Rodchester Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 We went there for the WMD, but we could not find any! ... bait and switch ... My recollection is that the Administration cited many reasons, but they ran with the WMD because it stuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erf Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 "The fact that this goal has been stated, and continues to be stated, has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone for that matter, is a supporter of the war or of Bush. It is a fact that it is the Administration’s stated intention. Now, whether or not it succeeds or whether or not that was just a lie remains to be seen. I cannot understand how you extrapolate that this makes me a Bush cheerleader." Very simple, here: "But to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well,let's just say an interesting brush stroke". You are plainly suggesting that Bush's intent are to be taken at face value and certainly not lies. Or is it that, like Peter Puget you have you own special dictionary that nobody knows you are using? "I take it this is a politically partisan discussion for you?" And what are you? a political scientist who does not do politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erf Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) My recollection is that the Administration cited many reasons, but they ran with the WMD because it stuck. Nation building could not have been the primary motive for intervention: the public as well as traditional conservatives would not have gone for it. Rattling the "unique and urgent" threat gizmo was the only way it could fly. Taking democracy to iraqis only became the priority when there were no WMD to be found and imminent danger turned out to be a lie. i.e. 'bait and switch' Edited February 10, 2004 by erf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Does that mean you are plainly suggesting that it is a lie? Do you have any proof that it is a lie, or is it a simple-simon assumption that you are making? Sure, I'm taking it a face value. How does that make me a Bush Cheerleader? Usually, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you assume they are lying? Or do you just assume Bush is a liar? "Very simple, here:" Good to see things are so simple for you. You should run for office. You'd be great at it. We'll see how the democracy thing plays out..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) "Nation building could not have been the primary motive for intervention:" I didn't say it was even a motive. I was discusing democracy. The term nation building is so iften misused and misunderstood (blame the media mostly). Bringing democracy to a multi-national state (Iraq) is not nation building. There are many multi-national states that are democratic. Edited February 10, 2004 by Rodchester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erf Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Now, now, remember, you are supposed to be the political scientist; somehow 50+ years of meddling in the Middle East does not even enter into consideration when you assess the chance that our actions in Iraq are to further democracy. It seems to be a common trait of people who claim the mantle of objectivity to ignore history. Feel free to offer any available supporting evidence past or present that we are in Iraq to establish democracy (in our actions not words) And yes, it is very simple. Your comment to the effect that Bush's statement is to be taken strictly at face value is at best an exhibition of lack of critical thinking and at worse regurgitation of the party line (note: the result is the same). Now if you feel that I am misrepresenting what you said, you should explain how that is so. Just asserting it won't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) When did I say I was a political scientist? Isaid I am a student of law and NSPS...you dolt. Why are you misrepresenting what I said? Or do you not know the difference betwen Pol. Sci. and NSPS? when you assess the chance that our actions in Iraq are to further democracy. If you read my posts, I stated clearly that failure is quite possible. Misrepresentation? Further, I stated that this was a stated goal of the administration. I also observed that it could be something that they would actually try to do and that we need to wait and see. Feel free to offer any available supporting evidence past or present that we are in Iraq to establish democracy (in our actions not words) Evidence? Past? It hasn't even been a year yet... Boy, its obvious that you're a North American. I bet you want it now. Gimme gimme gimme. Your comment to the effect that Bush's statement is to be taken strictly at face value Who said strictly? Misrepresenting? You seem to embrace the Bush doctrine of they're either with you, or against you. Sorry, I'm not totally with either. Your simple simon assumptions are so partisan. Man I'll just join one of the parties and tow the line because if I disagree with you at all, I must be in the other camp...only two camps in that bi-polar world you got there? So since I'm not in your camp, what camp am I in. tell me which party line I am regurgitating. Edited February 10, 2004 by Rodchester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Someone explain something to me. The insurgents who are fighting us are said to be a combination of Saddam loyalists and Al Queda terrorists. I can see why Al Queda is fighting us. They don't really care why we are there or what we are doing, they will attack the US whereever they can. Now consider the Saddam loyalists. They are Sunni's primarily. If they succeed in driving the US out, they must figure that they can regain control of the entire country and again dominate the Shiites. This seems like a very unlikely event now that the country has been disarmed. What if the US gave in to Sistani's demand for direct elections before we pulled out? The Sunnis would lose out big time. Would the Sunnis rebel en mass? It seems as though the most logical thing for the Sunnis to do is to help the US create an orderly transition. The sunnis involved in the insurgency are fighting in effect to be dominated by the Shiites. They are fighting their protector. It's not logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 CBS: My take on it is as follows: The Arab Sunnis (not the Kurd Sunnis) are MOST likley fighting for a two main reasons, to keep power (not share it with Shites), and fear of the Shites gaining power (the Shites conducting retribution against the Arab Sunnis). While I believe that there are some Al Queda there, I think that they are numberically not the majority of the opposition. However, it is likely that they are recruiting as many former soldiers (big mistake by Bush to disband the Army) and also from the disenfranchised Shites, in otherwords, those that are likely to buy into the Islamic Fundalmentalist junk. I also think they are recruiting in the West Bank and the Palastinian slums of Oman. The thoery is USUALLY that a constitution with an outline not only of the governmental powers, but also the rights of individuals is laid out. Further, a proportional representation system (like a parliment) can be used to ensure that each group and nation gets some level of representation. This is what I said earlier that it may (assuming it ever happens at all) not look like a Jeffersonian democracy. If this is set up, it could work. But of course this is all lies and none of this will happen...because according to ERF, I can show him that it hasn't happened already. Lies, lies, lies. But you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erf Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 You want to play squirmy with me? okay, i'll play along this once. When did I say I was a political scientist? Isaid I am a student of law and NSPS...you dolt. Why are you misrepresenting what I said? Or do you not know the difference betwen Pol. Sci. and NSPS? This is what you said: "I am a student of law, National Security Policy, military history, and my favorite topic, nations. I actually hold degrees in National Security (focused in nations) and law." So what does it make you if not some kind of political scientist? If you read my posts, I stated clearly that failure is quite possible. Misrepresentation? Further, I stated that this was a stated goal of the administration. I also observed that it could be something that they would actually try to do and that we need to wait and see. You mentioned possible failure after the fact (god forbid that we may not even be trying). You don't mention failure anywhere in post #307892, which initiated this exchange (fact picked up by Mattp as well). We could also wait for 10 years of occupation and see what opportunities iraqis have to determine their own political system and economy but I'd rather give them the opportunity, yesterday, before everything is set in stone according to our agenda and their resources squandered. Evidence? Past? It hasn't even been a year yet... You mean, we started relating to Iraq a year ago or that our current actions favor democracy (freedom of the press, elections, etc ...)? Are you saying we have no history in the Middle East. I ought to suggest some different reading material for you. Boy, its obvious that you're a North American. I bet you want it now. Gimme gimme gimme. Sure let's wait for Bush to hand the pieces to his croonies and big business, that will be a sound basis for 'democracy'. Actually let's give Bush another four years so that we can invade Syria and whatnot. Who said strictly? Misrepresenting? Did you formulate any other possibility than taking Bush's statement at face value? no. Did you suggest that not believing his stated intent was wrong? yes. I think, 'strictly' is pretty applicable. You seem to embrace the Bush doctrine of they're either with you, or against you. Sorry, I'm not totally with either. I am glad I can help you identify yourself as a Bush apologist. Don't mention it, you are welcome. Your simple simon assumptions are so partisan. If saying that Bush is lying about establishing democracy in Iraq is a "simple simon assumption" what does giving him the benefit of the doubt amounts to in light of his record, and our continued meddling with Middle East politics? You make me think of the "liberal media", regurgitate the party line without critical analysis and present it as 'objective' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Ok, so do we see a pattern of deception surrounding the Bush administration's justifications for war? Take a look at a comparison of a previously classified version of reports on Iraq's weapons versus the public version of same. Note how in some cases, e.g, biological weapons, that the previously classified version of the reports indicates uncertainty, while the public version is hyped to reinforce a scenairo representing a more certain 'imminent' threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) Who's squirming? So you don't know the difference between Pol. Sci and NSPS. No problem. And when MattP picked up that fact I addressed it...so what is wrong with that? I don't hear MattP complaining. Further, your challenging me for evidence of Bush's intentions in trying to bring democracy to Iraq have nothing to do with past history. Recall we were talking about the Bush administration's intentions on the democracy issue...remember that one? That has been going on for about a year, not much more likley even less. Certainly not much of a history. What's that about misrepresentation? Did you formulate any other possibility than taking Bush's statement at face value? no. Did you suggest that not believing his stated intent was wrong? yes. I think, 'strictly' is pretty applicable. All that I said was that I take it at face value and wait to see what happens. In fact, what I said was: ERF: Well, one of Bush's stated goal/intentions at the very beginning, and that has always stayed roughly the same, has been to eventually bring some form of democracy to Iraq. The fact that this goal has been stated, and continues to be stated, has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone for that matter, is a supporter of the war or of Bush. It is a fact that it is the Administration’s stated intention. Now, whether or not it succeeds or whether or not that was just a lie remains to be seen. I cannot understand how you extrapolate that this makes me a Bush cheerleader. I take it this is a politically partisan discussion for you? In this communication directed to you I specifically acknowledge that it being a lie is possibility. Squirm, squirm. Did you formulate any other possibility other than Bush lied about democracy? Squirm, squirm. Did you suggest that not believing his stated intent was correct? yes. So does this mean I'm a Bush cheerleader? Otherwise I'd like to say that many of you have engaged in some fairly interesting debate and exchange of ideas herein. To you, MattP and Norm nad telenut, CBS, and many others. Edited February 11, 2004 by Rodchester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Regarding establishment of democracy: ---The record is clear--most of the democratic transitions that have taken place in the world in the past two centuries have had nothing to do with foreign military intervention or military pressure, while most US military interventions abroad have left dictatorship, not democracy, in their wake. The two cases that neocons constantly return to, Germany and Japan, are among the few cases where democracy has been restored (not created ex nihilo) as the result of a US invasion. The Soviet bloc democratized itself from within in the 1990s, even though the United States did not bomb Moscow, impose a martial-law governor on the Poles or imprison former Hungarian Communist officials without charges in barbed-wire camps. In Latin America, Mexico became a multiparty democracy instead of a one-party dictatorship without US Marines posing for photos in the presidential mansion in Mexico City, and it was not necessary for American soldiers to kill tens of thousands of Argentines, Chileans and Brazilians for democracy to take root in those countries.--- Source Regarding deception in Bush administration to justify war: ---The cynical way in which the Bush Administration lied to Congress and the American people to justify an invasion of Iraq planned years before September 11, 2001, by Wolfowitz and many of his PNAC allies came as no surprise to me, a former neocon. In an anthology titled The Fettered Presidency published by the American Enterprise Institute in 1989, Irving Kristol wrote that "if the president goes to the American people and wraps himself in the American flag and lets Congress wrap itself in the white flag of surrender, the president will win.... The American people had never heard of Grenada. There was no reason why they should have. The reason we gave for the intervention--the risk to American medical students there--was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on, but they backed the president. They always will."--- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Stonehead: You are correct, but keep it in context. Very few times was the goal to turn the country into a democratic country. The goal was usually local or regional stability. The stability was usually acheived through the mechanism of what ever strongman we could drudge up. A truely bad policy that usually did not acheive the goal of stability. Korea worked its way into one, after many years of problems, corruption, and coups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erf Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 You are correct, but keep it in context. Very few times was the goal to turn the country into a democratic country. The goal was usually local or regional stability. "stability" is a convenient euphemism for "conform with US interest" The stability was usually acheived through the mechanism of what ever strongman we could drudge up. A truely bad policy that usually did not acheive the goal of stability. And what makes you think it is any different now? You must surely think so since you are giving Bush the benefit of the doubt .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Yes, I understand the goal of political-economic stability but at what price if imposed from without? A temporary stability imposed by a strongman (and his secret police) can often 'blowback'. The classic example of 'blowback' was the fall of the Shah of Iran. Our 'spooks' assisted in the Shah's ascendancy of power so we received the 'fallout' of his disposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 "Blowback" is just another pop word of the moment. Actions have always had consequences there is nothing new about that. I would also suggest that the countries of eastern europe achieved their freedom after a long conflict in which the US was on the winning side - the cold war. After the second significant surprise attack on the US (Pearl Harbor) the US entered into a long period of conflict with europe at the center of US policy. The stakes were so high in Europe that most of the actual combat occured in other parts of the globe. But in every case one of (and often the) the primary questions of international relations during this time was "what is the impact on the situation in europe." After 9/11 Bush has created a policy in which europe is no longer the center of the worlds attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) Edited February 11, 2004 by chucK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tele_nut Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Erf, What's the solution from the safety of your couch? Clue us in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tele_nut Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The American people had never heard of Grenada. There was no reason why they should have. The reason we gave for the intervention--the risk to American medical students there--was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on, but they backed the president. They always will."--- Here is yet another example of what I keep trying to interject into this debate. Once again someone is quoting sources when they really have no clue about the realities of the actual event. You're presenting BOGUS information. I personally work or have worked with dozens of Grenada veterans who were on the ground in various capacities. One example is Steve Trujillo who was awarded the Silver Star with V device for his actions at Calivigny Barracks. I have also spoken with 4 star General Abazaid (CENTCOM CG) about the Ranger Regiments refusal to allow Hollywood to use the actual unit that participated in the infamous tractor incident on Point Salines DZ. Instead they substituted some fictitious USMC unit who did not participate in the airfield raid whatsoever. The students at Point Salines were indeed real (not fabricated) and were incredibly grateful for the rescue affected by the combined Task Force from Ranger Regiment, 82nd ABN, DELTA/SEAL (DEV GROUP/CAG), and USMC elements. The Cubans were onsite building the largest military runway outside of Cuba itself. Somehow, now years after the fact this obscure, yet important military operation is being quoted by someone as being fabricated? I call bullshit on that one. If you guys really want to know whats going on over here, get off the couch, turn off Communist News Network, and get on a plane. I'll personally pick you up and give you the guided tour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 TeleNut: That is so funny that you know about that. I was in the 504 PIR shortly after Grenada (the live-fire ARTEP). A writer had spent lots of time with the unit supposedly writing a script on Grenada. It was sold to the Army as a story about the evolution of the Army from Vietnam to Grenada told through the eyes of an old veteran. The Army saw the script and shit, and the USMC said sure we’ll do it. It wasn't just the Ranger Regiment that was pissed off. As far as the stability isue goes. All that I said was that historically stability, as opposed to democracy, was the goal. Also pointed out previously is that MANY, including NeoCons and lefties, believe that democracies don't fight each other. One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability. One historical point that suggests possible failure is Vietnam. Many point to the early attempts at democracy in South Vietnam and say that its failure is Iraq's future. They usually assert that without some history of democracy it cannot (or is at least unlikely to) succeed. It is important to understand that the success and/or failure of the democracy issue simply cannot be gauged in the short time that has passed. It’s like asking if you've won the marathon in the first mile. I guess if you drop out of the race, it can be answered as a failure. But for now the race is on. I'm watching...and according to some here I'm a cheerleader!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I call bullshit on that one. Well, I call bullshit on everything. And, I question your ability to think beyond your preconceived notions. Now you can get mad and take that personally or you can see it as a legitimate criticism. That particular quote is not necessarily about a specific fact. The intent is not to get bogged down in endless bantering about the intricate details of a military excursion. The whole point is how the publicly expressed motivation for going to war is skewed to sway the public opinion. If the real reason concerns the construction of a large runway by Cubans (as we constructed a similar runway in Honduras in the 80’s), then why all this BS about some humanitarian mission to save some stranded medical students threatened by anarchy and communism? Look—if it’s Jack Nicholson’s character shouting, “You can’t handle the truth!” or if it’s real live character, Col. Ollie North testifying, “Covert actions are necessary to maintain a viable democracy.”—it’s the same goddamn thing. Also, there was no failure of intelligence regarding Iraq. The information was available but was conflicting at times or not conclusive. The decisions were not made in a vacuum absent of information. The issue was the method of developing further intelligence. Bush and friends were chomping at the bit to rush to war and they saw an opportunity to act while the people were under the sway of 9/11. You see, what if we had waited and the intelligence indicated that no imminent threat existed from Iraq? It was a misrepresentation of intelligence, just as William Casey misrepresented the threat of the USSR to justify the huge arms increase under Reagan’s watch. The fall of the Soviet Union was foreseen but the actual state of its affairs was grossly depicted as a real bogeyman. How could anyone alive in 1984 forget a movie like Red Dawn? So, this is what the world is actually like? Governments will always deceive or manipulate the people. Right, for their own good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 "So, this is what the world is actually like? Governments will always deceive or manipulate the people. Right, for their own good." The heart of darkness..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 TeleNut: That is so funny that you know about that. I was in the 504 PIR shortly after Grenada (the live-fire ARTEP). A writer had spent lots of time with the unit supposedly writing a script on Grenada. It was sold to the Army as a story about the evolution of the Army from Vietnam to Grenada told through the eyes of an old veteran. The Army saw the script and shit, and the USMC said sure we’ll do it. It wasn't just the Ranger Regiment that was pissed off. As far as the stability isue goes. All that I said was that historically stability, as opposed to democracy, was the goal. Also pointed out previously is that MANY, including NeoCons and lefties, believe that democracies don't fight each other. One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability. One historical point that suggests possible failure is Vietnam. Many point to the early attempts at democracy in South Vietnam and say that its failure is Iraq's future. They usually assert that without some history of democracy it cannot (or is at least unlikely to) succeed. It is important to understand that the success and/or failure of the democracy issue simply cannot be gauged in the short time that has passed. It’s like asking if you've won the marathon in the first mile. I guess if you drop out of the race, it can be answered as a failure. But for now the race is on. I'm watching...and according to some here I'm a cheerleader!!! I appreciate your comments as far as expanding my knowledge of national affairs, legal understandings, etc. I also share some of your beliefs, for example, regarding such things as stability. I suppose in a way it's much easier to look beyond the personalities and look beyond the pain of everyday transition and to look at things as a historical current. Where is it leading us? It's funny also to think that once democracy takes root (if it does) in the Middle East then we may be faced with potential economic competitors just as Germany and Japan posed the same dilemma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 "The classic example of 'blowback' was the fall of the Shah of Iran." No doubt about this one. A classic expamle of how to fuck it up. And intel was wrong then too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.