Whistle Blowers

[scott_harpell]

Why are you not angry about Kofi Annan's involvement in Food for Oil? What about the terrorist links of Saddam. I wonder why you are not rampaging about these humanitarian tradgedies. Because of politics? Is that it?

[chucK]

That's three times. What terrorist links of Saddam?

[slothrop]

I'm not as angry about a corrupt UN as I am about a corrupt US. The reason why should be obvious.

 

Corruption should be investigated and punished. Your trolling skills need work.

[scott_harpell]

here... also look at the other thread.

[chucK]

That's some long-winded article (Anan one) that you linked! It's really slowed down my posting, and I'm still not even to the good part. I assume there must be something damning about Anan in it eventually. Did Peter Puget forward that one to you?

 

But anyway, yeah corruption in the UN sucks too. Though AFAICT that UN scandal has not hobbled the US of A to such an extent that N Korea and Iran can thumb their noses at us with impugnity, and OPEC can keep gouging us more every day for oil.

 

Anyway, in summary: UN scandal . Complete degradation of the power of the United States of America to help ourselves in areas of great importance by bogging us down in a foolish war that will surely end up killing more Americans than 9/11 did, for little return (bad dictator put to death) .

[JayB]

That's some long-winded article (Anan one) that you linked! It's really slowed down my posting, and I'm still not even to the good part. I assume there must be something damning about Anan in it eventually. Did Peter Puget forward that one to you?

 

But anyway, yeah corruption in the UN sucks too. Though AFAICT that UN scandal has not hobbled the US of A to such an extent that N Korea and Iran can thumb their noses at us with impugnity, and OPEC can keep gouging us more every day for oil.

 

Anyway, in summary: UN scandal . Complete degradation of the power of the United States of America to help ourselves in areas of great importance by bogging us down in a foolish war that will surely end up killing more Americans than 9/11 did, for little return (bad dictator put to death) .

 

 

The "bogging-down-so-that-we-can't-threaten-the-real-bad-guys" claim is certainly an odd rejoinder from someone who would doubtlessly be amongst the first to condemn any lean towards the use of force, or the threat thereof, to deal with North Korea or Iran as a ploy executed by a cabal of elites for the benefit of a vague claque of corporate interests. The glib dissmissal of exquisitely documented corruption of this nature and magnitude in the service of Saddam Hussein's interests, while continuously repeating claims of corruption in the administration that are as yet utterly untainted by any factual evidence whatsoever - is also quite remarkable.

 

But back to Iran and North Korea. Am I to understand that you would be in favor of a land invasion of Iran to force them into compliance if it weren't for our troops being engaged in Iraq? Also - I think that the fact that Seoul is within shelling range of more than 20,000 North Korean artillery pieces - e.g. instant anhillation of most of the city - has more to do with the reluctance to engage in hostilities with North Korea than insufficient firepower on our part.

 

Another odd tack from the Left has been the criticism of the Bush administration for not excluding China, Japan, and South Korea from the negotiations concerning North Korea - and advocating -cough, cough - unilateral action to resolve the situation.

[chucK]

So JayB, do you think we have NOT been hurt by this Iraq "situation"? Do you NOT agree that we are now weaker in our negotiating positions with respect to Iran, N Korea, Pakistan, OPEC, hell just about anyone (with the exception of the Iraq "government")? Due to having our foot caught in the trap, we have countries like Poland giving us subtle crap!!

 

With benefit of 20-20 hindsight the answer seems obvious.

 

Even without the hindsight, though I doubt many foresaw the extent of the current disaster, many, including myself were against going into Iraq partly because it seemed like a poor strategic manuever. Current events have shown this to be much more true than we ever expected.

 

You know this is true, though you attempt to refute this with claims that I am stupid because I wouldn't support a land invasion of Iran? Weird.

 

And sorry to be glib about the UN scandal. I didn't say it wasn't bad. It would be nice to fix that up. Don't think we have much chance of that though now. Unfortunately, we need the UN now. We need any help we can get to relieve us from the giant mess we got ourselves into. How does it feel to be beholden to a guy like Kofi Anan because your President sucked us into a stupid war for reasons THAT STILL ARE NOT CLEAR?

 

I would think that that would burn a guy like you up. It's one thing to be supporting corruption like that. It's another to place yourself in a position (due to disregarding competent advice) where you are going to have to suck up to a slimeball like that.

[John Frieh]

“Stand out firmly for Justice as witness before God, even against yourselves, against your kin and against your parents, against people who are rich or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or desires lest you deviate from Justice. Remember, God is the best of Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do.”

 

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

[slothrop]

Another odd tack from the Left has been the criticism of the Bush administration for not excluding China, Japan, and South Korea from the negotiations concerning North Korea - and advocating -cough, cough - unilateral action to resolve the situation.

 

Your tirades would be more interesting if you didn't wander off into criticisms of imaginary positions held by "the left", Jay.

 

Bilateral negotiations are different than unilateral invasions, and bilateral talks and multilateral talks are not mutually exclusive. In fact, having both sets of negotiations could work like a "good cop, bad cop" scheme (with the US as the bad cop, of course ). It would be dumb to dismantle ongoing multilateral negotiations with North Korea, but I don't think it's a bad idea to have one-on-one (not one-vs.-one) meetings, too.

 

You're swinging blind at the Liberal pinata, Jay, and here's why (from a policy paper on Kerry's website: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0601b.pdf):

 

Kerry believes we should continue the six party negotiations with the North Koreans, but also be willing to have direct bilateral talks. And we must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of issues of concern to us and our allies.

 

I'm sure you can cite some internet source to say that bilateral negotiations are the only way, but the man who's up for election doesn't agree with that.

[JayB]

Chuck - if we were not going to incorporate millitary force, or the threat thereof, into a solution or negotiations with either the Iranians or the North Koreans then no - we haven't hobbled in our ability to deal with either situation by the invasion of Iraq.

 

Checking back into reality - the proximity of Seoul to North Korean artillery and Scuds precludes the use of conventional arms there, and our the engagement of our armies elsewhere doesn't impact our strategic position vis-a-vis Korea one bit. The only foreseeable use of force against the North Koreans for at least a generation has been aerial/missle strikes, most likely against a limited set of strategic targets like nuclear installations.

 

As far as Pakistan is concerned, I am not aware of any evidence that our strategic leverage there has been weakened at all, and the administration has been rather successful in catalyzing a de-escalation of hostilities between Pakistan and India, which was of course the prime motivator for both countries to acquire nuclear weapons. The situation in Libya seems also to have improved with respect to proliferation.

 

And as far as Iran is concerned, since no one there was actually ever seriously contemplating an invasion of that country, this is another case where having our armed forces deployed elsewhere has done absolutely nothing to reduce our strategic leverage with them. Iran has, however, continued to successfully exploit the EU's inability to address any crisis whatsoever - like the one that errupted in the Balkans in the past, or Sudan in the present - with anything more substantial than negotiations. I am sure that a good scolding by the likes of Joska Fischer will whip the mullahs right into shape though.

[slothrop]

Iran is not economically self-sufficient, so diplomatic pressure can induce change. Iran's national airline is basically grounded because they can't get parts. Resumption of shipments of these parts is one of the carrots that Europeans have held out to Iran.

 

I don't really get your argument. First, you say no one wants to invade Iran, then you belittle diplomacy as a method of effecting change in Iran. So which is it? It sounds like you're just belittling Europe because it's fashionable--hardly a noble or effective approach to international relations, but one that our current administration seems to favor.

 

Or are you trying to imply that merely the threat of force is necessary? Wouldn't having our forces committed elsewhere substantially reduce the potency of our threat projection capability? No one's going to believe us if we go to rattle our saber and it's already drawn against someone else.

[chucK]

Before Iraq we had a credible threat of the use of military force. We do not at the moment.

 

We were able to spend our political capital for uses other than begging other countries to contribute to the Iraq War effort.

 

Do you believe we (the US) are stronger (or at least no weaker) now than we were in 2002?

 

Do you seriously believe that we are more or as able to affect change in the world for the good of the USA?

[scott_harpell]

Or are you trying to imply that merely the threat of force is necessary?

 

That is what John Kerry said. Let me tell you something my dad taught me. Don't pull your weapon unless you are ready to kill the guy. There is no difference between threatening violence and using it if you are the commander and cheif of the most powerfull country in the world. If you threaten and fail to use it, you have nothign. Saddam didn't flinch, we let him have it. Good. Kerry wanted to just threaten Saddam. WTF!?! You cannot threaten with force unless you are ready to use it.

[John Frieh]

Let me tell you what they taught all of us in kindergarten:

Don't hit.

 

Seems like a good policy to me.

[scott_harpell]

Before Iraq we had a credible threat of the use of military force. We do not at the moment.

 

We were able to spend our political capital for uses other than begging other countries to contribute to the Iraq War effort.

 

Do you believe we (the US) are stronger (or at least no weaker) now than we were in 2002?

 

Do you seriously believe that we are more or as able to affect change in the world for the good of the USA?

 

If we took Kerry's approach, we would have no applicable threat of force. I do feel that countries now know that our threats are not idle. I stand behind the principle taht these nations know no authority aside from force. That is how they got into power and that is how they stay there. It is also how they are going to be thrown out.

[slothrop]

Huh? Saddam was not attacking his neighbors. He had no WMD. There were international inspectors and a no-fly zone (threat of force) ensuring all of this. Kerry's approach, I believe, would have been to not abandon these successful methods of containment for a risky, unjustified, destabilizing war of unprovoked aggression. The US would have hundreds of thousands of uncommitted troops ready to deploy against real threats (foreign or domestic), billions of dollars to spend on domestic problems and international nonproliferation efforts, and the goodwill and cooperation of many more nations around the world.

 

Did the Soviet Union fall because of a military invasion? Do ya think maybe there were some economic, diplomatic, and social factors that led to its collapse? Years of non-violent pressure from the US and it's allies, maybe?

[scott_harpell]

Kerry's approach, I believe, would have been to not abandon these successful methods of containment for a risky, unjustified, destabilizing war of unprovoked aggression.

 

Pathetic. You don't even know your own candidate.

[scott_harpell]

Let me tell you what they taught all of us in kindergarten:

Don't hit.

 

Seems like a good policy to me.

works if no-one hits.

[chucK]

On the contrary, at present our antagonists (outside of Fallujah) are laughing at us, from France all the way to N. Korea.

 

Maybe if we are able to accomplish whatever the currently proffered goal of our incursion and get at least half of our army out of there, THEN at that point, our threats may again become credible. Whether this happens remains to be seen.

[scott_harpell]

On the contrary, at present our antagonists (outside of Fallujah) are laughing at us, from France all the way to N. Korea.

 

Maybe if we are able to accomplish whatever the currently proffered goal of our incursion and get at least half of our army out of there, THEN at that point, our threats may again become credible. Whether this happens remains to be seen.

 

This makes no fucking sense. What are you talking about?

[John Frieh]

Let me tell you what they taught all of us in kindergarten:

Don't hit.

 

Seems like a good policy to me.

works if no-one hits.

 

Let peace begin with me.

[chucK]

If you threaten and fail to use it, you have nothign.

 

If you use it, and fail, then you're really screwed. You have less than nothing. That's why you don't roll the dice unless you have to.

[scott_harpell]

If you threaten and fail to use it, you have nothign.

 

If you use it, and fail, then you're really screwed. You have less than nothing. That's why you don't roll the dice unless you have to.

 

That is why you fucking win. Which is what we are going to do.

[scott_harpell]

If you threaten and fail to use it, you have nothign.

 

If you use it, and fail, then you're really screwed. You have less than nothing. That's why you don't roll the dice unless you have to.

 

Well we didn't have to in Yugoslavia or Kuwait or Afghanistan now did we?

[chucK]

I don't think we rolled the dice in Kuwait or Yugoslavia. These operations had clear goals with little downside.

 

Afghanistan was not so much of an elective war. We had to respond somehow to 9/11. Rolling the dice would be more acceptable in this case. And even if the whole country goes back to the warlords we will have accomplished a minor goal which was to disrupt Al Quaeda, and respond to 9/11.

 

In Iraq, we can't just leave because it would probably create a bigger problem than we had when Saddam was in power.