Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   11/10/22

      Help keep cascadeclimbers.com going!  Please consider donating so we can keep this site going.   We have set expenses right now but no revenue.  We do hope to getting a sponsor to help out, but for now we just need funds to upgrade the site and pay for hosting and licensing. See the "DONATE" tab in the top menu.
Sign in to follow this  
Dave_Schuldt

Seymour Hearsh Is At It Again.

Recommended Posts

I've posted quite a few arguments concerning why I think removing Hussein by force was the best option that you are free to look up elsewhere.

 

It is too early to judge whether or not the eventuall outcome in Iraq will justify the costs. Ditto for Afghanistan.

 

In general, armed interventions do not lend themselves very well to monetary cost benefit analysis that you seem to be suggesting as a metric for assesing whether or not an armed intervention is in a given person's interests or not. We surely saved a bundle by not intervening in Rwanda, spent billions on the operation to contain the Serbs - and untold trillions in a decades long test of wills with Totalitarianism. We could have surely saved a staggering sum by making peace with Germany in 1939 - this was quite a popular movement amongst the "peace" activists of the day, BTW - but looking ahead and trying to make decisions based on some sort of objectively verifiable monetary balance sheet would have been impossible then, as it is now.

 

As far as the tax cuts for the rich argument is concerned - every tax cut for whatever constitutes the rich in the Left's eyes has resulted in the people in the top quintile of earners paying a greater share of the total tax burden.

 

This is rich. We're not talking about any war, just this one. Good feint though. I don't see that you've addressed any question regarding what is the benefit to the mass of people - not the "top quintile of earners". Sure their getting a benefit - no argument there.

 

And too early to tell the outcome of Iraq - true. Will it be civil war when we pull out and will it be days or months before a strongman secular government or a Muslim cleric government is set up? Even the leaked CIA assessment is predicting a grim outcome.

 

I don't think anyone mentioned Afganistan - not issue there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the logic of going to war in Iraq and spending $1.5 billion per week... making a hornet's nest out of Iraq, with much less to spend on education, housing, and health care at home. It's not logical.

 

But it's perfectly logical. With the cuts to education spending, more people will be forced to join the Armed Forces in order to get an education. That increases the number of troops available for GWB's next adventure - Iran, Syria, maybe one of the former soviet republics (go ahead, Rummy, pick a "stan", any stan). Just don't go after Saudi Arabia, because it's their oil revenues that provide the terrorist funding that justifies keeping the whole mad, mad, mad machine running.

 

And of course, the cost of the next adventure will be so high they'll have to cut education funding again to pay for it all, forcing still more people to join the army, and...

 

tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to see the benefit of the Iraq War you have to first believe that Saddam Hussein was threatening us with total annihilation. That is the only scenario that is worse than what we are experiencing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to see the benefit of the Iraq War you have to first believe that Saddam Hussein was threatening us with total annihilation. That is the only scenario that is worse than what we are experiencing.

 

The key word here is believe. Substitue imagine as all factual evidence pointed in the opposite direction. This, in essence is the argument for the benefit of all of Bushies policies, and the nodding followers repeat it by rote. We believe it because he says so and he says so because he believes it. We're smileysex5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to see the benefit of the Iraq War you have to first believe that Saddam Hussein was threatening us with total annihilation. That is the only scenario that is worse than what we are experiencing.

 

Iraq is obviously a stepping stone, a way to further establish more troops in the middle east without uniting the muslims. Since Syria, Iran etc hated Saddam, Iraq was an obvious step after Afghanistan. Iran will be next, THEN you'll see war!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

 

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes. (Full story)

 

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

 

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

 

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider.

 

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said.

 

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

 

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

 

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

 

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there. (Full story)

 

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites."

 

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

 

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

 

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

 

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still convinced it was religion that had the most to do with Bush getteing re-elected. That is so %&^$#* scary it makes me angry. Either people chose to ignore or were ignorant to the fact that separation of church and state is fundemental to good government. Maybe because it is only on the rise with no obvious ill effects yet, it was ignored. It makes me wonder what grades the "reds" got in history!

 

I found it interesting that further breakdown of King County voters by voting jurisdictions revealed Medina and other "very prominant communities" voted for Bush while the rest of the county carried Kerry. IOW, they voted their own pocket books.

 

I have always maintained that Republicans (conservatives) are selfish and vote for themselves while Democracrats (liberals) embrace forward thinking that benefits future generations (their children).

 

In a country (America) where nothing is ever fast enough and technology is supposed to solve all our problems, it is evident too many of us ask "how is the President going to help ME?" We obviously need another JFK to get us back on track. But who in their right mind would want to be president now? All we get are the same old cronies that pull the wool over our eyes and redirect (lie) our thinking from what is really going on to bogus issues that in the long run have nothing to do with being the President.

 

The government has taken control of the people (patriot act)and it is up to the people to wrest it back. As long as unqualified citizens are allowed to vote, it will be difficult.

 

Just like what we are doing to the environment, I fear it will be too late by the time we figure out what we are doing so wrong. We are too complacent really.

 

Americans are pigs and consume way too much. Our whole existence is based on "what can I buy to make my life better?" That my friends is not healthy. But since when are Americans concerned about their health other than their "economic health?" We are a society of glutonous consumers who demand instant gratification. Is that not selfish?

 

I am amazed when people are shocked when 31 Americans die in a single incident in Iraq. Is Vietnam, Korea or even WWII so far away we forget about the atrocities of those wars? What did we really expect? Our video games have truly affected the way we think. You can "die" and get up and fight again. Get real folks. War is hell.

 

The war we need to wage is right here at home. We have so many problems right here that could be solved if we put 10% of our war expenditures into them! If we are going to be so selfish, why don't we do that? It's all about maintaining that lifestyle, isn't it? It's all about the oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - since you put "freedom is on the March" in scare quotes, are you arguing that people in Iraq - the majority of whom will put their lives on the line to vote today - are actually less free now than they were under Hussein? And that in the future they will be less free than they would have been under Uday or Qusay? Would you trade the certainty of a life in a totalitarian state for the chance at a different existence - even though the outcome will be uncertain and frought with difficulty?

 

As far as the threat is concerned - no one from your side has ever - so far as I know - addressed the question of what would have been the most likely outcome if Hussein was left in power. Sanctions would have guaranteed more resources for Hussein via the oil-for-palaces scheme, more misery for the population, and with the progressive easing of the sanctions that his patrons in the UN were continuously arguing for - eventually the world's power to contain his designs in any meaningful way would have been at an end. Are you certain his intentions would be peaceful and he would renounce his ambitions to aquire the most lethal capabilities would have magically come to an end? This is realism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush likes to say that he'll let history judge his presidency. History will judge whether the American people were foolish to elect W. I expect the historical record will be abundantly clear within 20 years, or probably 10. I'm willing to admit I am not always on the correct side. For instance, in 1990 I did not favor the first gulf war, but from this vantage point in history it looks like not only the correct action, but also an admirably restrained exercise of power. (Most of you have probably seen GHW Bush's quotes about why he didn't invade Iraq due to there being "No exit strategy".) I believe that almost any political platform contains a measure of cognitive dissonance. But the Bush policies and rhetoric are so far divorced from the facts that, IMO, it takes an unusually high degree of willful ignorance of the facts to support them; either that, or an extremely simplistic view of world affairs, human nature, etc.

 

A big problem we human beings have is that, like pygmy chimpanzees (as opposed to bonobos, who smooth over their differences with lots of free sex), we have a deep need to follow a leader. Most of us feel a lot less anxious when we don't have to think for ourselves, but can simply do what we're told. One of the very hardest things about behaving in a civilized fashion-- indeed, for me the very definition of being civilized-- is to make oneself think about difficult and painful subjects, to avoid comfortable solutions, in favor of the use of reason. One way I'd like to see this done is to hear an administration spokesperson, say Alberto Gonzales, state for the record: "We renounce torture in all forms. We realize that by doing so, we may give up a small tactical advantage to terrorists. However, we do not feel that this small advantage could ever be justified, in the face of the obvious loss of our moral leadership in the area of human rights." This area of "controversy" IMO should be utterly cut and dried. If we stoop to torture tactics, we become the thing we despise. Yet 56 million Americans have signed on in support of U.S. sponsored torture, paradoxically in the name of "freedom" or "moral values", thereby rendering those terms relatively meaningless, except as signposts of hypocrisy.

 

The temptation to fall back toward religious conviction is extreme, especially when people feel threatened. It's like water flowing downhill. It takes powerful leadership, Abraham Lincolnesque leadership, to carry an entire nation along the difficult path to a truly civilized solution in such threatening times. Kerry showed nothing like that kind of leadership, and so was intensely disappointing, because IMO it wouldn't have taken much to show Bush for the fool he is. Bush and the Republicans are appealing to the inner chimpanzee in all of us. It is to this country's shame that he has succeeded in any measure at all.

 

I do not wish to single out the America of 2004 as uniquely blind. For example, look at the entire European continent in 1914, not only in the weeks leading up to World War I, but in the early months and even years of the war. Nations justified war on the basis of civilized principle, but also (more frighteningly) as a crucible in which the moral courage of a nation's youth would be forged. It took years for these countries to admit the awful mistake they had made-- years during which hundreds of thousands more died, so that their brothers killed before them "would not have died in vain". Even as thousands more were killed and maimed over mere yards of territory, it was psychologically EASIER for each nation involved to line up more boys for slaughter than it was to admit the magnitude of their error and figure out the least costly "exit strategy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is realism?

 

Jay, realism is admitting that the Iraq war was waged over WMD which did not exist. Realism is dumping the talk about freedom, which was never the cause for war until the primary cause was shown to be false. Realism is admitting that the war has proven to be a costly mistake that has destabilized the region further, drains the US economy in a way that makes Osama Bin Laden praise Allah, and has no end in sight because the Bush administration is congenitally incapable of realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you certain his intentions would be peaceful and he would renounce his ambitions to aquire the most lethal capabilities would have magically come to an end? This is realism?

 

Certainly speculation has to play a part in dealing with future scenarios regarding world politics. But that doesn't mean you have to ignore facts. All the reputible sources said Iraq's ability to make nuclear and chemical weapons was dismantled. The Bushies fabricated information to suit the neocon agenda. There are no facts to back up your argument. Just because these were on his wish list, though he had no capability, it was an imminent threat. This is a laughable premise.

 

If the neocons believe so much in their agenda of changing the world order through force, then why can't they just make that argument and come clean. Instead there is just a lot of arm waving and scare tactics.

 

So instead of concentrating on more advanced threats, such as our buddy Pakistan selling nuclear equipment and capabilities to Korea, Iran, and others what do we do. Spend much money and world political capital chasing down nonexistant wmds and turn Iraq into a recruiting poster for Ben Laden. Do you really believe it will end well in Iraq - that it will be a nice Jeffersonian democracy? Gimme a break. The likely outcome is that the Bushies will declare "mission complete" start to pull out to cut losses, and state that building a stable country "...is now in the hands of the Iraqis". Watch and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet 56 million Americans have signed on in support of U.S. sponsored torture, paradoxically in the name of "freedom" or "moral values", thereby rendering those terms relatively meaningless, except as signposts of hypocrisy.

 

Different herd, but you're still a fucking sheep. Do you really think the world would be a better place if we were all passive, anti-war peaceniks? You enjoy the luxury of being able to believe in "freedom" because someone was aggressive enough to create it for you through violent means. Without those same violently aggressive people, other violent aggressive people will eventually take away your right and even ability to live and believe as you do now. I'm glad you enjoy that luxury, but I'm little appalled that so many people bitch about it so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one intelligent really thinks that Iraq was behind the attack on America. But Iraq is a conveniently attainable foothold in taking the attack back to Al Queda. War has been declared, and you should be grateful to have it off your homeland.

world-trade-center-12.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The likely outcome is that the Bushies will declare "mission complete" start to pull out to cut losses, and state that building a stable country "...is now in the hands of the Iraqis". Watch and see.

 

Isn't this what the peace movement has been demanding ever since the war started, or now are you suggesting that the troops should STAY IN IRAQ? Maybe do some more torturing of detainees and so on to "help build a stable Iraq" rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GWB as quoted in an interview by the NYTimes yesterday:

 

"I've, you know, heard the voices of the people that presumably will be in a position of responsibility after these elections, although you never know," Mr. Bush said. "But it seems like most of the leadership there understands that there will be a need for coalition troops at least until Iraqis are able to fight."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only anwser for my views not some "movement". No. I would recommend staying and fixing it since we screwed it up. That does not diminish the argument that we should not have gone there in the first place, against the military recommendations and for nothing more than the neocons belief. I really don't know if things can be salvaged there. The military was dismantled by us and is part of the insugency. The training of police is grim. We're thinking of buying out the contracts of over 10,000 trainees because they can't be trusted. The troops are squeezed and overextended. It does not, however, seem appropriate to abandon the Iraqis after destroying their country. It is a mess that could have been avoided- and there is no ethical or noble way out.

 

Ya gotta love that quote about -" I'd rather be fighting them over there than over here". WTF - like the Iraqis were ready to send a flotilla?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ya gotta love that quote about -" I'd rather be fighting them over there than over here". WTF - like the Iraqis were ready to send a flotilla?

 

Dude, you don't even know who you are really fighting or why. Not that anyone is coming right out and telling you, I admit all the lies and deceit are ridiculous. But how else are they going to push it forward in this sensitive new age?

 

You seem to assume that there are evil, or greedy conspiracies at work behind these invasions, but it seems to me there are more sensible, simpler explanations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dude, you don't even know who you are really fighting or why. Not that anyone is coming right out and telling you, I admit all the lies and deceit are ridiculous. But how else are they going to push it forward in this sensitive new age?

 

You seem to assume that there are evil, or greedy conspiracies at work behind these invasions, but it seems to me there are more sensible, simpler explanations.

 

Ah, the we know better argument and the end around truth and democratic values. Now that is a cherished argument.

 

And the simple explanation for why we are over there? Please, spare us another picture of the flaming towers and the intended link to Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why we are there:

 

Billions of dollars in additional defense spending are but the first step in the group's long-term plan to transform the U.S. military into a global army enforcing a terroristic and bloody Pax Americana around the world.

 

A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.

 

One of the organization's documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.

 

The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

 

The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as "a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."

 

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush's "war cabinet."

 

Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.

 

The group's essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. "We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future," the statement's first principle reads.

 

The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: "to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and "to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

 

A subsequent PNAC plan entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century," reveals that the current members of Bush's cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.

 

The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

 

"Even should Saddam pass from the scene," the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has."

 

A "core mission" for the transformed U.S. military is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," according to the PNAC.

 

The strategic "transformation" of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to "a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually," the PNAC plan said.

 

"The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."

 

9-11 proved useful indeed. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember how I was pissed off in 1990 that Papa Bush stopped the army from entering Bagdad and taking out Saddam. In my own mind, I used that as justification to vote against Bush, who I thought was a pretty good president, even though I am and was a Democrat.

 

Now I realize what a wise man Papa Bush was and what a fool I was for thinking as I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My new theory of why we invaded Iraq is this:

 

The powers that be thought Iraq was going to be real easy (ref: Pat Robertson's allegation that Bush stated to him that there would be zero American casualties). Once our glorious fighting force liberates Iraq, and Iraq becomes wonderful, then we really got all those other evil-doers in a bind, and quite intimidated. "What's next on the list Rummy?". That would have been real cool.

 

 

postscript: Unfortunately, hindsight has pricked this lovely balloon. These dunderheads refused to listen to any negative information and their fantasy projections blew up in OUR face. [Not THEIR face btw, because they were able to keep the majority of Americans living in a fantasy world through the elections].

 

You guys hear about those disparate numbers of trained Iraqi police forces? Bushies are saying over 100k while other sources are talking 4-6k? More fantasy-world crap.

 

"Rather be fighting over there than here"?? As empirical casualty count continues to grow, it gains weight over the hypothetical Saddam-still-in-power scenario.

 

Weigh these wonderful (hindsight) alternatives:

 

option 1:

Saddam slowly but surely ditches sanctions.

Probably supports international terrorists.

Possible successful terrorist attacks on US soil.

 

option 2

Known ~1500 American soldiers dead.

Sure ~10,000 American casualties.

Definite 400 billion $ drain on the US.

Very likely 100,000 Iraqi dead.

Possible successful terrorist attacks on US soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the simple explanation for why we are over there? Please, spare us another picture of the flaming towers and the intended link to Iraq.

 

Iraq under Saddam was one of the few arabic countries that enjoyed freedom of religion, with even christians practicing openly. I was sure, the day they captured Saddam, that I saw a portrait of the Virgin Mary on the wall in his room, but in watching subsequent video clips of his capture that particular segment was never shown again. Probably just my imagination.

 

Even now, I think we begin to see that the only way to keep the fundamentalist muslim sects from killing the civilized members of your society is to torture some or throw a few hundred in a pit every once in a while, a la Saddam. One of my favorite clips after the invasion was of a little girl asking her grandpa what was the difference between sunni and shi'i muslim , a distinction illegal to speak of under Saddam. The old man just hung his head and cried.

 

The rest of the Arab world hated him because he wouldn't even tolerate the sunni bullshit. I don't think he was ever a threat to the west, and I don't think the people behind the invasion ever really thought so. Iraq was simply a country that no-one would trouble about if it were invaded.

 

It was just a convenient step, a relatively easy piece of the geographical puzzle, an opening move in the much longer and larger war to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iraq had little to do and little influence with Al Qaeda.

 

that's what I said

 

Unless we're planning to attack Iran next. 3 in a row - we win the Jackpot!

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does it occur to anyone that maybe those folks in charge got into position to take advantage of Persian Gulf oil to defray the costs of an imminent war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×