I meant Iraqi Baathists, of course.
Please not this line again. There is no reason other than a few empty reassurances to think that Bush hadn’t decided to go to war against Iraq no matter what. His tactics bear this out too, in particular the “changes of mind” he displayed concerning peaceful disarmament, peaceful regime change, and unavoidable war, as well as his hardening line when UN inspectors began making visible and quantifiable progress on the ground. In the light of over a year of falsehoods and clumsy propaganda, not forgetting his “with me or against me” diplomacy, it is wrong to blame the rest of the world for not playing along to this ridiculous and radicalizing tune.
It’s true though, Sam that this is a good time to apply the diplomatic screws, and I think that is precisely what is happening. I am a bit worried that the same allegations that were directed at Iraq are being used against Syria now, but it’s probably just bluster. The war against Iraq probably cost the USA more than enough considering the difficult economic situation at home, but then again the only thing that has a passing chance of distracting voters from economic woes is another war …
Then you obviously haven’t been paying very much attention. sailor, meet George Bush.
There’s a piece of the plan that still needs to be tested.
Note: multiple simultaneous large scale wars.
Syria’s toast.
I think it’s still a touch premature to think that.
Let’s give it a few months to see what the administration intends to do next. If Bush and Company are seriously planning another war, well… We’ll know when they start playing their cards.
Help me to understand something - at the beginning of the war, Bush called Saddam Hussein out, giving him 48 hours to leave the country. I presumed at the time that this meant that Hussein could simply step down and leave. Now, however, it appears that if he is living somewhere else, he is being “harbored” almost as if he were an international criminal. At what point did his status change? What was done during the prosecution of this war that now suggested we could violate (or threaten to violate) even more sovereign nations’ borders to retrieve him?
Wonderful, Sam. You know you should send your CV in, you actually sound like you believe this. Ah, actually you do.
Present strong position.
Well, a weak second rate military has been knocked over, rather confirming that the imperial military power can knock over an otherwise isolated second rate dictator on some trumped up excuses of ‘threats’ to itself.
But then that is not the real problem. The real problem is in the long term, and the stomach to keep up with things after the first and second truck bombs go off. To manage a transition to something slightly nicer, and pehraps not quite so hypocritical as Egypt. As I make the point elsewhere this is a non-trivial problem and extending imperial rule east and west is not going to make it any better.
Pious nonsense of the worst sort. Wolfowitz et al wanted war, on their schedule and on their watch. “Stood behind” is utter and complete shite.
One might better rephrase this to say if the Bush Administration had not been quite so bumblingly incompetent in its public diplomacy, so transparent in its schedule to war, and had extended, as Bush I had done, real efforts at combined diplomatic and military efforts, a clear and genuine coalition could and would have emerged. Only the rank and sheer incompetence of the present administration enabled Sadaam Hussien to play the cards.
It is fairly bloody clear given the trumped evidence, the shifting explanations for the rational for the invasion, that this was a done deal in our little war hawk clan, barring any rational analysis of the costs and benefits.
Spoken like a true believer. Indeed the only alternative - a fine piece of rhetoric to justify a war without any real need.
Fantasy. Well that is again nice rhetoric, very nice rhetoric, but the reality is Lebanon, the Occupied Territories, Yemen, and Algeria.
Fantasy? Sam is making some claim here to “understand” the psychology of the Middle East, I look forward to him explaining how this little psychology lesson explains Algeria, explains Lebanon and explains the Occupied Territories.
In Algeria, I see ten years of unremitting warfare, no ‘fantasy’ about defeating the US or that Le Pouvoir will give in, but on the part of the radical who has no hope that things will ever get better, that there will be change, it is better to spend one’s life trying and perhaps reaching paradise than whiling away meaninglessly in cafes.
Sam speaks of “smashing” "the twisted culture of death in the middle east. " and pretends to teach us that the "best way to do that is to make it clear that it doesn’t work. "
Obviously this policy was worked fucking brilliantly where applied, in Lebanon, in the Occupied Territories, in Algeria, to an extent in Yemen, oh and ever so passive Egypt – sure there is rotting police state at least marginally better than Iraq, but at least the terrorists are all in jail. True of course one can not safely travel in the Saed region, but a mere trviality that.
Yes, that is a beautiful image Sam, one which I am sure will lead to the same degree of peace that reigned in Southern Lebanon. Or in Algeria back in the day, or in Algeria now.
I find the ahistoricism, the lack of knowledge behind these kinds of claims to be stunningly dangerous, willfully naive and extraordinarily counterproductive.
Twisted culture of death indeed.
No way. No fucking way. Nobody but nobody is so brain dead as to try this. This isn’t stupid, this is drooling-in-your-oatmeal stupid! Hell, not even Sam would buy this crock of…what? when? No shit?
Oh, dear.
Oh, I’m sorry elucidator: Was there a point you were making? Or was this just another drive-by insult?
Collounsbury: I also don’t see a refutation in your message. Just lots of insults and vague references to different situations.
Btw, by ‘twisted culture of death’, I wasn’t talking about the Arab world as a whole, or even fundamentalism. I was talking about terrorist organizations who have come to glorify suicide bombings and other terrorist acts.
You know, ad hominem insults are outside the limits of reasonable debate. So why don’t you cut out the snide condescension and arguments from authority, okay? You might want to tone down arrogance a tad, considering your pathetic track record so far in predicting events in the middle east.
Tell you what, Sam, since you’re fond of characterizing informed opinions as ‘pathetic’, why don’t we compare your track record with Collounsbury’s? Should we dig up some of your posts re: Afghanistan ca. Autumn, 2001?
Sam
The references were indeed the situations. As I was writing quickly I did not develop my thinking but rather hoped you might leverage those references into a small inquiry into them, insofar as in general I do not make such without reason.
Lebanon: I am sure you are aware of the history of Lebanon and the enormous success the Israelis has in using occupation to “teach” “terrorists” that their tactics do not work. You are also likely aware of the American participation in the same. This is rather directly applicable to your hypothesis in regards to (a) the presumption that the fellows willing to use terror are somehow thinking along the lines you think they are and (b) the presumption that somehow if we flash enough force, they will then reasonably fall in line like good little colonials.
Algeria: Reference was made to the current civil war / civil conflict in which the secular Government has fought a decade long bloody repression against Islamist extremists, to no real avail. Ebbs and flows in the level of violence and security, but no end in sight. Reference also was made to the stunning success the French had in similar conditions, absolutely stunning success they had. Of course, Wolfowitz apparently believes it could have been done better.
Occupied Territories: Obviously terror tactics have decreased in popularity over the long years of occupation, once the Israelis showed they were willing to do just about anything, including engaging in collective punishment. I am sure we can all see how the Palestinians were brought round to seeing the resistance is futile, by the demonstration of force over the years.
The entire line of argument does not bear up to the historical track record, unless one wishes to institute police states, as in Egypt.
Indeed, of course that is not what you specified, but understanding that you are still rather out in la la land on this. The culture of death, the glorification of suicide attacks has come from precisely the impunity with which the modern American (and Israeli or virtually any western army) can defeat the subject armies. Your muscular imagery of gum chewing Americans machine gunning down Arabs, however potentially attractive to certain types, is not new, however the leverage is perhaps new. Certainly the idea mass conversions to Islam would happen upon the attacks on the Twin Towers & Pentagon are nothing more than Messianic fantasies, however the leverage of such attacks on ex-North American interests is another matter, and your analysis is all the more absurd for confusing the situations.
Well, Sam, I disagree rather clearly with your characterization, as well as your habit of running behind the accusation of ad hominem when your poorly thought through statements and assertions are challenged. If my track record is pathetic, maybe it is, then I stand up and own it, and people will rightly laugh at me if I pretend to arrogance or an ability to predict events in the region based on my expertise and experience. I like to think the track record is what it is. If not, well, then perhaps I can suggest you merely find it irritating to be yanked down to earth. You don’t do a bad job, Sam, when you stay on the reservation of factuality, but your arguments quickly run off into the most heated speculation on but the slightest pretext that dovetails with your ideological stand. Look at your constant harping on the French angle, come on man you would rightfully laugh at someone and dismiss who made such arguments in regards to American interests and connexions. Apply the same bloody standards.
Xeno: let us not get into such things, else this must go to the pit and that is not at all what should happen.
I do want to point out the deep and again, I repeat, dangerous flaws in the idea that application of force is somehow going to convince al-Qaeda types that oooh, martyrdom is not a great thing. This is a naïve misreading of the situation, for the war on Iraq rather plays exactly the opposite message of what Sam would have it play, it says that no Arab army is a champion, no conventional fighting will work. Obviously, there are then two choices, despair or after despair, aggression – that is what we have seen in the Territories. Of course, if one offers a way out, a dignified way out, and not Egypt on the Euphrates, then maybe you get into the realm of limiting this and building a society, but this is not some trivial “Shock and Awe” – “they only respect force” operation.
To say that anybody would think that the US is a paper tiger with no stomach for conflict, is either very naive, or a fool. The US is the only nation in the whole world that has waged so many wars of choice. Why do you think do they have more firepower than the next 20 runners up combined?
I don’t think the Arab nations never thought the US would never attack, on the contrary, they knew the US was going to attack. That, plus the two measures when it comes to Israel and Palestine, causes a lot of bad feelings toward the US within these Arab nations. Sure, they’re happy Saddam is gone, who isn’t? It still doesn’t justify the civilian victims, or this war. WmD werre no longer mentioned, instead it was Operation Iraqi Freedom. :rolleyes: Whatever…as long as the US gets it way, right?
If the Western world continues to let the Israeli - Palestine thing slide, and stands idly by while the US installs a puppet government (ok ok, yes, let’s wait and see what happens there, first), it might spark a lot more resentment than there already is.
Your second sentence, to me, says it all: to get them into line.
What line? Into line with what? With American thinking and behaving? Please forgive me if that sounds like a living nightmare to me.
My impression is that economic pressure rather than military screws will be applied to Syria.
Syria has apparently been doing a booming black market trade with Iraq. That spigot has now been cut off, rendering Syria more vulnerable than before to economic pressure. I don’t believe the Bushies are laying the groundwork for war with Syria, but rather are laying the groundwork for a campaign of economic coercion.
Time will tell, I guess, but I hope the administration is not so reckless as to launch another military operation.
When we are discussing whether or not our military action will cause terrorism, I think it is important that we go back to the justification of terror from the man himself, Osama.
The important thing to realize is that whether or not Bin Laden’s reasons for attacking Americans is what he says, it is the reason the young men kill themselves trying to kill Americans.
Secondly, force has no purpose, and I’ll tell you why. There aren’t that many suicide bombers in proportion to the population. If only .0045 percent of Iraqis become radicalized enough to become suicide bombers, then there will be 1000 of them. Extremist groups change very little in regard to the rest of the population. All it would take is some wealthy Saudi citizen to finance it all.
And speaking of Saudis. Those of you who say that funding Iraq was the correct deciscion at the time, let me make a small prediction. It is because of this thinking that we cause trouble. What do you think we have been doing with the Sauds for the past 10 years? We’ve been giving them weaponry. Are you prepared to say now that when we are fighting a war in Saudi Arabia for attacking Iraq in 10 years that it was a good deciscion at the time? Except this time its bound to be a little tougher, because we’ve given them our best stuff and we’ll be fighting against a bunch of M1A1s and F16s.
I certainly have no moral compunctions about us invading a nation that harbors terrorists and encourages terrorism, should they fail to comply when we tell them to knock it the hell off. However, I think a war with Syria would be unwise for a few reasons:
-
Political capital. Frankly, we don’t have it. We had barely enough to pull off the Iraq war, and we just won’t be able to secure enough support to go into Syria. Contrary to what the most ardent Bush-haters believe, Bush isn’t going to go around invading wherever he wants - without some support, any dreams of an attack are DOA.
-
Military capabilities. A Syrian invasion would stretch our military way too thin. We need troops to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for the forseeable future, and we need enough resources in reserve that NK still has to fear a US reprisal in the event that they get frisky with SK. It’s impossible to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, invade Syria, and scare NK into behaving all at once, unless we suddenly institute a draft. And frankly, I think elucidator will vote Republican before we see that happening.
-
The aftermath. Okay, so we invade Syria. Then what? We occupy them, too? I don’t think Syrians would be as receptive to a governmental overhaul as Iraqis will be. Their government isn’t as flat-out evil, the people aren’t as oppressed, and they won’t take kindly to our presence. A Syrian reformation would be a nightmare.
At any rate, I agree with Sam in that we won’t need to. They’ll look at Iraq, and they’ll cave. Bush has a reputation as a war-happy loon in a lot of the world, and that’s to his advantage. We’re not willing to go to war, but they won’t know that. They’ll see 250,000 US troops next door, pumped up on victory-spawned adrenaleine, and they’ll wet their pants in their eagerness to accomodate us. Of course, that’s not what we’ll see. They’ll try to save as much face as possible, so they’ll have to concede to our demands grudgingly, and talk menacingly in the process - it’s in the job description for Evil Arab Dictator. But these dictators aren’t stupid, and they want to remain in power. The illusion of the US as weak-willed - fostered by a decade of Black Hawk Down type incidents - has been dispelled. We’re happy to kick a little ass when the need arises, and happily, they now know it.
So I fully expect to see Syria happily negotiate with us, as well as Iran. NK will still give us headaches, because Kim Jong Il is an unpredictable little bastard, and they know they have a little capital bought and paid for by the thousands of artillery units ready to turn Seoul into the Smoky Hills Spa and Blackened Crater Resort.
Jeff
So do I. Where we differ is on the circumstances under which we should seek out a war that’s not coming to us in a big hurry.
“War resulted”?? Nice use of the passive voice. War happened, whether we wanted it to or not.
We “might have avoided a war in Iraq” by not going to war.
Well, then.
If another country “treat[s] American threats and demands with contempt”, then what can we possibly do, other than invade?
You’ve got my head spinning, Sam. The Stone Doctrine is even more far-reaching than the Bush Doctrine. Bush at least postulates that a country has to represent a potential future threat to us. That’s a lot of leeway, but as a visionary, you’ve left him well behind. You’re saying that we’ve got the right to invade if the other party disses our demands, whatever they might be.
So you’re in favor of putting all the world’s tyrants on notice? There’s a lot of Third World strongmen who are, like Saddam since 1991, tyrants in their own country, but with no designs on conquest. We gonna invade all of them that keep on being tyrants? Burma? Cuba? Egypt? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Zimbabwe?
Main thing is, America gets to decide whether Syria’s been bad, and how it should be punished. :rolleyes:
Pardon me for asking this, but how the hell can you be so sure that Syria is going to “cave” when you haven’t even seen any evidence of any wrongdoing on their part? So far Bush has made only vague accusations of harboring supporters of Saddam and holding chemical weapons, neither of which he has offerred even the slightest evidence of. He demands that they hand over the bad guys and get rid of the chemical weapons. But suppose that that Syria doesn’t have any chemical weapons and isn’t harboring the people that Shrub says they are. How are they going to meet our demands, when our demands are that they turn over people who aren’t in Syria and get rid of weapons that, like Saddam’s, don’t seem to exist in the first place?
There’s no reason to resort to the use of LOGIC. Play fair.
Yep, with the US sending two aircraft carriers home, as well as a bunch of bombers, I’m sure we’re going to see a war with Syria in the near future. :rolleyes:
What I find utterly comical is Bush coming out & saying they have chemical weapons, when they haven’t even proved to anyone’s satisfaction - other than themselves & their supporters - that Iraq had any.
I think he should take care of the problem at hand before he makes any more trouble with anyone else. His credibility is currently at zero; it’ll go to a negative number if no WMDs are found anytime soon.