Taking troops out of Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq is not going to magically reduce arab resentment. That's bloody obvious don't you think? The rest of your post demonstrates a maddening inability to acknowledge reality.
First, no I don't think so. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are not on the same scale. One is the home of Islam and one is not. Its the reason Osama's beef wasn't 'all troops in the ME' when he started but troops in SA. I guess if you don't see the obvious difference between the home of Islam and another Muslim country then you might have a point, but then you wouldn't have a very good historic or working knowledge of Islam. Second, the intervention in Iraq was not to 'magically reduce arab resentment' but rather to take the steps necessary to achieve such an outcome. Pursuing containment indefinitely was NOT going to reduce Arab resentment. Troops would have to stay in Saudi Arabia and sanctions would continue to hurt Iraqis (which didn't play well in case you missed it). Removing Saddam was a proactive step to reduce our overall presence in the region. That doesn't happen overnight, and has in fact not gone as quickly as one would have hoped, but nonetheless we are closer to a reduced presence now than pre-intervention. Third, the more people in the middle east can partake in their own governance, the less likely they'll be to lash out from government induced anti-americanism. We've seen this is Lebanon and Egypt where grassroots efforts and US pressure have combined to loosen up the regimes in power. Deomcratic reform is likely to make us all safer and distraction through anti-americanism lessen. Ad hom. Doesn't get you anything except a brush off. I take the time to explain my position, you don't.
The implication of your original comment (like it or not) is that we have somehow lessened arab resentment by invading Iraq. It is true that Osama really got pissed at the US after troops were stationed in Saudi. But you'd be wholly incorrect to assume that the vast majority of arabs feel any less threatened by american foreign policy because we attacked a sovreign arab nation, regardless of Saddam's actions/policy. Nevermind, I'm pretty sure we still have some troops in Saudi Arabia, making your point moot. You already know that I think this neocon ideology is naive and doomed to failure. We can discuss it again if you like - I still enjoy debating it with you. Maybe, but as I've told you previously, "shock and awe" bombing campaigns are not going to achieve this. That's the point. Let's think it through: You assert anti-american sentiment is high because of these non-democratic governments. So america bombs the country and removes the tyrant and assumes the people will magically forget the anti-americanism taught them. Doesn't this seem counterintuitive to you? Nevermind that this assumes the people are not righteously pissed off at America because of our foreign policy... Eveything you needed to hear Saint Louis already said! Only, the differance is that he has factual evidence to backup his claim while all you have is conjecture and grandiose policy theories. Let me know if you really want me to go through it all again.
Hmmm, everything I said in response to Saint Louis with the exception of my inevitable proliferation risk argument is FACT. So your rubber & glue response is fairly laughable.
Half of your repsonses were "assertion this, assertion that". What facts? No WMDs, bush admitted it. Where's the assertion? We are going to be there for a long time. Excuses aside about the Iraqi army ( ) - where's the assertion? Then you draw some crazy distinction that somehow american toruturers are better since at least we aren't "genocidal dictators". Non sequitor. And you have the balls to say there's no proof. Do I need to post the bloody pictures? And on and on.... Your rhetoric is steeped in denial.
The implication of my argument is that we have removed a major issue which caused 9/11 - the stationing of troops in SA. That is a factual statement. No, we withdrew in the Spring of 2003. Your opinion. The reforms in Egypt and Lebanon point to a different conclusion. Historically the point that democracies are less likely to fight each other is overwhelmingly proven correct. Only if you wrongly assume that someone thinks there is a 'magical' instantaneous solution to ANYTHING. Bush lied is an assertion. There were never any WMDs is an assertion (ie unprovable and hence not a fact). A prediction of the future cannot be a fact. First, I said there is no indication that the US 'is' torturing. Is being present as opposed to past tense. Abu Ghrab would be past tense, hence the ability to post pictures. Second, if crossing the discussion between a genocidal dictator and US torture is a non sequitor, lol, then you'd be accusing Saint Louis of it - not me. MY point was that a genocidal dictator was removed and his response was to bring up US torture. So it would appear he's make the logical error of a non sequitor. There is no denial because with the future risk claim excepted, I'm talking about facts: A state sponsor of terror has been removed. A genocidal dictator has been removed. The main cause of 9/11 has been removed. Democratic reform has been spurred by the intervention. AQ is floundering and losing what popular support it had. Predictions that the whole ME would go up in flames b/c the intervention were wrong. Democratic regimes are less likely to fight than nondemocratic regimes. NOT facts: Iraq will become merge with Iran and spur worldwide terrorism. Iraq is in an all out civil war. Osama was just as pissed about troops in Quatar as in Saudi Arabia. The torture in Abu Ghrab is on par with Saddam's record. A religious conflict will explode across the region. Its pretty simple really. There is no denial because I'm not saying this has turned out how it could have, or how I wished it had. I'm not saying the intervention has been properly run. But OTOH the sky is not falling either.
Well, that's good I guess. And the Iraqi mess points to my conclusion. You also are trumpeting an opinion. You're upset that I am acting as if this should be quick and simple. It was sold to the unsuspecting US public that way. It's a joke to assume that just staying longer and longer will somehow fix this problem. Aluminum tubes / yellow cake ? This is a ridiculous claim. Bush caused 9/11 then too. You can't prove me wrong - hence any evidence to the contrary is simply assertion. Yet you treat your own vision as unfallible gospel. Our claims of moral superiority and "winning the hearts of the iraqis" or whatever were blown to hell - that's the point. And replaced with an unstable US puppet government and a terrorist training ground. To act like the two are distinct from each other is denial. No argument. That's an assertion, to borrow from your own debate tactics. Assertion. We cannot predict the future right? I hope you're right - but I don't see it. Conjecture. I think this Iraq mess has bettered their situation personally. Again I'll point out the obvious hypocrisy. You tell me not to predeict the future yet - well, you get the point. Unless you're a neocon? the "not facts" portion of your post is similarly "conjecture". I'm all for optimism, but at some point, the evidence is what it is.
You tell me you like the taste You just need an excuse You tell me it calms your nerves You just think it looks cool You tell me you want to be different You just change for the same You tell me it's only natural You just need the proof Did you ****ing get it? IT'S IN MY EYES AND IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT WAY TO ME IN MY EYES You tell me that nothing matters You're just ****ing scared You tell me that I'm better You just hate yourself You tell me that you like her You just wish you did You tell me that I make no difference At least I'm ****in' trying What the **** have you done? IT'S IN MY EYES AND IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT WAY TO ME IN MY EYES ...burp
Not that democracies are less likely to fight than nondemocratic ones. That is a fact. Agreed, but I never claimed the intervention was properly justified to the public - only that is was justified as an action IMO. Hmmm. Not sure how to respond to this because I'm not sure what you're responding to specifically that I've said. But there is ample reason to believe a quick pullout would be the worst possible option. No ridiculous at all. There are alternate explanations other than 'lying.' He could be stupid (my choice), could have been groupthink (seeing what you want to see), or other explanations. It is not a FACT that he actively deceived the public. I cannot disprove that, but you cannot say it is a FACT, only an assertion. I can say it is a FACT that bin laden caused 9/11 because he's admitted as much, and most every reputable authority in the world recognizes it as such. Unless you want to get into some metaphysical 'there are no facts' argument, I think I'm drawing a reasonable line between what is fact and what is assertion. Not true. I admit I was wrong that we would find WMD. I admit I thought the intervention would go smoother, and that the administration would handle it better (and they haven't). By virtue of admitting my errors I disprove your claim. That's not the point. Remember this all came up in response to my statement that a genocidal dictator had been removed. A point which you conceed below. I never claimed we had won the hearts and minds of Iraqi or that Abu Ghrab didn't hurt our image. Er, yes. A totalitarian regime led by a single actor - a dictator - and an elected regime that has some human rights abuses ARE distinct. To claim they are the same is just erroneous and completely off base. If your claim was true then the US is equivalent to Saddam, or Hitler, or Stalin. I dare say I disagree. Hardly. Osama is on record as identifying troops in SA as THE main cause for his war on the west. No, this is not an assertion. Speaking of Egypt and Lebanon this has already happened, as well as democratic reform in Iraq - which while not stable has undeniable become more democratic. I can't imagine why you think so. Even the indigineous Iraqi insurgents are literally fighting with AQ now. Every indigineous authority (not counting the government) has denounced AQ, including the Muslim clerics that are at odds with EACH OTHER. The Jordanian bombings have brought denunciations from around the Muslim world of AQ because it is apparent that they have no problem killing other Muslims. Hypocrisy? What are you talking about? First, I said predicting the future cannot be claimed as a fact - not that your COULDN'T say what you thought was going to happen. Second, I do no such thing in this example. I point out a prediction - that the whole mideast would go up in flames - regimes would fall - when we intervened - was WRONG. It HAS NOT happened, hence it was yet another claim made by 'batman's side' that was not true. So again the claim that his 'side' was right on EVERY ANGLE of the intervention is - FALSE. Democracies are less likely to fight with other democracies. Absolutely no. It is not conjecture that these things are NOT FACTS, lol. The ME hasn't blown up in a Muslim furor and regimes haven't fallen. Iraq hasn't merged with Iran to spur worldwide terrorism. Iraq is not in an all out civil war. The insurgency is less than 1% of the population by even the most anti-war estimates. Osama was not as pissed about troops in Quatar as in Saudi Arabia, look it up. That argument is just silly because it ignores the relative importance of SA as a holy land in relation to other lands. The torture at Abu Ghrab is not on par with Saddam's record. How could it? He killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured millions - how is that the same as condoning the torture of a few people? Where is the religious conflict exploding across the region? You see? None of these things are true, hence they are not facts.
Argh. I was about to post that you were "going hayes on me". I'm not willing to dissect every part of your post - you are drawing very careful distinctions to maintain the legitimacy of your claims, but you are selectively ignoring the obvious connotations they imply. I won't argue the historical assertion that democracies are less prone to fight with each other, but if the only method available to achieve this utopian "everybody has a democracy" ideology is through a perpetual war for perpetual peace a la US foreign policy for the last 50 years, it's bound to be -well- perpetual. But more importantly, and as I have repeatedly mentioned, it is ripe for abuse. Bush (who you vehemently deny is a "true" neocon") has abused this tired excuse for warfare again and again. The craziest thing is that I really don't see this having been successful unless you are a halliburton stock owner. Going to war with everybody will not endear them to you.
Hayes: Looking at these things as a snapshot in time is nice, but a little trite, don't you think? Why are you ignoring the evidence that this is what may occur? Ok and this bothers me. We pulled out right, yet Osama is still promising more attacks. How can you not make the connection that our continued aggression/foreign policy is promoting this terrorism? Why deny the obvious? Edit the second: And this irritates me too. Dammit hayes, we have heaps of reports showing at least "active pressuring of the intelligence community" and at worst knowingly forged documents and all you can say is "well he could be dumb"? That's just sick.
A lot to digest after being away from a computer all day. Isn't just about everything an "assertion" at some point. Did the U.S. know all the facts completely before invading? Wasn't there "assertions" made before the invasion that went against the Bush administrations rosy projections? Aren't those individuals who didn't going along with the adminstrations rosy outlook for Iraq out of a job now? Iraq is so screwed up at this point I don't know how anyone can defend the Bush administration. Think of how much money has been wasted on this war. Isn't there any irony here that the U.S. at one point was arming/funding Saddam against Iran? Isn't it ironic that the U.S. once funded and armed Osama and friends to fight the Soviets? We caught Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9-11. Osama is still running free even though he was behind 9-11. Priorities? Yes, Saddam was a murderous dictator, but there have been lots of murderous dictators that the U.S. hasn't invaded a country to remove. Sudan anyone? Is the common Iraqi better off today then they were under Saddam? If the Iraqi is dead today because of the war then the answer would be no. Democracy, oh wait, Iraq now has democracy. Democracy solves all, except when someone gets elected that you don't like. See Hamas. I guess bottomline, I just make a poor flag waving American. I just see our government as trying to rule the world. We are in the Middle East because the U.S's future economic interests are at stake. The U.S., in the words of our esteemed President, is "addicted to oil". I'll assume Bush wasn't lying when he made that statement. Why are we addicted to oil? When was the first OPEC oil embargo? 1973? Help me out here, I was young at the time. Over 30 years have passed since then. Doesn't it seem reasonable that in a country so rich as the U.S. that we could have solved this problem of being addicted to oil? Why can a bunch of high school kids from Philadelphia build an earth-friendly sports car on a small budget and the big three in Detroit can't? link I sit back and think of how much money America has wasted in those 30 plus years on misguided pursuits of empire. All I can come up with is greed as the cause of our current situation. Corporate greed. The U.S. won the Cold War by bankrupting the Soviet Union. The terrorists might win the War on Terror by bankrupting the U.S. To Hayes and the rest of the Bush supporters on this board, do you really think that the Bush administration is doing what is best for the U.S. as a country? Are they really looking after the interests of all the citizens of this land that I and most of you call home? Does their actions make you proud to be an American? I also will say I do not think that the Democrats in Washington are without blame. I am as dissappointed in the Democratic Party as I am with the Republican Party. To me our government and the individuals we elect our failing us. I feel that they are more concered with pleasing their campaign contributers and the lobbyists who have their ear, then doing what is right for the nation. I was brought up believing that the United States of America's government was the shining example of how a government was supposed to work for the good of its people. Well if they are working for our good now, then it is at the expense of the rest of the world. And I am afraid that the rest of the world has us out numbered. More irony. When the Rockets were down 3-2 to the Knicks there biggest hope lay in the hands of a Muslim.
You aren't kidding. After not reading this thread since Wednesday, I had a headache by the time I reached the end. I'll think twice before I start the hair splitting posting style again.
Oh, you know I think you're right. I think the phrase WAS 'going hayes on me,' not 'getting hayes'd.' My bad I started with careful claims. I'm not sure why that's more irritating than making sloppy generalizations that I can't support. I am not ignoring anything. That you draw inferences from those claims neither means they are the only inferences to draw nor that they are the correct ones. Good. I'm not sure why you think neconservatism is utopian. I think that's an odd descriptor. Your opinion is that the size of the task means we shouldn't strive to achieve it. I can't think of a worse philosophy or criteria to use in just about any decision in life. Taking on the USSR was certainly a perpetual task (for 50 years) but I guess you'd rather we have capitulated. I think not. It's a lot easier to envision today's world as one without totalitarianism than that world. The major powers are all moving to or in democratic states. The only totalitarian regimes left are holdovers dictators. The transition is not easy and it was unrealistic for it to be projected as so. But a tough transition is not a reason to leave people under the boot of totalitarianism if we can affect a change. Uh, abused it for warfare again and again...what intervention besides Iraq? Afghanistan? Do you deny that it was necessary to intervene in Afghanistan? If this has been the US policy the last 50 years then why the vehemence against Bush (I'm, as you know, not a Bush supporter but that seems a little contradictory). I may have pulled a Rip Van Winkle, but I don't think we've gone to war but with two countries. And the point is not endearment, but removal of totalitarianism. Whether the democracy that emerges is aligned with US opinions or not, the fact that there are multiple players making decisions serves as a barrier to conflict that arises when a single actor (dictator) or small cadre (Politboro ect) have all the decisionmaking power. That is why democracies tend not to go to war with each other. Not at all. I am pointing out that there have been tangible benefits. Those have occured. Put them in the plus column. There are things that have not occured. Put those in the 'didn't happen column,' which includes not only the lack of regimes falling to angry uprisings but also WMD's being found. Then there are things that may occur. Those do not go in the minus column because they haven't happened. So if we are making a current evaluation of the situation, you cannot say 'oh and they are GOING to decent into full scale civil war, align completely with terroristic Iran, etc' and use that to counterbalance the plus column. Why? Because the plus column has facts - things that have happened, and the 'hasn't happened column' has things that haven't happened. That are conjecture. I am not ignoring evidence that these things may occur, but there is contrary evidence that these things may not occur. Therefore you cannot use these as a response to what has definitively happened. Further, when Batman claims that the anti-war crowd has been right about EVERY SINGLE THING - that is incorrect as my original fact based points show. The responses don't deny my points. First, Osama was attacking us BEFORE Bush II invaded Iraq. That is a factual statement we can both agree on, right? So why are you connecting bin ladens continued war with Iraq? Second, you claim it is 'promoting this terrorism' when nothing could be further from the truth. All recent developments in relation to AQ and Iraq are that more and more Muslims are turning AWAY from AQ because of their actions in Iraq and by extension, Jordan. It is a PR disaster for AQ. Third, why do YOU deny the obvious? Osama offered a truce right? Do you think he would have done that if we still had big troops deployments in the holiest of holy Muslim lands? I don't think so. If you DO, then please explain. I never claimed removing troops from SA solved all terrorism, which is what you are acting as if I claimed. I claimed we removed THE cause of 9/11. That is a FACT, dammit. Recognize. Are you calling me sick? I'm not sure how that's productive. But to answer your point, you've already done it. Reports of 'active pressuring of the intelligence community' is classic by definition groupthink: 'We only want to see this kind of info, get us info that says x, we're not interested in info other than x, this is the truth so we want to see your conclusions in line with x.' That is an explanation that belies a claim of lying. So I don't think correct to assert that claim of lying as a fact.
