All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Let me say this very slowly: if another country (let's pick one, say, Syria) is a greater threat to the US than Afghanistan, then that may be justification for invading Syria.

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."

Originally posted by baltassoc
It is not justification for invading Iraq.

(Unless you go for the "bloody nose" theory, i.e., when confronted with a half dozen bullies, pick the biggest one and bloody his nose and the rest will run away. Except, well, that hasn't worked out very well. Is that what you're saying?)

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.

Originally posted by baltassoc
If only any of that had been the justification for going into Iraq. if only it had been so clean. But it wasn't. It just wasn't. Was not.

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.

Originally posted by baltassoc I'm not saying that one can only attack when attacked.

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

Originally posted by baltassoc I'm saying that nobody disagrees that when one is striking back that one is on the high ground. In the absence of that, one better have one's ducks in a row or anticipate criticism.

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".

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky

But as long as there are countries in the world that are not democratic and are not prospering (or are declining in prosperity), that is bad for US interests. Whether by hook or by crook, we need to do whatever we can (and at whatever cost) to turn every country on the globe into a growing, prosperous democracy.

Once we achive that, national security will cease to be an issue.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Wait, are you saying it's a fools errand to send troops in to chase Osama bin Laden?

So tell me again, why did my cousin Daisy's fiance have to die? And what do we tell the kid about why his father died?

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.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Let me say this very slowly: if another country (let's pick one, say, Syria) is a greater threat to the US than Afghanistan, then that may be justification for invading Syria.

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.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Very few people think Saddam is a good guy.

wow. you need help.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Very few people think Saddam is a good guy. Most questioning is not whether toppling Saddam was a good idea from a moral perspective,

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."

Originally posted by baltassoc
but why, in light of a) our tolerance of his existance for a dozen years and

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.

Originally posted by baltassoc
b) the existence of other threats, we chose the moment we did to invade.

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.

Originally posted by baltassoc

Without a plan on how to control the country after we got in. Taking a chance on invading Iraq to make it a more prosperous place might have been the moral choice. But doing so in such a manner so as to minimize the chances of that prosperity (by not having a plan to establish control and order), is absolutely unmoral. And not in the long term interests of the US.

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.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
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."
...

"This is stupid."

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

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.

I remind you your first post said this:

The argument of, well if we went into Iraq, why didn't we choose North Korea or Iran doesn't make much sense to me. Why didn't we invade these countrys before Afghanistan? They have the potential of making WMDs where Afghanistan was never even in the running. So they could potentially hit us harder than a second hit from Afghanistan.

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.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Wait, are you saying it's a fools errand to send troops in to chase Osama bin Laden?

So tell me again, why did my cousin Daisy's fiance have to die? And what do we tell the kid about why his father died?

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
And how do you apply this analysis in Saudi Arabia? Lebanon? Egypt? Algeria?

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.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
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."

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Afghanistan was much more risky than Iraq, ...

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?