Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, but they also still support the war, don't they? Which raises a question in my mind that I've been meaning to ask you, Ty and the like. We've been debating this stuff for weeks, and I'm wondering if you are now of the opinion that the war was wrong. That is, if you knew then what you know now, would you have supported the war?

I supported the war at the time, and the news hasn't changed that because I think that, on a macro level -- Hussein needed to go -- and (although this sound callous coming from a noncombatant observer) the price in lives (Iraqi and coalition) is in my view worth it to eliminate a truly evil, despotic and destabilizing regime.

I would disagree with those who argued to continue containment, because containment and sanctions disproportionately harmed the poorest and most vulnerable segments of Iraqi society, while not truly harming Hussein or his regime (except insofar as preventing them fom threatening their neighbors -- which it did do effectively-- is "harm"). Also, in my view the sanctions regime would have been lifted long before it forced compliance. France and Russia wanted it gone already -- and the sanctions would never have forced Hussein to comply-- it also was a festering wound on our image in the Arab world.

So -- in my view the war needed to happen. Unfortunately, we didn't do the pre-war diplomacy too well (telling everyone else thet their opinion didn't matter was moronic and for domestic political consumption), and we f-d up the immediate aftermath of reconstruction. I hope that all straightens out ( I think it can) and we'll have a stable, democratic and non-hostile Iraq. In that case, the benefits will exceed the cost.

However -- I desparately want Bush out next year (for domestic policy reasons) -- so the trouble in Iraq short-term presents the possibility of my best case scenario: Bush takes bold action to do what needs doing, it all works out, and he still takes it in the neck.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I supported the war at the time, and the news hasn't changed that because I think that, on a macro level -- Hussein needed to go -- and (although this sound callous coming from a noncombatant observer) the price in lives (Iraqi and coalition) is in my view worth it to eliminate a truly evil, despotic and destabilizing regime.

I keep waiting for someone to suggest that we invade Zimbabwe, but I haven't heard it yet.

I would disagree with those who argued to continue containment, because containment and sanctions disproportionately harmed the poorest and most vulnerable segments of Iraqi society, while not truly harming Hussein or his regime (except insofar as preventing them fom threatening their neighbors -- which it did do effectively-- is "harm"). Also, in my view the sanctions regime would have been lifted long before it forced compliance. France and Russia wanted it gone already -- and the sanctions would never have forced Hussein to comply-- it also was a festering wound on our image in the Arab world.

If we spent half the effort and money on containment that we did on the war, Iraq would have been contained into Jenna Bush's second term. For some of that $87 billion, etc., I'm sure we could have found a way to get France and Russia on board. And containment is distinct from sanctions. The former is primarily military, the latter primarily economic, though they're obviously related.

And now we've traded that festering wound for a bigger gash that's bleeding profusely.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And like our President, your post is blind to the benefits of international agreements and institutions that we enjoyed for most of the 20th century.

You mean those agreements and institutions that prevented WWI, WWII, North Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Gulf I?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man However -- I desparately want Bush out next year (for domestic policy reasons) -- so the trouble in Iraq short-term presents the possibility of my best case scenario: Bush takes bold action to do what needs doing, it all works out, and he still takes it in the neck.

S_A_M

So essentially you want Bush to do the things that require true leadership and balls and which the DEMS currently running probably wouldn't have done, but still can him? Is it primarily the economy and if so, would your vote change if it turns?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You mean those agreements and institutions that prevented WWI, WWII, North Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Gulf I?

You're right -- things weren't perfect, so we should fuck them up more.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If we spent half the effort and money on containment that we did on the war, Iraq would have been contained into Jenna Bush's second term. For some of that $87 billion, etc., I'm sure we could have found a way to get France and Russia on board. And containment is distinct from sanctions. The former is primarily military, the latter primarily economic, though they're obviously related.

You mean the same france that was the biggest recipient of Oil for Food funds, and the same Russia that had billions in development contracts with the Iraqi national oil company? Is this the same France that is working to give Iran nuclear capability and the same russia that gave GPS jammers to Iraq? Somehow I don't think they would go along with your plan. Call it a hunch.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
You mean the same france that was the biggest recipient of Oil for Food funds, and the same Russia that had billions in development contracts with the Iraqi national oil company? Is this the same France that is working to give Iran nuclear capability and the same russia that gave GPS jammers to Iraq? Somehow I don't think they would go along with your plan. Call it a hunch.

Given that France and Russia were willing to sell out whatever principles they had to deal with Iraq, don't you think their price was less than $87 billion? They may be ho's, but they're not that pricy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Given that France and Russia were willing to sell out whatever principles they had to deal with Iraq, don't you think their price was less than $87 billion? They may be ho's, but they're not that pricy.

So your idea of stability is to continue the old system where, no matter the merit, as long as we paid our "allies" enough, they would go along? I think my idea has much more staying power than yours. I think it's more stable.

Plus, I can look in a mirror without puking if we do it my way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
So your idea of stability is to continue the old system where, no matter the merit, as long as we paid our "allies" enough, they would go along? I think my idea has much more staying power than yours. I think it's more stable.

Plus, I can look in a mirror without puking if we do it my way.

You are mixing applies and oranges when you refer to stability here. That aside, it's sad that you find the idea of paying off the French more nauseating than the idea of killing soldiers and civilians, etc.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That aside, it's sad that you find the idea of paying off the French more nauseating than the idea of killing soldiers and civilians, etc.

I don't either. Back when this country still had principle-centered leadership and we sent the USMC to fight the Barbary pirates (yes even Thomas Jefferson had to contend with Arab terrorism), the battle cry was "millions for defense, not one penny in tribute". Adjusted for inflation, I would rather pay billions and kill our enemies than spend billions trying to buy our friends.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Back when this country still had principle-centered leadership and we sent the USMC to fight the Barbary pirates (yes even Thomas Jefferson had to contend with Arab terrorism), the battle cry was "millions for defense, not one penny in tribute".

Nice analogy.
[list=1][*]Query whether a nation that fights a war against pirates for enslaving its sailors, all while enslaving hundreds of thousands of its own back home, can be said to have "principle-centered leadership."*[*]Query also whether we are likely to repeat the success of the Tripoli raids, when Tripoli's hero, Stephen Decatur, a notorious pirate-smoker himself, would be ineligible to serve in the modern U.S. military.[/list=1]

*"They can't do that to our pledges. Only we can do that to our pledges" was funny for a reason.

[juan, usmc]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
I don't either. Back when this country still had principle-centered leadership and we sent the USMC to fight the Barbary pirates (yes even Thomas Jefferson had to contend with Arab terrorism), the battle cry was "millions for defense, not one penny in tribute".

semper fi!

[bridge of love]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
I don't either. Back when this country still had principle-centered leadership and we sent the USMC to fight the Barbary pirates (yes even Thomas Jefferson had to contend with Arab terrorism), the battle cry was "millions for defense, not one penny in tribute". Adjusted for inflation, I would rather pay billions and kill our enemies than spend billions trying to buy our friends.

plus, he's saying billions to buy friends to agree and kill our enemies, after which we need to pay more billions to rebuild anyway.

[Berry Hunter]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I keep waiting for someone to suggest that we invade Zimbabwe, but I haven't heard it yet.

If Mugabe and his merry band of murdering thugs start threatening international security, that suggestion won't be long in coming. Given the country's lack of oil and nuclear physicists, it doesn't seem too likely.

What a piece of work. Truly amazing how he came up with a plan to destroy the only functioning sector of their economy and ensure mass starvation.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Nice analogy.
[list=1][*]Query whether a nation that fights a war against pirates for enslaving its sailors, all while enslaving hundreds of thousands of its own back home, can be said to have "principle-centered leadership."*[*]Query also whether we are likely to repeat the success of the Tripoli raids, when Tripoli's hero, Stephen Decatur, a notorious pirate-smoker himself, would be ineligible to serve in the modern U.S. military.[/list=1]

Touche!

Let's not forget, however, that
1) Sudan STILL practices slavery.
2) appeasement of farm interests, even back then caused a disconnect between foreign and domestic policy (which eventually resulted in a civil war). It didn't make our foreign policy wrong, it made our domestic policy wrong.
3) I don't know exactly what you are trying to say about decatur, but I think you have read Billy Budd one too many times.