I am a true patriot

[KaskadskyjKozak]

A good question for the American patriots among us:

 

Why have so many American conservatives who argue that government can't even properly run a nursery fallen for the concept that it can run the world?

 

It is you who attribute that that is the goal of the current administration, and that "conservative supporters" (a misattribution with lots of shades of meaning) buy in to this goal. Neither is true. Again you overreach and fabricate and undermine your own legitimacy and persuasiveness. The hyperbole indicates desperation, irrationality and possibly worse.

 

There's plenty to be critical of any administration. There are valid points to be made, but you guys regularly go far beyond the pale.

 

 

[mattp]

I think you have not been paying attention there, KK. Look up the "Bush Doctrine."

 

Here's a start:

Preemption, Unilattralism, Strength Beyond Challenge, and Spreading Democracy. Lest you get too excited about the "spreading democracy" bit, consider our record of supporting democracy only when it supports us.

 

The "new world order" is more like "we give the orders."

[Fairweather]

maybe he was even as fucked up and full of shit as bush, but christ, at least he could explain it coherently

 

That makes a difference? Your original contention was that Clinton's actions were "cheeky". I was simply addressing that - not making any comparisons of body counts.

[ivan]

maybe he was even as fucked up and full of shit as bush, but christ, at least he could explain it coherently

 

That makes a difference? Your original contention was that Clinton's actions were "cheeky". I was simply addressing that - not making any comparisons of body counts.

comedy, like the body itself, rarely survives dissection

 

not being british, i doubt if i can fully comprehend the defintion of "cheeky," but i infer it to mean good-naturedly silly, like getting blown by your intern in a west-wing bathroom or smoking a slimey cigar in the presence of a world-leader - or maybe jokes that are actually funny. none of these are things i've heard bush is capable of. he seems to do better at the "cruel and tragic" shit that clinton is less well none for - notably, running secret prisons (unless clinton's were uber-secret, of course), holding folks w/o trials for a half-decade, torturing, attempting to appoint his girlfriend to the supreme court, deploying 100k soldiers in the name of ?, etc...

[ivan]

versus

[ivan]

The discussion started with a question whether Cindy Sheehan is a patriot or a deranged sikko,

ah, and if this was in fact the original point, might we not settle it by pointing out the obvious? one man's patriot is another's traitor, entirely depending on one's political choices and values?

 

jefferson davis and bobby lee - southern patriots, northern traitors

 

daniel ellsberg - dove's patriot, hawk's traitor

 

oliver north - conservative hero, everyone else's sicko

 

eggs benedict arnold - british patriot, american traitor (formerly british traitor, american patriot)

 

etc. etc. etc.

 

sheehan is clearly a patriot from the viewpoint of those opposing this war as she has laid several costly sacrifices on the altar of freedom - her son, marriage, and happiness - in order to end it and, to her and other's viewpoint, remove the usa from a misadventure that exposes our democratic values as flimsy excuses for old-fashioned imperial avarice

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think you have not been paying attention there, KK. Look up the "Bush Doctrine."

 

Here's a start:

Preemption, Unilattralism, Strength Beyond Challenge, and Spreading Democracy. Lest you get too excited about the "spreading democracy" bit, consider our record of supporting democracy only when it supports us.

 

The "new world order" is more like "we give the orders."

 

Sorry, I just had a dram of Scotch and a couple glasses of champagne and don't give a rats ass about the Bush Doctrine, and goofy political arguments on a climbing b-board right now.

 

[mattp]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good discussion.

 

Good scotch?

[Peter_Puget]

I think you have not been paying attention there, KK. Look up the "Bush Doctrine."

 

Here's a start:

Preemption, Unilattralism, Strength Beyond Challenge, and Spreading Democracy. Lest you get too excited about the "spreading democracy" bit, consider our record of supporting democracy only when it supports us.

 

The "new world order" is more like "we give the orders."

 

Check out Matt's link and then go back and read his comments the threads regarding "iminent" and the lead up to the war.

 

Here is a exceprt from the today's link (emphasis added):

 

In discussions of this aspect of the Bush Doctine, the terms "preventive war" and "pre-emptive war" are sometimes used interchangeably, although they represent very different strategies. A pre-emptive war occurs when a state believes an attack to be imminent (for example, the enemy is gathering a large number of troops on their border) and launches an attack to get the first strike. A preventive war, on the other hand, occurs when a state launches an attack on another state that is not currently a threat, but may become one at some point in the future. By these definitions the 2003 war in Iraq was waged as a preventive measure.[/b]

 

SO the attack on Iraq was not a matter of avoiding an imminent attack but rather one waged as a preventive measure and this appears fact to be a significant component of the 'Bush Doctrine."

 

I would also point out this warning on the entry:

The neutrality of this article or section is disputed.

 

[mattp]

I can't really make much sense of your post there, Peter, except to refer to the "imminent vs gathering" discussions from three years ago - but what really is the difference? Either are a offered as a reason for attacking a nation that is not attacking us, though in the one case we might actually think they are about to. And, in the case of Iraq, we didn't even pretend to believe Saddam was about to.

 

But all of it fits a pattern that is hard to deny. Speech after speech have referred to the US as the lone superpower and suggested we should maintain this position. Bush has clearly said "you're either with us or against us," and when our European allies questionned whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq they were dismissed as "old Europe."

 

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors, but your pal Podhoretz and our good friend Wolfowitz have set it all out there in detail for anybody to read and the actions of this Administration have been almost entirely in sinc with the whole package: pull out of internatinal agreements, pursue unilatteral foreign policy, seek to prevent any rival power from being established, etc. etc.

 

Tell me again how it matters whether the thread posed by Saddam was actually imminent or simply "gathering," when either way we were told to fear that if we didn't invade we would see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan?

[kevbone]

This pretty much says it all......

 

[Peter_Puget]

I can't really make much sense of your post there, Peter, except to refer to the "imminent vs gathering" discussions from three years ago - but what really is the difference?

 

I am not surprised. Your outlook is like a religion - no amount of reason can shake your faith.

 

Go back and re-read the imminent threads. Now you write" "Either are a offered as a reason for attacking a nation that is not attacking us, though in the one case we might actually think they are about to. And, in the case of Iraq, we didn't even pretend to believe Saddam was about to."

 

In the "imminent" threads you argued that the US claimed an attack was imminent and now your argument has changed to the point that "[the US] didn't even pretend to believe Saddam was about to [attack]." Yes, you do seem confused - or at least not bothered by an inconsistent argument.

 

In any event I will simply quote from your linked article:

"they represent very different strategies." Your inability to understand the difference speaks volumes. That a biased, albiet poorly written article, supporting your viewpoint makes the distinction should give you a clue that it may be important. Spray on!

 

 

[mattp]

Ah, Peter. Just what, really, is the strategic difference as we applied it four years ago?

 

We argued that Saddam was maybe a couple of months away from having a nuclear weapon and that he had a stockpile of chemical weapons and etc. We said he posed a threat. We said we could not wait for further inspections or we might see a nuclear cloud over Manhattan. It is really pretty hard to misunderstand the clear implication of this statement - as much as you would like to suggest it says something different.

 

As far as our allies were concerned, we couldn't credibly argue that Saddam planned to attack the US or that he posed a grave threat to the US or European homeland, and everybody in the world knew or believed he did not. But he kept supporting paranoia in Peoria by puffing his chest, and rational analysis doesn't matter in American politics anyway so the Administration used fear mongering to convince the American public to support the war. Most of our allies said invasion could wait, but invasion had the support of something over half the nation and we stomped him.

 

Just how, again, does it matter whether you use the word imminent or pre-emptive or preventative? Did it change our war plan or the timetable? Did it affect how many times they invoked the mushroom cloud?

 

[chucK]

I think it is going to be very interesting how the Bushies are going to handle the latest gambit by Russia. In background: the US stated it was going to construct components of an anti-missle system right next to Russia, in Poland; Russia gets pissed; Bush says it's not meant to defend against Russia, it's meant to defend against those nasty Islamofacists; clearly anticipating Bush's obviously disingenuous reply, Putin comes back with, "if that's the case, let's work together and build the station in Azerbaijan instead!"

 

Great (and obvious in hindsight) counter-move by the Ruskies. This is and was always an obvious anti-Russia thing first. You think the Bushies have the smarts to do anything but get the Cold War going again in earnest, and sink our nation further toward the shithole than anybody even imagined!?

 

 

[Crux]

Ah, Peter. Just what, really, is the strategic difference as we applied it four years ago?

The strategic difference is not in how preemption or prevention were applied in the rationale for warfare three years ago, but in how it applies to an apology for being so oblivious three years ago.

 

It's easier to explain one's advocacy for the invasion of Iraq when one claims prevention was the goal of the invasion rather than preemption. After all, everybody but the most deluded now understands there was nothing to preempt. After the Gulf War, the later aerial bombardments ordered by Clinton, and the subsequent eradication of arms technology by U.N. inspectors, Iraq essentially had no military power left, and certainly no capacity or will to threaten the United States.

 

Despite this, the Bush administration went forward with plans to invade Iraq, and the explicitly stated rationale was that of preemption. First thing was to pull out the inspectors, and that was followed by a sweeping campaign of Neocon propaganda that nearly saturated the mainstream media in America. Even though former arms inspectors and CIA agents from the field did come forward to report that Iraq presented no threat, these reports were effectively (and falsely) discredited to an extent adequate for winning Congressional and popular support for the war -- and preemption continued to be the principle rationale given for the invasion.

 

Today, now that popular support and even Congressional support has eroded, the fact that preemption was a disingenuously stated intention now offends most Americans. But there apparently remain a substantial number who continue to seek, albeit retroactively, some justification for the invasion -- and present occupation -- of Iraq. And that justification is the goal of prevention.

 

As Matt argues, there may be little practical difference between the two. Preempt or prevent, either way we are where we are, and either way it's a bad and unnecessary situation. But I will suggest there is a fundamental difference in attitude, for preemption requires a clear and present danger, whereas prevention, to be justified as a rationale for war, requires no more than paranoia. After all, who knows? Even you might be a threat someday, who knows? Therefore, in the name of prevention, what we must do is kill them all. Let God sort out the bad guys.

[tvashtarkatena]

A few pages ago a few presidents were being roasted for 'breaking the military'. I say good for them, although I'd rather see the military either junked wholesale or parted out to the highest bidders so we can finally put a tourniquet on our most expensive tax hemmorage.

 

 

[Dechristo]

but, we'd be trampled under the stampeding heels of the jihadist-islamo-fascist-fundamentalist-horde, you moron!

[ivan]

A few pages ago a few presidents were being roasted for 'breaking the military'. I say good for them, although I'd rather see the military either junked wholesale or parted out to the highest bidders so we can finally put a tourniquet on our most expensive tax hemmorage.

 

why do you hate freedom?

[tvashtarkatena]

Lakalakalakajihad!

 

I believe that the state should muskets, power, and ball to all citizens who apply. Any surplus revenue should be expended to improve the quality and distribution of medicinal marijuana.

 

As recent events have soundly proven, National Defense is more a state of mind than reality.

Edited June 9, 2007 by tvashtarkatena