Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

So all of a sudden they don't need to attack us first. What happened to:

"Because that's not the way we do things."

"We don't arrest people for being inclined to commit robbery. We arest them when they commit robbery. Or attempt it. Really attempt it. Not just talk about it."

"Like it or not, there's a lot of emphasis in the world on "who started it." It's pretty clear (but not crystal) we didn't "start it" with Afghanistan."

"This is stupid."

The point, if you had been paying attention, was the Iraq was just as big a threat as Afghanistan. Saddams Hussein's regime was much more sophisticated than the Taliban, so if Saddam had hooked up with Al Queda or someone else for 9-11 part two it would have made 9-11 seem like a pin prick.

Somewhere you got the idea that because I mentioned these other countries I was arguing that since they were a threat we should invade Iraq. I never said that. I only brought up those other countrys to show that there were just a few countrys that had regimes who had it in for the US and were a threat. Iraq was on that list. And of that list Iraq was the most threatening and the lowest hanging fruit.

Again, I never said we should invade Iraq, because other countrys were a threat. I said we should invade Iraq because Iraq was a threat.


Who cares what the stated justification is. That is just diplomatic double talk. The important point is was it justified. From a national security perspective I think it was because we had seen what could happen when a poor unsophisticated regime that had it in for us (the Taliban) hooked up with a terroist group, and we did not want to wait and see what a sophisticated regime with a history of owning WMDs might do if it hooked up with Al Queda or a group like Al Queda. From a moral perspective, getting rid of Saddan was clearly the right thing to do. Unless of course you think gassing the Kurds, the killing fields, draining the swaps to kill millions of Shias etc. was acceptible behavior and not of enough excuse for regime change.

At least be honest. That what you were saying. See above quotes.

Who cares about the "high ground" and why should we have our ducks in a row to "anticipate criticism"? Keep your eyes on the ball. The only issues are "is it in our national security interest" and is it "morally OK for us to do it". If the answer to both is yes, then you do it and who cares whether or not you have the "high ground", whether the international community agrees with you, or if you "anticipate criticism". And if the answer to both those questions is no then you don't go in, again, regardless of what the international community says, whether or not you have the "high ground", or if you "anticipate criticism".

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

And how do you apply this analysis in Saudi Arabia? Lebanon? Egypt? Algeria?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

it's too bad you and SS aren't on different sides Politically. The two of you would make nice opponents for each other- like the baseball minors C league.

My point was 1) what basis can you point to that more troops would have caught/killed* OBL; and 2) we weren't even in Iraq at the time.

As to your imaginary cousin, her fiance dies to clear out a country that was a threat- Getting rid of OBL would have been a very nice addition, but getting the taliban and al queda out of the "running a country" game was the necessity.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

if typing very slowly is intended to add gravitas to your otherwise wrong posts you still have a ways to slow down to acheive anything.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

wow. you need help.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Oh please. Invading Iraq is being talked about as a war crime. Many people are questioning the morality. You even just questioned my ethics for defending the invasion "It's ironic that you are the one who defends moral absolutism."

Who care is we tolerated it. We realized that was wrong. Just because you have done something in the past doesn't mean it is a good idea to continue to do so.

That is why I brought up those other countrys before. Not like you said, to argue they were a threat ergo invade Iraq, but to demonstrate that they were not as much of a threat and invading them was impractical. Iraq was a threat, and we had the means with which to do it and we could do it.

So are you saying if we had used enough troops that the invasion of Iraq would have been OK? In other words it was not the invasion, but they way we carried it out? You know and I know you don't believe that.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

These are unrelated things. I said the argument below was stupid. I still think it is. Sorry.


I remind you your first post said this:

I had to read it several times. But it does seem to me you are saying:

Iran and NK are more dangerous than Afghanistan. So we should have invaded them before Afghanistan. So it was okay we invaded Iraq.

Am I missing something? This is stupid.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Same reason as our boys went over and put the kibosh on Hitler sixty years ago, to preserve our freedom and the security of our nation. if you think the threat of living in a oppressive theocracy is not worth fighting against, then just do us all a favor and skip the middle steps and move to Pakistan now.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

The key to a sustained democracy is a strong and prosperous middle class. If you create a democracy, but the country does not prosper and the middle class disappears you will lose the democracy. If you have an authoritarian regime, but it creates growth, you end up with a democracy that is stable - Singapore, South Korea, Chile, Spain, Portugal etc.

Saudi Arabia - Every day the middle class in Saudi Arabia gets bigger and more educated. That means Saudi Arabia is headed in the right direction. Yes the system produces some crazies but they have need other countries to leverage their craziness. In the long run Saudi Arabia does not worry me.

Lebanon - Lebanaon is growing. The middle class is getting stronger all the time.

Egypt - that is tougher because Egypt is not growing that robustly. We need to put more pressure on Egypt so it adobts better economic policies.

Algeria - same goes for Algeria.

Syria - Syria is a kleptocracy just like Iraq was. The middle class is not getting bigger nor is the population becoming more educated. Either we get them to change or regime change will be in order.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

By which I mean that you seem to be willing to take a "by any means necessary" approach when it suits you. Not that you are immoral for supporting the invasion of Iraq.

You seem to feel that an immoral regime always justifies the use of force. And perhaps it does. My concern is that the indiscriminate use of force is counter-productive. I believe that the most effective way of bringing about lasting democracy is to encourage it from the ground up, in the local population. We both want the same thing, we just legitimately differ over how that is best brought about.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

the same is true of the city of Detroit proper, DC, Atlanta, probably NYC and LA etc.

You want to scope out your own position before recommending this regime change thing.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Iran and NK are potentially more dangerous than Afghanistan. Not Iraq. If the sole criteria to invasion was how threatening the country was, then Afghanistan would probably have been on the list after Iraq, NK, and Iran.

All these countries need regime change and regime change would benefit both the US and the people in these countries. However, we knew we could invade Iraq and be successful. And Iraq was arguably the most dangerous.

Iran was much harder to hit because we had no nearby bases, there is strong evidence the regime may change on its own (the students and middle class are not happy) and Iran seemed less likely to hit us than Iraq. Saddam Hussein tried to kill a former president, Iran, has never tried such a thing. There is an indication they would fear a US retaliation. Saddam Hussein clearly did not fear a US retaliation that made him more dangerous.

North Korea could not be invaded without losing Seoul. That is an unacceptible loss. An invasion of Iraq did not have such an obstacle.

So when you line then up, in my mind, on the list, Iraq was number one. Afghanistan was much more risky than Iraq, but then again the Taliban was probably not going to leave on its own because there was no growing middle class etc. So Afphanistan was also high up.

So Afghanistan was number two. I can see the argument that maybe Afghanistan should be number one because they had aloready pulled of a hit, but Iraq and Afghanistan were close.

Yes all four are bad and need a change. But just because we can't hit North Korea, and Iran may change on its own is not a justification for not taking out Iraq's regime if we can.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

To your Singapore, South Korea, etc. I put Iran under the Shah, China, and Iraq (before its isolation in the 90s).

The approach of putting economic pressure to develop and open up simultaneously can work (see South Africa) or can have very different effects (see Iraq under Hussein, see Iran). Those economic pressures used against Egypt and Algeria could cause either or both of them to go the way of Iran.

Ultimately, the question is priorities and judgments. If Iraq was more important than Afghanistan ( I don't think it was), then maybe we should have focused on it, and provided the Generals with the troops they wanted. In each case, we're taking resources we could use for economic development elsewhere and putting them into munitions. Would $100 billion have been more effective spent in Mexico?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

And how many of those have Republican administrations? Just NY, right? Spanky may have something here.

(Although I'm not sure you're correct for DC - lots of urban renewal going on there.)

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

This is just lunatic. There was a hot war already being waged in Afghanistan. We got a lot of mileage out of simply providing assistance.

Quick, without googling - (1) when did the Taliban fall and (2) when did we put ground troops in Afghanistan? Notice anything interesting about those dates?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Taking out a democratic regime, no matter how bad, is always dicey morally. There is no question that taking out a regime that is not democratic and not providing prosperity is OK. And there is no question that taking out a democratic regime that is providing prosperity is wrong. It is in the grey areas where things get iffy.

If a non democratic regime is providing prosperity and the middle class is growing then probably it is better to just let evolution take its course. If the regime is democratic and screwing over the country is is also probably better to leave it alone. Before you can move in, you probably need to let it turn into despotic regime (which usually happens in countrys where prosperity continues to decline) before you intervene.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Perhaps you might visit NYC sometime. There is a large hole in the ground that might refute your suggestion that Afghanistan was less of a threat to the US than Iraq circa 2001.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

So we missed our window of opportunity with DC. We'll have to wait and see whether anyone can again match Barry.

ETA: Chicago's ripe, though.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

How so? You think it's lots of people? Okay, maybe. But very few Americans think he's a good guy.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

You had a rather different opinion about the democratically elected regime in Chile, I recall.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Iran under the Shah was growing a little but not much. His regime was corrupt and there was massive state intervention. The lack of growth, the actions of the secret police, and the corruption turned the middle class against the Shah. That revolution would not have happened without the support of the middle class. We put up with the Shahs bad economic policies because he was anti-communist and pro-isreal - kind of like Marcos in the Phillipines.

Iraq was a Kleptocracy in the seventies and eighties. The Baathist regime was a socialist and arab nationalist party. Under the Baathists the standard of living did not improve much if at all.

Flat. Wrong. Pressure for them to adopt good economic policies will not cause them to go the way of Iran and Iraq. Iran and Iraq did not go "bad" because of influence from the US to adopt prudent economic policies. And we did not put pressure on South Africa to adopt prudent economic policies, we put pressure on South Africa to adopt prudent political policies. South Africa was by far the most successful economy in Africa. At the time the apartheid regime stepped down the per capita income of the black population in South Africa was higher than the rest of Africa. However, there are some things more important than prosperity, and no amount of economic growth justified apartheid. Apartheid, like Genocide, is such an abhorrent political reality that anything justified its removal.

Subsidies won't help Mexico. That would just be throwing good money after bad. Prudent economic policies are the only thing that will help. Like Ireland, if Mexico would just open its economy and do some other things that Ireland did, its location next to the US would let its economy explode (like Irelands did).

BTW, props to Bush for being a voice of reason in the immigration debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/..._immigration_9


I think everyone here can imagine how painful it for me to say that. But I did.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

No I didn't - you should review my posts. All I said is that there is no question that Chile is better off because of Pinochet. Under Allende the economy was crashing. Because of the crisis his own economic policies were creating, Allende was putting curbs on liberties and the democracy (to deal with the crisis). Under Allende the clear result was going to be economic collapse and the subsequent authoritarian regime. Pinochet created an economic miracle in Chile and because of it Chile is the most stable and propserous democracy in South America. The "left wing socialist government" that has been in power since he left has never changed is free market policies. His economic policies in Chile have become sancrosanct.

However, at the time there was no way to know that Pinochet was going to be such an effective overseer of the economy. We supported other dictators in South America, that unlike Pinochet, instituted bad economic policies and did not help their countrys.

Helping Pinochet at the time was a dicey moral question, but there is no question that we got lucky. The debate we had earlier was whether or no Pinochet was good for Chile.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Yes but they had surprize on their side. Without the element of surprize could they do it again? And couldn't have we prevented another one without invading Afghanistan? And couldn't
Afghanistan slide back into Taliban control again? It seems to me that all the arguments against invading Iraq could be used against invading Afghanistan.

Of course I supported and still support both invasions.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

So, without surprise, al Qaeda couldn't attack the US again... unless they managed to ally with a long-time, ideologically antithetical, sworn enemy... who, despite 12 years of trying, was also incapable of attacking the US.

Got it.

See you on the other side.......
 

Well that will probably be the last time I get to make significant posts until June 6th. I had a break so I took advantage. Balt and Sidd - now wasn't that more fun than discussing some stupid rape case?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Translation: "Grow a middle class, you fuckers, or we're comin' in!"

I love reading this stuff, Spanky. Most fun I've had on this board since we annexed Mexico.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I hate these fragmented responses.

Yeh, our pressure was mainly political on South Africa. But, on Iran, do you really think Iran was not rapidly growing during the 70s, when the price of oil was shooting through the roof? Or that there was not a large Westernized Middle Class there at the time? Each were products of the Shah's government, which we supported, and that Middle Class was indeed looking for Westernized Democracy - but, they didn't prevail.

If you think pressure to adopt World-Bank approved economic policies doesn't carry risks in Egypt and Algeria, then you know a lot more about the area than the World Bank's economists, who are indeed worried about the political repurcussions of their policies. Indeed, it has been a huge topic of research that they have actively supported.

I happen to be a fan of policies that grow a sizable middle class (and organized working class, I'd add) as one component of encouraging Democracy. But we're smoking something if we don't think there's a lot more to it, especially in the Islamic world. My bet right now is that if successful in bringing democracy to Iraq, we will create the World's first Radical Islamic Democracy.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Wrong. The debate we had earlier was whether Nixon did the right thing in choosing to overthrow a democratically elected government.

Some of us felt that one factor that should be considered was that he installed a military dictatorship who tortured and murdered many thousands of people to maintain power.

Others -- you -- felt that the only factor to consider was the macroeconomic benefits that the murderous, torturing dictator brought to the country.

As you said then:

In other words, you weren't suggesting that, from an economic perspective, we got lucky because it worked out in the end. You were saying that we did the right thing, because Chile made the wrong choice. And democracy be damned.

See you on the other side.......
 

godspeed spanky. at least you gave the donkeys a good ole fashioned ass-whupping on the way out.

speaking of [alleged] rape, it didn't take long for the blogosphere to out the accuser of those lacrosse kids, and don't it make my brown eyes duke blue.

Dictionary = evidence?
 

The Moussawi (sp?) jury asked for a dictionary, and were told no.

"Brinkema told them that sending a dictionary in would be like adding additional evidence in the case, but she invited them to come back if they had questions about specific definitions. And she warned them against doing their own research, including looking up definitions."

Why? Genuinely curious.

Dictionary = evidence?
 

Sometimes words are used in jury instructions that have a particular meaning -- in the context of that instruction or in the legal/courtroom context generally. The standard dictionary definition does not apply.

I can't think of a solid example off-hand, but I would guess that things like "intent" have a particular meaning, that is defined in some other instruction. That's probably not an issue here, on penalty phase. But things like "mitigating" or "aggravating" would be.

More generally, you never want a jury to be guided by anything other than what the judge tells them, and certainly not by anything that is not clearly on the record. There are any number of appellate cases concerning whether a judge gave the "correct" definition of a term, and that definition is not exactly what the dictionary says. If the jury looks to the dictionary instead, you don't even know what term they are looking up. And this creates an issue for appeal, which is the last thing the court wants to do (especially on a capital case).

I am assuming that the jury wants to look up a term that was used in the instructions. If the jury wants to look up a term that a witness or document used, that is also a problem. The evidence of what the witness meant when he used a particular word should come from the witness, not the dictionary.

"The jury considered x that was not part of the courtroom process" is an argument any criminal appellate lawyer wants to be able to make. If x relates to an instruction, even better -- it means that there is a good argument that the jury was guided by something other than "the law", as given to them by the judge.

Dictionary = evidence?
 

OK. If they had a question about a word a witness used, would the witness be called back to the courtroom?

Dictionary = evidence?
 

The attorneys should have made some pitch at closing for what they contend it means if it were an issue, or clarified with a follow up question. Witnesses don't get called back. Absent the above the jury is on its own. a term used by a witnessis different than the instructions. they are told that they should ignore anything they hear about what the law might be except for what the judge instructs. The judge likely won't instruct on what most terms used by a witness might mean.

there are times when a definition of a term could be stipulated and then the judge would instruct the jury, but i doubt that happens much in criminal cases. My practice is limited to pawn shop law, so we might stipulate as to "redemption" forfeiture" etc. in our lititgation, but I don't know about criminal law.

Dictionary = evidence?
 

Highly unlikely. The judge would instruct them that they should give words their ordinary meaning, but would not let them look that meaning up in the dictionary.

It's a strange system, sometimes. But the best one going. People don't always use words according to their strict dictionary definitions when speaking, and dictionaries can create more confusion than they resolve because words can have so many different meaning.

Dictionary = evidence?
 

Hank's right -- this is the lawyers' job, in any trial.

In criminal law, there is a whole body of law and approved instructions about the meanings of particular words and phrases. In civil law too, but especially in criminal law because the right to a jury trial is so critical. A few years ago, the validity of the standard instruction defining of the term "reasonable doubt" was in question in California; had the Supreme Court rejected that definition, it would have been chaos -- literally thousands of cases needing to be retried.

I was in a trial a few years ago where we argued the definition of "but for" for God knows how many hours and pages over the course of several weeks.

See you on the other side.......
 

If you have a full-time job, you can usually get work release.

Dictionary = evidence?
 

Malice.

Most common "can we have a dictionary, please?" term.

See you on the other side.......
 

[THUNK!]

See you on the other side.......
 

Sorry. I was on a long conference call.