All Hank, all the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the only difference was Afghanistan had been successful and Iraq hadn't. So why wait until Iraq was successful? Why not hit them before they were successful?

i believe this was Penske's rationale for bombing France.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the only difference was Afghanistan had been successful and Iraq hadn't. So why wait until Iraq was successful? Why not hit them before they were successful?

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.

You use the word "Justified". I was not talking about if we were "justified", I was talking about what was prudent from a national security perspective. You go after the country that is the bigger threat from a national security perspective. The point here is to save U.S. citizens lives not to please the international community. Is it not?

I want you to think for a second about what you are saying. It was justified/good/okay/prudent to invade Iraq because other countries (not Iraq) pose a greater danger than Afganistan.

This is not a debate on the wisdom of the premptive strike. This is stupid.

"Who started it" has become an obsolete concept in the age of terrorism and WMDs. We can't let them get in the first blow because in the first blow we could lose Chicago, or even worse Vegas.

You aren't going to convince me or anybody similarly inclined this way.

For you, security is paramount. For me, I have higher ideals.

It's ironic that you are the one who defends moral absolutism.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
One was a threat to us. The other was not.

One was a threat to us. The other was not. We can and did deal with shooting at planes by, for example, bombing radar installations. We did not need a full-scale invasion and a now 3-year occupation. (Yes, I know -- in neo-con fantasy-land the invasion would only take 35 troops and the occupation would only last four hours, followed by two days of cleaning up all the flowers and sweets. But I'm talking about reality here.)

Just because Iraq hadn't been successful doesn't mean it couldn't be successful in the future. And if we could abolustely gurantee Iraq not hitting us by other means, why couldn't we deal with Afghanistan the same way. Couldn't we have dealt with Afghanistan without having to invade it and occupy it?

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
By this logic, there is no country on earth that we should not invade. Once again, this logic would justify an invasion of virtually any country in the world.

I don't think that is true with the criteria I laid out. First, you need a regime that is bent on US destruction and willing to help those who would like to take us out. In those other countrys we have friendly regimes that are trying to help. The most dangerous regimes are ones that are doing everything they can to hurt us. Those types of regimes are relatively few.

Regimes that could fit into the catagory as who are bent on our destruction are: North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq and maybe Sudan.

When you look at that list Iraq doesn't seem such a bad idea. It was clearly the low hanging fruit because we had beat them before and had bases nearby with which to invade. I explained the problems with the other countries.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The threat posed by al Qaeda was a threat of radical, fundamentalist Islam. There are many groups of that ilk, and they set up shop in many countries -- Indonesia, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and innumerable others. We do not, should not, and cannot invade all of these countries. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, though evil, a dictator, and an enemy of the US, was not a friend of radical, fundamentalist Islam. In contrast, the Taliban was al Qaeda's ideal.

I don't care where the threat comes from. A fundamentalist attack or another kind of terrorist attack is just the same to the American citizen that died. If Al Queda had cooperated with Iraq 9-11 would have probably been much worse. Why wait for you enemies to get together.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And now, we have a choice between near permanent occupation, and leaving Iraq as hospitable to al Qaeda as Afghanistan was.

We may also be looking at a permanent occupatoin of Afghanistan. From that perspective the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were no different. Both invasion included an occupation of a divided and violent nation. Afghanistan even more so.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And yet, despite at least a decade of purest hatred for the US, they never did so. Why is that? Why was an invasion necessary to protect the US in 2003, but not in 1996? (And before you sputter "Clinton... appeaser" identify the Rs who called for an invasion and occupation of Iraq in 1996. I don't remember that as a plank in Dole's platform.)

Because after 9-11 it became clear that we could not wait to let them be successful before we attacked. We have to hit first if we don't want to lose another set of twin towers.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Despite all of Bush's efforts to tie the two together, the fact remains that they hated each other and there was virtually no chance of this.

That may be true but that wasn't my point. The point was a backward and underdeveloped country having a government with little money, no sophistication and no access to advanced technology was able to sponsor a terrorist group that pulled off 9-11. Just think what could have happened if such a group and Iraq had gotten together (any group - Hamas, etc). Afghanistan taught us that you just can't wait for a regime that has it in for you to get in the first blow.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
At this point, you just get too silly to respond to.

Why is it such a silly point? All the arguments used saying we should not have gone into Iraq - it is a divided nation, it would be a long occupation, etc. go doubly for Afghanistan. We knew we would be successful against Iraq, Afghanistan was a much bigger risk.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Just because Iraq hadn't been successful doesn't mean it couldn't be successful in the future. And if we could abolustely gurantee Iraq not hitting us by other means, why couldn't we deal with Afghanistan the same way. Couldn't we have dealt with Afghanistan without having to invade it and occupy it?



I don't think that is true with the criteria I laid out. First, you need a regime that is bent on US destruction and willing to help those who would like to take us out. In those other countrys we have friendly regimes that are trying to help. The most dangerous regimes are ones that are doing everything they can to hurt us. Those types of regimes are relatively few.

Regimes that could fit into the catagory as who are bent on our destruction are: North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq and maybe Sudan.

When you look at that list Iraq doesn't seem such a bad idea. It was clearly the low hanging fruit because we had beat them before and had bases nearby with which to invade. I explained the problems with the other countries.




I don't care where the threat comes from. A fundamentalist attack or another kind of terrorist attack is just the same to the American citizen that died. If Al Queda had cooperated with Iraq 9-11 would have probably been much worse. Why wait for you enemies to get together.



We may also be looking at a permanent occupatoin of Afghanistan. From that perspective the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were no different. Both invasion included an occupation of a divided and violent nation. Afghanistan even more so.








Because after 9-11 it became clear that we could not wait to let them be successful before we attacked. We have to hit first if we don't want to lose another set of twin towers.





That may be true but that wasn't my point. The point was a backward and underdeveloped country having a government with little money, no sophistication and no access to advanced technology was able to sponsor a terrorist group that pulled off 9-11. Just think what could have happened if such a group and Iraq had gotten together (any group - Hamas, etc). Afghanistan taught us that you just can't wait for a regime that has it in for you to get in the first blow.






Why is it such a silly point? All the arguments used saying we should not have gone into Iraq - it is a divided nation, it would be a long occupation, etc. go doubly for Afghanistan. We knew we would be successful against Iraq, Afghanistan was a much bigger risk.

Didn't you learn anything from Black Hawk Down?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the only difference was Afghanistan had been successful and Iraq hadn't. So why wait until Iraq was successful? Why not hit them before they were successful?

because they were not "capable."

because they were not working with the people who actually were capable, and were threatening us.

because removing a dictator who could not mount an effective threat was not worth 3000 American soldiers, $400 billion, loss of credibility and influence, creating the best al Qaeda recruiting drive imaginable, and loss of military capacity to deal with actual threats (such as Iran, or al Qaeda itself).

You use the word "Justified". I was not talking about if we were "justified", I was talking about what was prudent from a national security perspective. You go after the country that is the bigger threat from a national security perspective. The point here is to save U.S. citizens lives not to please the international community. Is it not?

The point is always to further the national interest. But effective cooperation from other countries is part of that, is it not? (If not, then please explain why countries bother to seek alliances in the first place.)

From a national security perspective, we are in a worse position than we were, or could have been, without the occupation. And at massive cost.

And, of course, the misleading focus on non-existent WMDs and non-existent ties to al Qaeda (and non-existent flowers and sweets) prevented any clear-eyed analysis of these tradeoffs in advance. What you offer now is post-hoc justification, because the pre-hoc ones were a load of crap.

"Who started it" has become an obsolete concept in the age of terrorism and WMDs. We can't let them get in the first blow because in the first blow we could lose Chicago, or even worse Vegas.

I agree with this. This is not a playground. Preemptive strikes are a valid option. They just should be aimed sensibly.

Not that it mattered, but again, Iraq had started it. If breaking a treaty to end a war, and trying to assisinate the former of head of your state is not justification enough, I don't know what is.

You are right again -- it didn't matter. "Who started it" is a stupid concept, as you pointed out at first. Attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq in accordance with that concept, however, is no less stupid.

If Laurent Kabila had tried to assassinate the president through a voodoo ritual, that would not have justified invading and attempting to occupy Congo. Or, much more importantly, it may have "justified" it -- but it would not have made it worth the cost.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
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.

We have a constitution in this country. We also have a government and various organization that enforce the law. If we lived in a lawless land with no government and your neighbor bought weapons, and said they were going to kill your family wouldn't the prudent thing to kill them before they took out one of your children.

Until there is an international organization that effectively enforces a just and reasonable international law, the defense of our citizens falls onto us.

Originally posted by baltassoc
I want you to think for a second about what you are saying. It was justified/good/okay/prudent to invade Iraq because other countries (not Iraq) pose a greater danger than Afganistan.

I have thought about it a lot and many people hold this position, not just me. Did you miss the whole post 9-11 reassessment of the rules of engagament. I remember watching Al Franken (who supported the invasion at the time) saying that in a post 9-11 world we can't wait to be hit first. And it is not that these countrys just pose a greater danger, they have not only said they want to destroy the US, but they have taken affirmative steps in that direction.

Originally posted by baltassoc
This is not a debate on the wisdom of the premptive strike. This is stupid.

Arrogance and ignorance: again you demonstrate why they are such an annoying combination.

Originally posted by baltassoc
You aren't going to convince me or anybody similarly inclined this way.

For you, security is paramount. For me, I have higher ideals.

It's ironic that you are the one who defends moral absolutism.

The problem is that your morality is not well thought out and that leads you to absurd conclusions. We are not talking about invading switzerland. The regimes I have listed already are opressive, abuse their people, are not democratic, keep their people poor plus they have it in for the US. You support an international system that protects such regimes. I have trouble in seeing the morality in that.

The US consitution gurantees a Republican and Democratic regime in all its members. The moral international law you defend protects all regimes, no matter how heinous, as long as they are "recognized".

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were heinous rulers who abused their people. From a moral perspective taking them out was a good thing for their people.

Keeping murderous thugs in power may be prudent from a national security perspective, but its pathetic to try and defend their existence from a morality perspective.

From my perspective, not attacking until you have been attacked first, in the international arean, can be and often is an immoral position. If you have the ability to stop genocide, I believe it is a moral imperative stop the genocide, regardless if the country perpetuating the genocide has attacked you.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Didn't you learn anything from Black Hawk Down?

Actually that is on my list of movies to see.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Didn't you learn anything from Black Hawk Down?

2. Don't leave Dems in charge.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch What you offer now is post-hoc justification, because the pre-hoc ones were a load of crap.

Aren't these "Post Hoc" because we couldn't know this:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
because removing a dictator who could not mount an effective threat was not worth 3000 American soldiers, $400 billion, loss of credibility and influence, creating the best al Qaeda recruiting drive imaginable, and loss of military capacity to deal with actual threats (such as Iran, or al Qaeda itself).

From a national security perspective, we are in a worse position than we were, or could have been, without the occupation. And at massive cost.

My point was that the Pre-hoc view of invading Iraq and Afghanistan were pretty much looking the same. In fact an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was looking a lot more dicey.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The point is always to further the national interest. But effective cooperation from other countries is part of that, is it not? (If not, then please explain why countries bother to seek alliances in the first place.)

Countrys most often get into alliances because many are stronger than one. Sometimes you need help to get the job done. In this case we didn't need anyone else's help. It is nice if we can get help from other countrys to further our national interest but it is not a prerequisite.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch And, of course, the misleading focus on non-existent WMDs

The Taliban had no WMDs

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
and non-existent ties to al Qaeda (and non-existent flowers and sweets) prevented any clear-eyed analysis of these tradeoffs in advance.

For some of us, the fact that they could ever get together was enough.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch They just should be aimed sensibly.

Can't argue with that.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You are right again -- it didn't matter. "Who started it" is a stupid concept, as you pointed out at first. Attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq in accordance with that concept, however, is no less stupid.

I was just pointing out that under the "Who started it way of thinking" there was justification. But "who started it" is a stupid argument to get into anyway.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch If Laurent Kabila had tried to assassinate the president through a voodoo ritual, that would not have justified invading and attempting to occupy Congo. Or, much more importantly, it may have "justified" it -- but it would not have made it worth the cost.

That is true. But if Lawrence Kabala today tried to rig a stage in South African when Clinton was visiting to blow up, but failed, that would be a whole different scenario. Some sort of reaction would be in order. I don't think we could tolerate him staying in power. One way or another we would have to get rid of him. Especially if he kept up his campaign.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually that is on my list of movies to see.

Big screen and surround sound are musts.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were heinous rulers who abused their people. From a moral perspective taking them out was a good thing for their people.

Keeping murderous thugs in power may be prudent from a national security perspective, but its pathetic to try and defend their existence from a morality perspective.

From my perspective, not attacking until you have been attacked first, in the international arean, can be and often is an immoral position. If you have the ability to stop genocide, I believe it is a moral imperative stop the genocide, regardless if the country perpetuating the genocide has attacked you.

I will leave off the rest, as I've already addressed it, and only talk about this.

Calling Saddam and the Taliban evil is a no-brainer. Saying that their removal benefits their people is easy, but not quite as easy, because you then need to consider what comes next. The result in Afganistan certainly has been much better -- though I would argue that one cost of the Iraq invasion is that we have lost an opportunity to dramatically improve the lives of the Afghan people, which I believe would have been of great benefit to US security.

In Iraq, the question is harder, and still unanswered (the question of "are the Iraqis better off," not "was it worth it for US security"). Murderous, genocidal dictator gone. Replaced by..... It's still unclear. People vote, people get blown up. Civil war seems to approach, some say it's already here. If US forces leave, what happens next? Will US forces always be there?

And I will leave out all the "trains run on time" kind of stuff (things like oil production, electricity, clean water, etc), except to point out that Reagan and others used just that sort of justification to justify support of murderous, and even genocidal, dictatorial regimes in South Africa, Zaire, the Philippines, and a host of other countries (none of which were threatened by pro-Soviet, Communist insurgencies, which was the other rationale).

As an example of what I mean: I rejoiced the day that Mobutu left power. He was the worst sort of dictator. And yet -- was Zaire better off under him, or under Kabila? This may be impossible to say. Which is better: A dictator who tortures and slaughters his enemies and robs the country blind, or a never-ending civil war?

I agree that keeping murderous thugs in power cannot be justified in any moral way. The question is whether, from a national security perspective, it is beneficial to the US to go to war, largely unilaterally, to enforce moral positions. I think that it is very rarely a good idea, from a national security perspective, to do so. Where it may be a good idea, the question of scale intervenes -- it is one thing to support, even with troops, an independence movement. It is a very different thing to invade and occupy for an indefinite number of years. (Again -- the neo-cons who "planned" this refused to confront the clear problems that might cause a multi-year occupation, so all of the neo-con rationale now seems post-hoc.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Aren't these "Post Hoc" because we couldn't know this:

Bullshit. The neo-cons and the Admin refused to even think about it, but that does not mean that a realistic assessment of what an occupation would require was impossible. Shinseki, for example, called for several hundred thousand troops.

Countrys most often get into alliances because many are stronger than one. Sometimes you need help to get the job done. In this case we didn't need anyone else's help. It is nice if we can get help from other countrys to further our national interest but it is not a prerequisite.

We didn't need any help to get the job done?

Then why is it not even close to done?

And your suggestion that they looked the same from a justification perspective is even more ridiculous. One had attacked us, and was continuing to harbor the people who wanted to continue attacking us. The other couldn't harm us at all. Yes, they wanted to kill the president -- but do you really believe that all of this was worth it to protect the president from an assassination attempt by Iraq?

For some of us, the fact that they could ever get together was enough.

For some of us, 12 years of them not doing so, and hating each other, etc. was enough to suggest that maybe we had better targets out there. Like, say, bin Laden.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I will leave off the rest, as I've already addressed it, and only talk about this.

Calling Saddam and the Taliban evil is a no-brainer. Saying that their removal benefits their people is easy, but not quite as easy, because you then need to consider what comes next. The result in Afganistan certainly has been much better -- though I would argue that one cost of the Iraq invasion is that we have lost an opportunity to dramatically improve the lives of the Afghan people, which I believe would have been of great benefit to US security.

In Iraq, the question is harder, and still unanswered (the question of "are the Iraqis better off," not "was it worth it for US security"). Murderous, genocidal dictator gone. Replaced by..... It's still unclear. People vote, people get blown up. Civil war seems to approach, some say it's already here. If US forces leave, what happens next? Will US forces always be there?

And I will leave out all the "trains run on time" kind of stuff (things like oil production, electricity, clean water, etc), except to point out that Reagan and others used just that sort of justification to justify support of murderous, and even genocidal, dictatorial regimes in South Africa, Zaire, the Philippines, and a host of other countries (none of which were threatened by pro-Soviet, Communist insurgencies, which was the other rationale).

As an example of what I mean: I rejoiced the day that Mobutu left power. He was the worst sort of dictator. And yet -- was Zaire better off under him, or under Kabila? This may be impossible to say. Which is better: A dictator who tortures and slaughters his enemies and robs the country blind, or a never-ending civil war?

I agree that keeping murderous thugs in power cannot be justified in any moral way. The question is whether, from a national security perspective, it is beneficial to the US to go to war, largely unilaterally, to enforce moral positions. I think that it is very rarely a good idea, from a national security perspective, to do so. Where it may be a good idea, the question of scale intervenes -- it is one thing to support, even with troops, an independence movement. It is a very different thing to invade and occupy for an indefinite number of years. (Again -- the neo-cons who "planned" this refused to confront the clear problems that might cause a multi-year occupation, so all of the neo-con rationale now seems post-hoc.)

I agree with this generally, although when it comes to evil regimes, if you take it out, an evil regime may takes its place, but a chance that a better one will come along, even if it is small, in my opinion, is worth the risk.

Reasonable minds can disagree on this, but it is pretty hard for me to imagine a situation developing in Iraq that I would label worse than Saddam Hussein.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

For some of us, 12 years of them not doing so, and hating each other, etc. was enough to suggest that maybe we had better targets out there. Like, say, bin Laden.

Why is this always an either/or? Is there any argument that more troops in Afghanistan would have made, or would make, a difference. i thought the issue with OBL is that he is likely in a part of Pakistan where we cannot go.

your way there'd be 200k more US troops in afghanistan who couldn't cross the border. how would that help catch him?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Bullshit. The neo-cons and the Admin refused to even think about it, but that does not mean that a realistic assessment of what an occupation would require was impossible. Shinseki, for example, called for several hundred thousand troops.

I don't disagree that we should have gone in with more troops. Shinski was right, and his argument was very valid when he made it. We should have invaded with more troops, but that does not address the issue of what made Afghanistan different from Iraq.

It turned out OK, but I think it would have been prudent to enter Afghanistan with more troops.

The other strategy screw up was not to use the insurgents in Iraq like we used them in Afghanistan. We should have fomented rebellion, or at least organized small Iraqi unit of soldiers and let them be in the front when we entered cities.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
We didn't need any help to get the job done?

Then why is it not even close to done?

Do you think a couple of battalians of foreign troops would have really made a difference at this point.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch And your suggestion that they looked the same from a justification perspective is even more ridiculous. One had attacked us, and was continuing to harbor the people who wanted to continue attacking us. The other couldn't harm us at all. Yes, they wanted to kill the president -- but do you really believe that all of this was worth it to protect the president from an assassination attempt by Iraq?


For some of us, 12 years of them not doing so, and hating each other, etc. was enough to suggest that maybe we had better targets out there. Like, say, bin Laden.

I don't see this as ridiculous. This government, unlike the Taliban, had developed and used WMD's in the past. And I know that many people think that our intelligence services are ominscient or at least should be omniscient, but there was no way we could know that they didn't have any more WMDs. Now that Al Queda had demostrated they could get into the US, we just couldn't take the risk of either Al Queda or some other terrorist group hooking up with Saddam and pulling off an even worse 9-11.