Clinton attacks Bush's "irresponsibility" on Iraq

[endtyranny]

The American people were misled, but there was still enough intelligence available to everyone to know that Iraq was not a threat and war was not the answer. Unfortunately, the country was caught up in 9/11 fever and many decided to blind loyalty to the president was the most patriotic thing to do (this led to a lot of coersion and terrorizing of war critics), which it certainly wasn't. As for those who voted for it, the Republicans were falling in line as usual, and the Dems were just following the fever.

 

[Castle]

The American people were misled, but there was still enough intelligence available to everyone to know that Iraq was not a threat and war was not the answer. Unfortunately, the country was caught up in 9/11 fever and many decided to blind loyalty to the president was the most patriotic thing to do (this led to a lot of coersion and terrorizing of war critics), which it certainly wasn't. As for those who voted for it, the Republicans were falling in line as usual, and the Dems were just following the fever.

So, again we see the Iraq War viewed through a straw as if there was no history leading up to Saddam's demise other than WMDs and "911" fever.

I'm sorry that you and so many others felt misled.....although I suspect this is more political opportunism than anything else. I am perplexed that the large WMD stockpiles have not been located. If I knew nothing of the first Gulf War and the numerous UN resolutions that were never upheld or the constant attacks in the "no fly" zone, I would cling to the only thing left that would justify your position.....the absence of large WMD stockpiles. As I have no political horse in this race, I simply look at everything that brought us to Baghdad.....not just a select entry from a long list. I just can't muster up the feeling of being misled unless I ignore the plethora of information that we've all had access to for many years.

One quick question. You comment that war with Iraq was not the answer. Can you describe for us what you think would have been the answer? I'm looking for something that had not already been tried over the previous decade. Something to consider - Do you think that the US and allies would wave squabbled with Germany and/or Japan for over a decade had they decided to snub the terms of surrender after WWII as Saddam clearly did after the first Gulf War?

-Castle

 

[vyo476]

You know, I might be crazy, but for some reason I think that liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein was enough justification for invading Iraq. He was an unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictator, and we've replaced him with a popularly-elected government. Living conditions in the capital have fallen through the floor, but they're still in a transitional period; and anyway, pointing at the living conditions too much raises the question of whether or not the pointer believes totalitarianism preferable to democracy simply because a totalitarian leader offers more organization and order, or if the pointer believes that there is so much disorganization inherent in democracy that a totalitarian government is preferable.

 

[PLC1]

You know, I might be crazy, but for some reason I think that liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein was enough justification for invading Iraq. He was an unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictator, and we've replaced him with a popularly-elected government. Living conditions in the capital have fallen through the floor, but they're still in a transitional period; and anyway, pointing at the living conditions too much raises the question of whether or not the pointer believes totalitarianism preferable to democracy simply because a totalitarian leader offers more organization and order, or if the pointer believes that there is so much disorganization inherent in democracy that a totalitarian government is preferable.

Which of the world's many unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictators do you suggest we take out next?

 

[vyo476]

Which of the world's many unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictators do you suggest we take out next?

Take your pick. If he fits all those criterion I'll probably be behind it - ideologically, anyway. The money for it is another issue. Still, if a leader is all of those things - unpopular, murderous, and tyrannical - I think it would be well within our moral scope to encourage his ouster from power. With force if necessary.

 

[Castle]

Which of the world's many unpopular, murderous, tyrannical dictators do you suggest we take out next?

I take it that you are generally against taking out murderous, tyrannical dictators. As opposed to what exactly? Cultivating them, which we have also done on occasion. Guess I'd rather be accused of the former.

-Castle

 

[vyo476]

I take it that you are generally against taking out murderous, tyrannical dictators. As opposed to what exactly? Cultivating them, which we have also done on occasion. Guess I'd rather be accused of the former.

-Castle

We could also just leave them alone. Then again, "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

 

[Castle]

We could also just leave them alone. Then again, "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Ah yes......I believe Chamberlain took that approach after meeting with Hitler just prior to his march across Europe. What were his words?......"secured peace in our time." Yeah, I'm reminded of the saying "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

-Castle

 

[PLC1]

Take your pick. If he fits all those criterion I'll probably be behind it - ideologically, anyway. The money for it is another issue. Still, if a leader is all of those things - unpopular, murderous, and tyrannical - I think it would be well within our moral scope to encourage his ouster from power. With force if necessary.

Do you subscribe to the goals and ideals of the PNAC, then?

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

 

[vyo476]

Do you subscribe to the goals and ideals of the PNAC, then?

I don't agree with everything they have to say, but I do like this one:

we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad

It's on that nice little bulleted list on the link you sent me. That other stuff about promoting American interests aggressively, no, I'm not such a fan of that; I'm more a fan of replacing tyrannical regimes with free ones. The manifest function of these operations would be the liberation of oppressed populations and the establishment of free governments in their stead.

Myanmar would be a good place to start. The people there are still under the rule of a harsh and unpopular dictatorship which refuses to recognize the results of their last free election (which was all the way back in 1990, and the military regime has been denying it all this time). Economic sanctions haven't worked, largely because other Asian nations have refused to cut ties and stop doing business in and with the military Myanmar government.

They already have a large peace movement which would be highly beneficial in establishing a new government after an invasion by us to ouster the military dictators. If we were to help them update their infrastructure a bit they could get their economy back on track again too. The people of Myanmar have nothing but government cruelty to live on right now; with a few changes and a helping hand from the USA they could go back to being one of the richest nations in Southeast Asia.

There are, of course, problems with the whole thing. The Chinese are opposed to any regime change ideas in Myanmar because the present government of Myanmar is taking kickbacks to allow the Chinese to basically strip-mine the whole country (using Burmese citizens as slave labor, by the way). We'd have to find a way to politically navigate around China before invading Myanmar, but that's what we have diplomats for. I think they could be persuaded, especially if we can get them cut in on the modernization of the infrastructure.

But I suppose you wouldn't want to help this country in need. You'd let them sit there and starve as the tyrants calling themselves "the government" live fat off foreign money, let them sit and watch as their country's natural wealth and beauty is stripped and sent abroad, let them languish in injustice as the armed forces of their nation violently keeps them in "their place." If a self-styled revolution were possible they would have done it by now. They need our help.

 

[vyo476]

Ah yes......I believe Chamberlain took that approach after meeting with Hitler just prior to his march across Europe. What were his words?......"secured peace in our time." Yeah, I'm reminded of the saying "those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

-Castle

An outstanding point. We're almost (but not quite) as much to blame for Hitler as Chamberlain and his French counterpart (whose name escapes me - it wasn't Petain or de Gaulle at that point). America stuck its collective head in the sand after WWI and especially after the Crash of 29, relegating our nation, which was at that point becoming one of the most powerful in the world, to isolationist status. The only thing we were hiding from in the end was the truth.

 

[PLC1]

I don't agree with everything they have to say, but I do like this one:

It's on that nice little bulleted list on the link you sent me. That other stuff about promoting American interests aggressively, no, I'm not such a fan of that; I'm more a fan of replacing tyrannical regimes with free ones. The manifest function of these operations would be the liberation of oppressed populations and the establishment of free governments in their stead.

Myanmar would be a good place to start. The people there are still under the rule of a harsh and unpopular dictatorship which refuses to recognize the results of their last free election (which was all the way back in 1990, and the military regime has been denying it all this time). Economic sanctions haven't worked, largely because other Asian nations have refused to cut ties and stop doing business in and with the military Myanmar government.

They already have a large peace movement which would be highly beneficial in establishing a new government after an invasion by us to ouster the military dictators. If we were to help them update their infrastructure a bit they could get their economy back on track again too. The people of Myanmar have nothing but government cruelty to live on right now; with a few changes and a helping hand from the USA they could go back to being one of the richest nations in Southeast Asia.

There are, of course, problems with the whole thing. The Chinese are opposed to any regime change ideas in Myanmar because the present government of Myanmar is taking kickbacks to allow the Chinese to basically strip-mine the whole country (using Burmese citizens as slave labor, by the way). We'd have to find a way to politically navigate around China before invading Myanmar, but that's what we have diplomats for. I think they could be persuaded, especially if we can get them cut in on the modernization of the infrastructure.

But I suppose you wouldn't want to help this country in need. You'd let them sit there and starve as the tyrants calling themselves "the government" live fat off foreign money, let them sit and watch as their country's natural wealth and beauty is stripped and sent abroad, let them languish in injustice as the armed forces of their nation violently keeps them in "their place." If a self-styled revolution were possible they would have done it by now. They need our help.

Well, you have described yet another despicable, tyrannical government that needs to be overturned. There are a lot more, of course. Yet more questions remain, among them:

1. With the difficulties you described being posed by China, why start with Myanmar?

2. Who appointed the US to decide which governments around the world need to be replaced by force of arms?

3. Does the US government possess the wisdom, the patience, and the power to replace tyrannical governments around the world?

 

[vyo476]

Well, you have described yet another despicable, tyrannical government that needs to be overturned. There are a lot more, of course. Yet more questions remain, among them:

1. With the difficulties you described being posed by China, why start with Myanmar?

2. Who appointed the US to decide which governments around the world need to be replaced by force of arms?

3. Does the US government possess the wisdom, the patience, and the power to replace tyrannical governments around the world?

1. Perhaps you have another in mind...? I picked Myanmar because it is as textbook an example of what I'm talking about as anything I could come up with. Yes, there are difficulties - but there would always be difficulties. If you're looking for a perfect transition from tyranny to freedom I suggest you don't look at history, because it has never happened and never will.

2. You know, you're right. No one appointed America to be the global police agency. Instead of doing everything within our power to help oppressed people where we see them, we should sit quietly behind our own borders and play with all of our money. That sounds like fun.

3. Not at present, but any administration with that plan would hopefully also have the wisdom patience, and power to do so. If we'd dedicate ourselves to this idea than I think we could make it work.

Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist. Maybe I'm too willing to spend other peoples' money for the benefit of foreigners. Still, I think that America has fought too many times outside its basic principles and its time we showed that we really do stand for something.

 

[PLC1]

1. Perhaps you have another in mind...? I picked Myanmar because it is as textbook an example of what I'm talking about as anything I could come up with. Yes, there are difficulties - but there would always be difficulties. If you're looking for a perfect transition from tyranny to freedom I suggest you don't look at history, because it has never happened and never will.

Maybe we should go all the way and take out North Korea?

If we don't look at history, we are doomed to repeat it. You're right that a perfect transition from tyranny to freedom has never happened and never will, especially if freedom is imposed from without by force of arms. Perhaps we will learn that lesson eventually in Iraq.

2. You know, you're right. No one appointed America to be the global police agency. Instead of doing everything within our power to help oppressed people where we see them, we should sit quietly behind our own borders and play with all of our money. That sounds like fun.

Or, maybe we should admit that other people should be in control of their own destiny. We can help, perhaps, through foreign aid and the Peace Corps, but we aren't helping when we try to impose a pax americana on the rest of the world.

3. Not at present, but any administration with that plan would hopefully also have the wisdom patience, and power to do so. If we'd dedicate ourselves to this idea than I think we could make it work.

Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist. Maybe I'm too willing to spend other peoples' money for the benefit of foreigners. Still, I think that America has fought too many times outside its basic principles and its time we showed that we really do stand for something.

We can show that through example, not through force of arms.

Maybe one day we'll elect a government with the wisdom to actually accomplish some of what you have suggested. Personally, I'm not so much of an optimist when it comes to the competency of government.

 

[vyo476]

Or, maybe we should admit that other people should be in control of their own destiny.

That's the problem. The people of Myanmar are not in control of their own destinies and all the sanctions we've come up with have failed to unseat the military dictatorship. If it were possible for them to rise up against their oppressors they'd have done it by now. I'm not talking about shoving democracy down the throats of people who don't want it, I'm talking about doing what we can to support democracy in countries that have demonstrated a desire for freedom but are oppressed by horrible, totalitarian regimes.