILL have nuclear weapons, and that changes the whole dynamic of things. They have already proven they don't know how to act with simple explosives. If you think it's gonna be any better with nukes, you're on crack.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Larry

Unfortunately, at least in the world I grew up in, the concept of assaulting someone and claiming self-defense required a little bit more in the way of "probable cause" than "you believed someone was about to" attack you.

Great post all around, Larry.

Probably the best I've seen on this argument in any publication.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by luckydevi

The Iraq war was a response to Saddam's support of terrorism.

Also: Four legs good, two legs bad.

---------------------------------

"A few days later, when the terror caused by the executions had died down, some of the animals remembered -- or thought they remembered -- that the Sixth Commandment decreed 'No animal shall kill any other animal.' And though no one cared to mention it in the hearing of the pigs or the dogs, it was felt that the killings which had taken place did not square with this. Clover asked Benjamin to read her the Sixth Commandment, and when Benjamin, as usual, said that he refused to meddle in such matters, she fetched Muriel. Muriel read the Commandment for her. It ran: 'No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.' Somehow or other, the last two words had slipped out of the animals' memory. But they saw now that the Commandment had not been violated; for clearly there was good reason for killing the traitors who had leagued themselves with Snowball."

-- George Orwell, Animal Farm