When was the last time the “right” was right?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Tech, how many dead would be ok with you?

The level of "threat" posed by Saddam warranted zero American deaths, IMHO.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie
The level of "threat" posed by Saddam warranted zero American deaths, IMHO.

Fair enough, so our troops should only be used in the case of imminent threat (declared war, actual strikes, etc..)?

[juanbenae]

Originally posted by techweenie
Probably still isn't, actually, as Fint's head-in-the-sand post typifies all the 'thinking' you'll get from the least cerebral of the neocon crowd.http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

that's beautiful man.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Fair enough, so our troops should only be used in the case of imminent threat (declared war, actual strikes, etc..)?

Not at all.

There are plenty of situations where our troops have a reasonable expectation of success with minimal risk.

Iraq wasn't -- and isn't -- one of them.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie
Not at all.

There are plenty of situations where our troops have a reasonable expectation of success with minimal risk.

Iraq wasn't -- and isn't -- one of them.

Like what? Not arguing, just looking for your perspective on these allowable or acceptable actions.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Like what? Not arguing, just looking for your perspective on these allowable or acceptable actions.

Well, just take a look at how Bill Clinton used the troops.

Kosovo and Haiti and Macedonia turned out well, despite howls and hand-wringing and dire predictions from the neocons. Somalia? Well, we tried to do the right thing, and when we found out we were not only fighting the warlords, but the population in general, we left. There was a great hue and cry about 19 U.S. deaths, but at least we didn't compound it by continuing to throw troops in harm's way. Lots of people forget that the troops were put into Somalia in the first place by Bush. Sr.

We stayed out of Ethiopia and the Sudan, and I disagree with those decisions, since I think we could have helped, at little risk to ourselves.

As for Bush, I've always supported the about-face on Afghanistan, especially after W went from discussing a $41 million payoff to the Taliban in May of 2001 to an invasion when the Taliban wouldn't turn over OBL. I would have liked to have seen that mission (Afghanistan) accomplished before deploying significant numbers of troops in any other arena.

[rrpjr]

Originally posted by techweenie
rrpjr:

I see no real counter arguments in your statements, and there is one truly egregious mis-statment.

(edit for typos)

Tech:

Sorry I failed the standard for the counter--argument. I tried.

As for my "egregious mis-statement," if one more "fatwa" in a profusion of fatwas is supposed to mean something in particular to us or confer legitimacy on barbaric attacks, then I do not agree, and accept with resolute satisfaction my "extreme naivete." While it is always good to pay attention to the ravings of enemies, and I agree that we certainly failed our job of intelligence to decipher the enemy's intent leading up to 9/11, a fatwa does not a righteous cause make. It only makes a fatwa. Yes, perhaps the sky was not so clear and blue, but not because of the clouds of our own so-called incriminating involvement.

If what you say is true about OBL's characterization of the "oil for food" abomination, and I think it is (OBL may even be underestimating the human toll), the proper targets on 9/11 should instead have been the United Nations.

Overall I detect here the old moral equivalence argument -- all the western colonialist, imperialist sins heaped upon the middle-east etc. that are supposed to lend some explanation (or just explanation) to the attack on us. The Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal line. Nevermind that this is morally cattywhompers, it never allows the slightest room for (and in fact studiously avoids) discussion of the far greater sins heaped upon the middle-east by other middle-easterners, and by our attempt to correct some of this, or of the astonishing amount of improvements to life resulting from US technology and presence in many parts of the middle east. For every alienated rich-kid who sends young minions out to martyr themselves for his own delusionary yearnings to be the new Caliph of a savage Messopatamian empire there are thousands of children who have benefited from vaccines supplied by the evil old United States.

Maybe our good intentions are incredibly naive and we'll be routed from Iraq in total disgrace and never be able to show our heads around the world again. But, as I said earlier, a point which was totally ignored, there may -- and I suspect there is -- an historically inexorable quality to this conflict, and that we may see an even far greater, more active US military role around the world under the Hilary Clinton presidency. My prediction.

[techweenie]

Sorry if I was inappropriately dismissive of your previous post. I appreciate your response.

I think we as a nation were well aware of the power wielded by OBL at the time of his '98 fatwah -- that it wasn't just another 'missing child' flyer in our mailbox.

I still think it's dangerous to simply dismiss OBL's statements as 'ravings.' If only because they are significant to perhaps 800 million to a billion of the planet's inhabitants.

I do not think there is 'moral equivalence' between the killing of 100,000+ and the killing of 3,000.

As for OBL's "appropriate target" well, everything the UN does is at the behest of the Security Council of which the US is one of five permanent members. The US was seen as the driving force behind the initial invasion of Iraq, and as the prime mover in Oil for Food.

I'm not justifying OBL's actions. I'm simply saying that it makes no sense to keep repeating "madman" as if it was the whole answer.

As for your own 'moral equivalence' counterargument -- the one that says the middle easterners are harder on each other than we (the West) have been to them, well, don't you think generations of internecine tribal war have pretty much proven that the punishment is being shared?

As for the vaccine argument, well, that's a good one. Maybe if those 100,000 or so children hadn't starved to death in Iraq, they could have been saved later.

Western influence is a two-edged sword. It comes with medicine and with technology and with pop culture. To some extent, it's the reaction against Western pop culture that is reinvigorating Islamic fundamentalism. So that now, even Iran, a country that [under the Shah] was 'progressive' in the context of its neighbors has elected a leader that tilts back toward the Ayatolla Khomeini regime in terms of fundamentalist totalitarianism.

The world of the middle east is one where we have little chance of doing good. And even our actions with the best intent have unintended consequences (i.e., our support/abandoment of the Mujahadeen creates al Quaeda).

In my opinion, the only appropriate stance to take with the middle east is containment. But it's too late for that. We're in for years. fighting against people we cannot discern from civilians -- because they are civilians. Fighting against people who want to kill us, but who only reveal their intent whan they take action. Can you say "Vietnam?"

BTW, Hillary will not be President.

[RoninLB]

I always figured that an "insurgency" needed domestic popular support like in Cuba or China. I never realized that an invasion force of Iraq's citizen killers would be supported by so many US citizens? Especially 'cause they're not being supported by Iraq citizens. I guess the fact that free Iraqis are making slow political and military gains is bad? And the fact that terrorists are gaining power in DC is good? The Rep Sen from Neb didn't exactly explain it that way but he stated "we're losing in Iraq". I further figure that the next few months of drafting an Iraq constitution, then a vote on that constitution, then a Dec election for a permanent gov't will be a waste of time.. just like last Jan's election would lead to failure.

[jkarolyi]

rrpjr, your first post was eloquently written and well thought out, and these lefty peaceniks haven't really responded to any of your points.

What really prompted me to respond was the fact that you are from LA, the capital of the Liberal People's Republic of California. Glad to hear there is at least one other sane-thinking person left in LA.

[rrpjr]

jkarolyi: thanks. It is not yet as bad here as it is in Berkeley (where I occasionally visit and get into arguments). Check out David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture in LA, if you haven't already.

[fintstone]

Sheesh, weenie, the wars that the liberals have gotten us into in the past have cost more American lives in a single day than the have been lost in both Iraq wars combined. If you consider Clinton's bombing our old allies in Yugoslavia a couple of days, bombing an asprin factory in the middle east or the cluster f**cks in Haiti or Somalia to be some sort of high water marks in the use of the military....LOL They were litttle more than publicity stunts.......in fact, Bin Laden himself cited Billy's fecklessness in Somalia as inspiration for his fatwa. In each serious matter...Iran, Iraq, N. Korea....and when Bin laden was offered up on a silver platter.....Billy blinked. Now we are stuck with much bigger problems as a result.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
....
Probably still isn't, actually, as Fint's head-in-the-sand post typifies all the 'thinking' you'll get from the least cerebral of the neocon crowd.
...

The difference is that I and many others work very hard every day to end our action in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism throughout the world and to prevent more deaths of our soldiers in the field while you provide the enemy as much moral support as possible...while you feign concern over the "soldier's plight." Clearly you are choking on the bitter grapes of your pitiful (Jane Fonda inspired) liberal cause and it's inability to find a person with an iota of leadership or honor to run for office which you attempt to pass off as legitimate concern for the cost of war..... it is your cerebrum that is in the wrong place.

[techweenie]

Glad to see your posts are still unsullied by fact, Fint.

What wars have liberals gotten us into in the past?

What war has cost 1800+ American lives in a day?

Bombing the former Yugoslavia cost how many American lives? None.

Bombing a WMD factory only to find it made aspirin still upsets you? It was just a small scale precursor to attacking an entire country only to find no WMDs. No American lives lost vs. 1750+ American lives lost... so far.

Haiti went pretty well, in case your handlers didn't tell you. No American lives lost, and we did some good.

Somalia? Well, Bush1 put us there, and after 19 Americans were killed, Clinton pulled us out.

That story about OBL 'being served up on a platter' is just that -- a story repeated endlessly by the right wing propaganda machine. Never happened.

And what has W done to get rid of OBL? Well, he did topple the Taliban, but he didn't get OBL, and in invading Iraq, gave OBL his biggest recruiting campaign, ever.

Could Clinton have done something more to head off this mess? Well, when he tried, the neocons laughed it off. I'm willing to bet that to this day, W has not fired off more ordnance than Clinton did in attempting to kill OBL.

The neocons had 200 FBL agents investigating his old real estate deals and bimbos. Imagine what those guys could have contributed if they'd been out looking for terrorist cells, instead.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by techweenie
I'm willing to bet that to this day, W has not fired off more ordnance than Clinton did in attempting to kill OBL.

For "W" that would be like killing the cow that gives the milk. Why would GWB want OBL confirmed dead or captured? The fact that he is out there is fueling his neo-con agenda.

[speeder]

Originally posted by fintstone
The difference is that I and many others work very hard every day to end our action in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism throughout the world and to prevent more deaths of our soldiers in the field

Just wanted to let you know that you are doing a horse***** job of it then, all of these things are going seriously in the wrong direction.

[Moneyguy1]

fint..respectfully; are you really that full of yourself?

Look, I am not totally committed one way or the other; comments are made that cannot be proven (you make them too), and people who question or disagree are automatically called "unAmerican" or "giving aid to the terrorists" or worse. Ain't necessarily so, friend. There is always room for honest disagreement among rational people. Baiting the "loyal opposition" is a low and dispicable approach, proven to work very well in politics, practiced by every political party that has ever existed.


I sit here sometimes like the proverbial "fly on the wall" and would laugh if these set-in-concrete mindsets weren't so dangerous on all sides. But instead, I simply shake my head and hope some posters are actually "having fun" taking extreme positions to see what happens.

Now please do not disappoint me. Throw some insults and invectives my way. I probably deserve them since I am not a "true believer".

[techweenie]

Originally posted by speeder
Just wanted to let you know that you are doing a horse***** job of it then, all of these things are going seriously in the wrong direction.

Boy howdy. Either we are fighting people who want us our of their country, or using our soldiers as 'bait' to pull would-be terrorists our of all the surrounding region to attack. I wonder how much influence the U.S. presence in Iraq had on making the Iranian election results swing the way they did?

BTW, when I see people claim 'they're doing all they can to support our troops' it usually means they put a bumpersticker on their car.

"It's the least I can do to support our troops."

"My point exactly."

Anyone really working to support our troops should be working to reverse the Bush administration's draconican policy of VA cuts.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by techweenie
What wars have liberals gotten us into in the past?

uhhhhh, Viet Nam, Korea, WWII...

Originally posted by techweenie
What war has cost 1800+ American lives in a day?

uhhhhh, Viet Nam, Korea, WWII...

geeze man, just how tight have you closed your eyes?

Randy

[Moneyguy1]

Randy:

All three of the wars you mentioned had far different reasons for happening. Whereas I will not argue the merits of 'Nam and Korea except to "stop the spread of the Red Menace" of the day, and we came to the aid of countries with which we had agreements of mutual aid, but WWII? Did I miss something in history class? Was it the US that attacked the Japanese fleet in Tokyo Harbor? Did the US declare war on Hitler (hint...Germany declared war on us)

Ahhh, revisionist history. So that's it!!


"Tell the same lie over and over with enough conviction and it will eventually become the truth" A.H.