| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2003/10/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10630 Activity:high |
10/14 I have been saying this for years, but it is nice to see it
finally getting reported in the media. -ausman
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0342/schanberg.php
\_ 224 lines and counting. Damn you're good.
\_ Heh, the village voice. The media. Heh. And the freeper guy gets
beat on by all sides around here. At least the freepers don't
pretend they're real media. Why don't you just post links from The
People's Daily World or hey! straight from Pravda! They have an
English language version on the net!
\_ You misspelled "Xinhua."
\_ Hey, thanks! Now I can find out the People's Truth about
the advancements and prosperity occuring with each new Five
Year Plan in Greater China!
\_ Hehe, when I was in Shanghai (oh so many years ago), I
had the pleasure of reading that every province in PRC
was on course to meet its Five Year Plan objectives.
I'm reminded of the Italian airforce disassembling,
transporting, and reassembling airplanes just ahead of
Mussolini's tour of the facilities.
\_ The Voice has a readership of over 1/4 M and often breaks
stories that are then covered in the mainstream media. You
may not like their slant, but they are considered serious
media by most of the rest of the world. -ausman
\_ Heh. Let's compare to the number of people who listen
to Limbaugh.
\_ Head count does not a real journalist make as the above
makes clear. At least you admit they are slanted which was
my point.
\_ So is the National Review, but it doesn't mean that there
aren't good ideas in there. Why not discuss the ideas
instead of shooting the messenger? -ausman
\_ The hundreth version of puerile liberal blathering. If
you're going to criticize the Iraq policy don't turn it
into a political grievance free for all. Stay focused.
It is incumbent upon the author, or any liberal
author for that matter, to propose a plausible alternative
strategy for dealing with militant Islam besides
group hug, bring the troops home, close my eyes
the problem will go away.
I'm not holding my breath.
\_ doesn't this entire statement depend on what you subjectively
term 'plausible'?
\_ you think 'group hug, close eyes' is a plausible anti-terror
strategy? -!the above
\_ Waitasec. Are you saying that the neocon method of security
through force of arms is the only reasonable foreign/domestic
policy that's been put out on the table? Take off the
blinders and read, son!
\_ I've yet to see an alternative beyond the standard list of
"we shouldn't do the thing we're doing now" whining. How
about you post a summary in the same way you've reduced the
current policy to a dozen words? -!the above
\_ How about I give you a few buzzwords, and you nitpick
the hell out them as per usual?
-- enforce Economic Sanctions against countries that
delay democratically held elections
\_ Been there, done that, you leftists whine about
how we're only hurting the people and not the
corrupt leaders. It was only this last year
right up to the moment we invaded Iraq that you
were bitching about wanting to end sanctions.
\_ Straw man. Only a very small minority was
for ending sanctions.
\_ Bullshit alert! It was the theme of the day
in your media, plus the motd and wall were
covered with that as well for the local
perspective.
\_ Let's take a poll. I'm liberal. I never
supported this. sig's preferred. -nivra
wanted to end sanctions:
did not want to end sanctions:
nivra,
wanted to switch to "smart sanctions":
ausman
\_ Do you have any evidence that a majority
of "leftists" were in favor of removing
sanctions? Post sources, please.
\_ well apparently, the sanctions worked in
Iraq, as Saddam didn't develop WMD.
\_ With 60,000 tons of material to look through
you don't know that.
\_ The evidence, thus far, points to that.
-- enforce arms embargoes against countries that deal
in nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons
\_ Been there, done that. Talk to China, Germany,
France, and the Russians. I don't see an embargo
of any sort against any of these countries anytime
soon. BTW, history lesson: the Japanese saw our
oil embargo of their country as an act of war which
is part of the reason for Pearl Harbor.
\_ How about the arms embargo against Iraq? Did it
fail?
\_ Yes, actually, it did. They still had plenty
enough to fire at our jets enforcing the no
fly zone and keep 20+ million people outside
the sunni triangle area in terror.
\_ hello? read the original sentence:
"nuclear, chemical, or biological"
see above. evidence thus far ...
Also, who caused dismantling of medium
range missiles shortly before invasion?
oh, that's right, a toothless org
called the UN -nivra
-- pay our dues to the UN, throw our muscle behind the
UN's health and peacekeeping operations
\_ Group hug! This is going to stop middle class
Saudi terrorists how exactly?
\_ the question is, why are middle class
Saudi terrorists attacking the US? Could it
have something to do with our military
operations in the middle east? Oh, just
forget it.
\_ I won't forget it. You're now changing the
topic. I will address. You implied that the
problem is poverty. You know it isn't. The
real problem is we're now engaged in a war of
cultures and different values. Terrorism is
only the tool the enemy uses. They'd use
tanks and bombers if they could. The Arab
world is still bitter about having lost their
once great empire and seen their culture
stagnate. It's easy to argue that Islamic
extremism and the tightly interwoven control
of state religion has held them back and the
anti-democratic Arab nations now need a scape
goat for their own government's failings. The
obvious goat is the West and the US in
particular who were either barbarians or
didn't even exist during the height of their
cultural period but now rule the world.
They're pissed off and until they decouple
their religion from the government affairs and
give their people a voice and their economies
modernise they're doomed and we're doomed to
fight them as well.
\_ The first eight crusades ended in failure.
What makes you think this one will be
any different?
\_ Stop buying the lies. This is not a war
of cultures and different values: they
all want coca cola, self-determination,
and the freedom to practice their wacky
religious practices just as much as we
do. The difference is that their
governments oppress the hell out of them,
deny them education, real jobs, health
care, and freedom of speech. We prop
up their governments and throw our weight
around, so they naturally see us as
targets. They're not at war with USA--
they really just want us to leave them
the hell alone.
\_ This, at minimum, would have given the UN more
strength and enable it to find the truth about
WMD in Iraq, thereby avoiding a costly war/
nation-building process that has drained
US resources from fruitful hunt for Al-Qaeda
terrorists in Afghanistan.
\_ You're assuming the UN wanted to find out the
truth about anything. The UN is an org that
is focused on smoothing things over, not on
catching and punishing anyone. It's a
diplomatic org and was always intended to be.
Trying to give the UN police powers is a huge
mistake. It'll never work and never has.
\_ first sentence, UN charter:
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
DETERMINED to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war, which twice in
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to
mankind," Is the US more interested in
"catching and punishing" than it is in
preventing, halting, and winning the war
against terror? Oh, certainly the UN
resolutions and UN mandate failed in 1991.
-- stop making payola foreign aid payments to countries
where the money gets sucked into the pockets of the
ruling class
\_ That would be every non-Western country on the
planet. But in general I agree with you. We
should stop wasting money on third world welfare.
-- avoid armed conflict where possible, but be prepared
with an exit strategy for those places where we must
act
\_ I agree with you here.
\_ Then apparently you disagree with what Bush
has done in Iraq. Armed conflict was not
necessarily called for at that juncture in
time, and he had no coherent exit strategy
at all.
\_ I disagree in part with what Bush has done in
Iraq. I'm disappointed and unhappy that they
weren't prepared to deal with the aftermath of
a successful military campaign. I suspect
they thought fighting would last a few months
and they had time to plan for it. No one
expected the Iraqi military to crumble in a
few days but we should have been prepared for
that anyway.
\_ 6 months out, this excuse holds no water.
\_ you failed to address the first half. You
say you agree that the US should avoid
armed conflict where possible, but Bush
clearly didn't. Re: the 2nd half, the
Bush admin. was clearly predicting and
hoping for a clear, decisive victory,
complete with surrendered Iraqi batallions,
etc. Yet you say they didn't expect the
Iraqi military to crumble? PS. it took
more than a few days... -nivra
-- share intelligence with our allies and justify our
actions with actual evidence
\_ Who are our allies? Is France? Germany? Russia?
\_ 1) we do. 2) justify to? I don't think making you
happy fuzzy feel good at the expense of foreigners
exposing their country's corrupt regimes is the way
to go. After the first few get exposed and executed
the intelligence is going to dry up. Although we
know that American media won't expose the crimes of
foreign dictators because they might lose access to
the country. For 2 points, name that bastion of
left wing thought that knew about Saddam's mass
murdering ways and covered it up! Mea Culpa!
Let the nitpicking begin!
\_ No nitpicking. You posted the standard group hug
stuff and these are the standard responses to which
I've never seen a real counter point.
\_ So you agree with 2 group hug points? Awww.
A little more empathy, and you'll pass the
the V-K.
\_ I agree with 2 points and partially agree with
a third. When I see the left start
complaining about third world welfare to
corrupt regimes I'll take the left seriously.
\_ "Every time anyone says that Israel is our
only friend in the Middle East, I can't help
but think that before Israel, we had no enemies
in the Middle East." -Jesuit Priest John Sheehan
\_ Yeah, the Societas Jesu always were on best of
terms with the Jews since its founding.
\_ Yes, quoting a priest from another religion to
support your anti-Israeli bias is interesting.
Should anyone bother pointing out that the
middle east was a British controlled super sized
colony (plus the french got syria) for the
entire modern era before Israel was created? No,
it sounds cooler and more witty to snap off one
liners which ignore historical reality. You
know we didn't have an energy problem in CA
before all you white people showed up! There
were enough acorns for everyone!
\_ He's nuts, more nutty than Dubya.
\_ Ask anyone outside of CA what they think of people from
Berkeley vs. W. 9 out of 10 will call you the nut.
\_ The Red states maybe. Probably not in the Blue states.
\_ Rush Limbaugh had a map of votes by county. It was a very
funny map because the US landmass was basically red, except
\_ Well Societas Jesu were good friends of the
Jews since their founding.
a few narrow strips near the oceans.
\_ I assume you are refering to the electoral college.
You forget the popular vote was very close. |
| 12/25 |
|
| www.villagevoice.com/issues/0342/schanberg.php Some who read this article may choose to view it as the partisan perspective of a political liberal. But I have experienced warsin India and Indochinaand have measured their results. And most of the men and women who are advocating the Bush Doctrine have not. They are, instead, academics and think-tank people and born-again missionaries. One must not entertain any illusion that they are only opportunists in search of power, for most of them truly believe in their vision of a world crusade under the American flag. I believe that last weeks blitz of aggressive speeches and spin by the president and his chief counselors removed all doubt of his intentions. Bush is president of the United States, Vice President Cheney told the friendly Heritage Foundation, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies. The public relations deluge by Bush, Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be aimed at denying any policy fumbles and insisting that the liberal press was ignoring the positive developments in Iraq. Cheney, the presidents usual attack dog, aimed his sharpest and most sneering words at those who offer dissent about the administrations foreign and economic policies. Perhaps seeking to stifle such criticism, he raised the specter of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction that could bring devastation to our country on a scale we have never experienced. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror. His implication was that Saddam Hussein in particular had presented this threatwhen virtually all the available intelligence shows that Iraqs weapons programs had been crippled or drastically diminished by UN inspections and economic sanctions imposed after the first Gulf war in 1991. There has been no call for rationing or conservation of critical supplies, such as gasoline. There has been no call for obligatory national service in community aid projects or emergency services. As he sent 150,000 soldiers into battle and now asks them to remain in harms way longer than expected, the president never raised even the possibility of reinstating the military draft, perhaps the most democratizing influence in the nations history. Instead, he has cut taxes hugely, mostly for affluent Americans, saying this would put money into circulation and create jobs. Since Bush began the tax cutting two and a half years ago, 27 million jobs have disappeared. If its a crisisand global terrorism surely isthen why hasnt the president acted accordingly? What he did do, when he sent out those first tax rebate checks, was to tell us to go shopping. Buy clothes for the kids, tires for the carthis would get the economy humming. In effect, George Bush says, believe in me and I will lead you out of darkness. And its in the details where the true costs are buriedhuman costs and the cost to our notion of ourselves as helpers and sharers, not slayers. No one seems to be asking themselves: If in the end the crusade is victorious, what is it we will have won? For those who would dispute the assertion that the Bush Doctrine is a global military-based policy and is not just about liberating the Iraqi people, its crucial to look back to the policys origins and examine its founding documents. The Bush Doctrine did get its birth push from Iraqspecifically from the outcome of the 1991 Gulf war, when the United States-led military coalition forced Saddam Husseins troops out of Kuwait but stopped short of toppling the dictator and his oppressive government. The president then was a different George Bush, the father of the current president. The father ordered the military not to move on Baghdad, saying that the UN resolution underpinning the allied coalition did not authorize a regime change. He said nothing critical at the time, but apparently he came to regret the failure to get rid of the Baghdad dictator. A few years later, in June 1997, a group of neoconservatives formed an entity called the Project for the New American Century PNAC and issued a Statement of Principles . The history of the 20th Century, the statement said, should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. One of its formal principles called for a major increase in defense spending to carry out our global responsibilities today. Others cited the need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values and underscored Americas unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles. This, the statement said, constituted a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity. Among the 25 signatories to the PNAC founding statement were Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby Cheneys chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld who was also defense secretary under President Ford, and Paul Wolfowitz Rumsfelds No. Obviously, this fraternity has been marinating together for a long time. Other signers whose names might ring familiar were Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Three years and several aggressive position papers laterin September 2000, just two months before George W. Bush, the son, was elected presidentthe PNAC put military flesh on its statement of principles with a detailed 81-page report, Rebuilding Americas Defenses . The report set several core missions for United States military forces, which included maintaining nuclear superiority, expanding the armed forces by 200,000 active-duty personnel, and repositioning those forces to respond to 21st century strategic realities. The most startling mission is described as follows: Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars. The report depicts these potential wars as large scale and spread across the globe. Another escalation proposed for the military by the PNAC is to perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions. As for homeland security, the PNAC report says: Develop and deploy global missile defenses to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for United States power projection around the world. Control the new international commons of space and cyberspace, and pave the way for the creation of a new military serviceUS Space Forceswith the mission of space control. Perhaps the eeriest sentence in the report is found on page 51: The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing eventlike a new Pearl Harbor. Apparently for the neoconservative civilians who are running the Iraq campaign, 9-11 was that catalyzing eventfor they are now operating at full speed toward multiple, simultaneous wars. |