Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You are several steps away from that though.
First, when you think sure hit, remember the 2 sure hits on Saddam during the war.

NBC News' military sources said the operation was "airtight." Obviously, this is not guarantee that it will work. But that's not a downside.

Second, deciding not to take an early strike into a soverign country because it might reduce our liklihood of convincing people they should join in a coalition is a fundamentally different animal then not doing it because you want to say he's still there.

Why? Who would be upset if this terrorist was bumped off? And we were already violating Iraq's sovereignty with the no-fly zone and the bombing therein.

Ty, your point is his group mostly killed Iraqis, not Americans. When you say mass-murdered, keep in mind he doesn't equal Uday- the college years. But if it was proven that the hypo of my 1st paragraph were true, I'd be pissed.

No Uday, but word up.

Note also, when we did blow up a car with a guy who was part of the Cole bombing, in Yeman, the liberals on this board were shocked that W would go so far as to act in a way that does not give the man who killed dozens of US sailors due process. If W had okay'd the assination of this guy, would you have brought up due process isssues?

I don't personally remember being shocked -- maybe you confused Atticus and me? We look an awful lot alike. I think the Due Process thing came up because one of the Yemeni types in that car was a U.S. citizen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is a bogus story. End of story.

Q.E.D.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't understand where this idea comes from that they would have had to "waste" political capital in order to waste this guy. Who was going to be upset? This was a terrorist group operating in Kurdistan, out of Saddam's control. The notion that someone would have seen this as an incursion on Saddam's sovereignty is laughable -- it was in the no-fly zone. "Small fish" to Saddam? No one is suggesting that this guy was allied with Saddam.

You must be kidding right? 1/3 of the EU was upset that we went in after 12 years and 17 fucking resolutions. If, at the time we were attempting to build a coalition, we went in unilaterally to assinate this cat, there would have been an uproar and I suspect that we would never have gotten 1441 passed (not that it matters at this point, because half the country has ignored that we had the legal right to go in under international law).

I meant "small fish compared to" Saddam.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You must be kidding right? 1/3 of the EU was upset that we went in after 12 years and 17 fucking resolutions. If, at the time we were attempting to build a coalition, we went in unilaterally to assinate this cat, there would have been an uproar and I suspect that we would never have gotten 1441 passed (not that it matters at this point, because half the country has ignored that we had the legal right to go in under international law).

What on earth are you talking about? What EU country really cared any of the other times we bombed things in the no-fly zone? Who would have cared if we had bombed someone not connected with Saddam?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Translation: If the President wanted to put the war on terrorism on the back burner so he could invade Iraq, that's A-OK with me.

Mistranslation.

Fair enough. The American people are not with you on this one, but that shouldn't change your mind.

Wrong on the first, idiotic on the second.

We've already considered and destroyed the notion that anyone would have objected to our bombing a terrorist camp in the no-fly zone.

No, you've maybe convinced yourself, but the difference between hitting AA and attacking a group is a bit significant, and the latter would have represented a large escalation at a bad time for escalations.

How long ago was the war? And where are the WMD? And the links to terrorism? Thanks for playing. Your own defenses of the war say a lot of things, but defending America from Hussein is no longer one of them. Res ipsa loquitur.

Nonsensical. Again. There are simply so many things nonsensical about this post that I can only throw up my hands and tell you to go out and play with Kerry.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You must be kidding right? 1/3 of the EU was upset that we went in after 12 years and 17 fucking resolutions. If, at the time we were attempting to build a coalition, we went in unilaterally to assinate this cat, there would have been an uproar and I suspect that we would never have gotten 1441 passed (not that it matters at this point, because half the country has ignored that we had the legal right to go in under international law).

Not only all of that, but it was a humanitarian gesture to not attack at that point. Attacking would have driven Kennedy straight from foaming at the mouth to heart attack city.

[bilmore]

Instead of just reacting in dismay at the blindness of those who still want to cry about quagmires and failure, it makes more sense to read the words of the Iraqis, speaking of the latest terrorists:

"Some people still wonder what would be the relation between liberation of Iraq and war on terrorism. I think that the fact that nearly all the terrorists are gathered on our land to fight so fiercely should be more than enough an explanation. It may seem that the dictators and fanatics from outside are winning by inflicting such horrible losses in our lines and that the battlefield is Iraq, where in fact (my opinion) we are doing them a much more damage by building Iraq and that the battlefield is much more larger than Iraq. We are fighting them on their lands by showing their citizens what they can achieve once they are free. It’s still far from being an appealing vision, but soon it will be. These dictators, instead of trying to change so that they can find a place in the new world or at least take a safe shelter (Aristed) and not end being dragged from a sewage hole, are actually stupid enough to try to resist it. They are (spitting in the face of the wind).

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/arc...24059710447944

(The whole essay is quite good.)

Or, you can go to http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/ , and read the rage of the Iraqis at the terrorists trying to wreck and steal their country, but only if you have a strong stomach, as he photo-documents his sense of outrage.

This is Ty's "failure".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, you've maybe convinced yourself, but the difference between hitting AA and attacking a group is a bit significant, and the latter would have represented a large escalation at a bad time for escalations.

It's not escalation if we're not attacking Hussein. This group was in another part of Iraq, beyond Hussein's reach or control. I cannot believe that you and club think this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Instead of just reacting in dismay at the blindness of those who still want to cry about quagmires and failure, it makes more sense to read the words of the Iraqis, speaking of the latest terrorists:

"Some people still wonder what would be the relation between liberation of Iraq and war on terrorism. I think that the fact that nearly all the terrorists are gathered on our land to fight so fiercely should be more than enough an explanation. It may seem that the dictators and fanatics from outside are winning by inflicting such horrible losses in our lines and that the battlefield is Iraq, where in fact (my opinion) we are doing them a much more damage by building Iraq and that the battlefield is much more larger than Iraq. We are fighting them on their lands by showing their citizens what they can achieve once they are free. It’s still far from being an appealing vision, but soon it will be. These dictators, instead of trying to change so that they can find a place in the new world or at least take a safe shelter (Aristed) and not end being dragged from a sewage hole, are actually stupid enough to try to resist it. They are (spitting in the face of the wind).

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/arc...24059710447944

(The whole essay is quite good.)

Or, you can go to http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/ , and read the rage of the Iraqis at the terrorists trying to wreck and steal their country, but only if you have a strong stomach, as he photo-documents his sense of outrage.

This is Ty's "failure".

We don't have a disagreement about whether the cause is just, we have a disagreement about whether we will succeed. But these blogs are good.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Note also, when we did blow up a car with a guy who was part of the Cole bombing, in Yeman, the liberals on this board were shocked that W would go so far as to act in a way that does not give the man who killed dozens of US sailors due process. If W had okay'd the assination of this guy, would you have brought up due process isssues?

I think you're making that up, Hank. (Or, rather, perhaps you believe it because eventually your memory of past events warps to fit your caricature of the battle between good and evil writ small that is this Board.)

I remember that assassination, I remember some discussion here, and I remember thinking the assassination was probably a good move -- though a bit risky. It may be that I misremember, and that many "Liberals" were "shocked," but I seem to recall that -- to the extent there was criticism it focused more on the cost/benefit risk/reward analysis for our foreign policy rather than the idea that Abdul Terrorist Roaming Free in Foreign Nation deserved due process.

Same thing for Zarqawi. Really, the analysis shifts only once he's in our custody, because of the international conventions wee have signed regarding treatment of prisoners.

If I'm wrong, I 'm sure one of the ouraged masses will pipe up"

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I remember that assassination, I remember some discussion here, and I remember thinking the assassination was probably a good move -- though a bit risky. It may be that I misremember, and that many "Liberals" were "shocked," but I seem to recall that -- to the extent there was criticism it focused more on the cost/benefit risk/reward analysis for our foreign policy rather than the idea that Abdul Terrorist Roaming Free in Foreign Nation deserved due process.

I agree that the reaction in the US ranged from outright praise to fairly muted protest. But, more germane to this discussion, the reaction in Europe was complete outrage at our extrajudicial murder of these untried gentlemen. And the point here is, that outrage would have had a very bad affect on efforts to sway European opinion in the UN. That was the relevant audience - and that same audience would have seen an attack on elements inside of Iraq as a huge escalation prior to securing their blessings.

Knowing what we know now about the profit motives of some of Old Europe, we should have gone ahead and hit him anyway, as no approval would have ever been forthcoming absent a huge payment to them from us. But, that's hindsight, from an era when we had more trust in the process and the participants.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Or, rather, perhaps you believe it because eventually your memory of past events warps to fit your caricature of the battle between good and evil writ small that is this Board.

This from a member of the "imminent danger", "plundered museum", "quagmire", "hostile Iraqi citizenry", contingent?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree that the reaction in the US ranged from outright praise to fairly muted protest. But, more germane to this discussion, the reaction in Europe was complete outrage at our extrajudicial murder of these untried gentlemen. And the point here is, that outrage would have had a very bad affect on efforts to sway European opinion in the UN. That was the relevant audience - and that same audience would have seen an attack on elements inside of Iraq as a huge escalation prior to securing their blessings.

Knowing what we know now about the profit motives of some of Old Europe, we should have gone ahead and hit him anyway, as no approval would have ever been forthcoming absent a huge payment to them from us. But, that's hindsight, from an era when we had more trust in the process and the participants.

well, I was extrapolating from board protest here- which I distinctly remember, that protest would occur in Europe.

[Replaced_Texan]

'cause I know that some of you guys aren't the devoted NPR junkies that I am, I'm giving a link to Nina Totenberg's report on the unveiling of Justice Blackmun's papers and documents by the Library of Congress. She was the only reporter allowed to go through the material before it was released to the general public. Her report is fascinating, especially with regard to the decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/blackmun/

In other political news, I think I'm joining the Kinky Freedman campaign for Texas Governor.

[sgtclub]

Rumor is that she's on the short list and will accept.