As a purely factual answer, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed right after 9-11 (with just one no vote) gave the President permission to attack Al Qaeda in any country in which they can be found.
Can’t wait for Obama to do the exact same thing in a few months and see how you all will twist and spin to approve of it. But…but…but it DIFFERENT this time…
If I had given your specific possible response any thought at all, I would have expected better of you. Our invasion of Iraq was predicated on lie after lie presented to us as truth by a lying administration; we, as a nation, expect and have a right to expect the truth from our administrations, except of course, in cases of national security, which was absolutely NOT the case in the present situation. There was NO reason in the world to invade Iraq since they had NOTHING to do with the attack on our country mounted on 9/11 and there is NO reason in the world for us to continue expending the lives of our troops, not to mention our national treasure. The USA, after all, is NOT the police department of the world and it is NOT our duty or obligation to remove dictators unless those dictators demonstrate a clear and present danger to our security as a nation; that fact did not exist prior to the invasion of Iraq and doesn’t exist now. Our obligation to come to the assistance of our allies by treaty DOES exist, even if in many cases it should not, and I think more and more of our citizens are beginning to believe that is is time we reconsidered many of those treaties. We have, of course, already ignored, disregarded, and (I think) repudiated treaties with Native American nations when it suited us and that, I think, has established at least a tacit precedent for doing the same with other countries whose forms of governments and whose strengths have changed since the times those treaties were founded.
I don’t know what population of Iran you mean when you talk about people making a pilgrimage to Iraq without religious interference but I didn’t get the memo stating that attacks on those pilgrims have been called off by terrorist organizations who are at least partly controlled by religious fanatics; If you have such a memo, maybe you would be willing to post it. IF the population of Iran longs to live free of the thumb of a religiously controlled police state, how and why is it our responsibility to see that they are allowed to do so? it was no one but our own responsibility to free ourselves from from living under the thumb of an unpopular government way back when. Weapons have changed, I’ll grant you but the will of the people hasn’t, or at least shouldn’t have. In any case, we have done a spectacularly poor job of providing Iraqi citizens with a democratic government except in a few geographically isolated places; Iranian citizens have not yet had our beneficence inflicted on them.
IF Saddam controlled the third largest standing army in the world, he did a spectacularly poor job of training and supplying them; the truth seems to be that his military forces couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag unless they were pitted against forces who were even more poorly equipped and trained. Even today, a US trained and supplied Iraqi army seems more than content to lay back and allow the US to fight their(?) battles, except in isolated circumstances. We seem to be unable to defeat a non-centrally controlled rabble; how will we fare when we go up against the second and then the largest standing armies in the world? Not well, I think.
I said nothing about abandoning a volunteer army at the finishing line; in the first place, we have nothing but a volunteer army so it isn’t necessary to define them as such, (the citizens of the USA would never, I believe, support a draft of soldiers to fight in Iraq) and we are far from the “finishing line,” if such a line even exists without our declaring one. What I did say was that our next administration should simply declare that our efforts in Iraq are and have been a total mistake and bring our troops home; in other words, we should quit a losing game before ALL is lost. If you, for instance, decide to continue in a poker game where you simply and obviously are not winning and cannot win, then you are a fool, or possibly simply drunk; there comes a time to cut your losses and go home. We are at that point now and if you think otherwise, you haven’t been paying attention.
If Obama wins, which you seem to expect he will, which seems to me to be equal to giving up (surrendering?) on the ideals supported by your assumed candidate instead of continuing to fight for what he and presumably you believe in, I think the difference will NOT be predicated on lies and blind allegiance to to dogma but on truth and a willingness to listen and discuss differences.
Attempting to dictate to the leaders of sovereign nations that they MUST comply with your demands before you will even talk to them is a piss poor way to win their cooperation. Stating publicly that you will, if elected, “test”, whatever that means, those very leaders is absolute stupidity; if you openly stated and published your intent to come to my house and “test” me, provided I first agreed to your demands, demonstrates an arrogance and stupidity adequate to actually expect me to open my door and embrace you. If you are that arrogant and stupid, then you are on a par with your (presumed) candidate and are exactly as unfit to lead a teen-aged gang as your candidate is to lead this country. That kind of unrelenting arrogance and stupidity is the last thing I want to see in our next President; we have had eight years of exactly those attitudes and the results prove their effectiveness.
If you were to properly and respectfully contact me and ask me to meet and talk with you without specifying any preexisting conditions and without a threat to “test” me, we might be able to establish a common meeting ground where we might in good faith discuss our differences and the possible ways to resolve them. Such a course just might enable us to avoid a stupid and mutually destructive knife fight; telling me to leave my knife at home while you bring yours in order to “test” me would be counter productive, believe me. Yet it is precisely that that John McCain proposes, threatens, and promises to do.
I know, in the same way I know a horse cannot dial a rotary telephone, that that is exactly what McCain would do; I am willing to trust Obama’s promise that he would take a different course. If his overtures are refused, and they well might be, I would attribute the refusal to the simple fact that the current administration has absolutely destroyed any trust and faith that anyone might have previously held for the USA. A trust and faith that may well be impossible for us to ever regain.
It seems to me that in this and similar situations, the word “terrorist” is defined by us, the “good guys.” It may well be that other countries do not agree with our definition; if they do not, are the people in question still “terrorists” or have they morphed into becoming “freedom fighters” or some such other name? If so, does Israel actually and truly have the “right” to attack certain positions in Jordan? It seems to me that they do not unless and until they formally and openly declare that a state of war exists between Israel and Jordon; in which case all bets are off; all the old rules no longer apply, the entire country is at risk and no safe territory exists, and victory in that war becomes paramount. Of course, that course will inexorably lead to declarations of war between other countries, probably including the USA. To be brief, the results of these cross country raids might well be the very thing we have so vehemently denied for years; “We don’t want no trouble, man, but if you want some shit, bring it on.” I won’t even bother to comment on the three kids who were killed; they were just three more in a total whose number I don’t know. Sort of collateral damage, I suppose; we just have to learn to live with killing a few kids from time to time; war being hell and all that.
If we do or should, declare war on states that harbor, train, and supply “terrorists,” then should we not equally declare war on states that allow free passage across their territory to “terrorists” who are trained, armed, and supplied by yet another state? If we believe and can prove that Iran, for instance, trains, arms and supplies “terrorists” who then attack our troops and allies in Iraq, shouldn’t we simply declare war against Iran and go after them tooth and nail? And if Iran should trans-ship terrorists to France, with France’s full knowledge, agreement, and assistance and if France in turn trans-ships those terrorist to other places where they are able to mount attacks against us, should we not declare war on France and go after them with our full strength and ability? Should France, as a country, not be beaten into submission and surrender? Or should we simply ignore Sovereign France’s role in the terrorist operation and limit our attacks to a few staging and shipping areas within their sovereign territory? (France serving simply as an imaginary example; I ain’t accusing no French folk of no dastardly deeds.) Or would be better served by arranging to speak to France with no threats in place; a meeting where we might ask France to explain why they are trans-shipping terrorists and why we are so very disappointed that they have chosen to do so? We might then, after learning why they are doing so, attempt to come to some compromise where they might promise to knock it off if we will knock off doing whatever prompted them to become so pissed at us.
I guess I am just damned sick of the on-going “they did this and therefore we are going to do that and it is perfectly okay for us to do that because they did this.” And I am well aware that there are and always will be those among us who will say "there ain’t no point in talking to them <insert pejoratives> because you can’t believe nothing them C say no how. Not to mention that them <insert pejoratives> ain’t saying the same about us. I just believe, as an old hippie, that we should “give peace a chance” and their ain’t a chance in hell of doing that until we stop this never ending shooting shit and start doing some honest and open talking.
The real danger here is that it portends a new “Bush Doctrine” that “hot pursuit” across borders is justified, especially the borders of a “criminal regime” – which might conceivably be invoked to justify raids into Iran. Relevant article.
But nobody went into Iraq to establish democracy or to deal with the threat of a ‘standing army’. 
I listened carefully to why the UK was going to send troops and the reason was WMD’s, particularly those aimed at UK bases which could arrive within 40 minutes (presumably Cyprus).
Right up to the last minute before invasion, if Saddam had let UN inspectors back in, the war would have been called off.
If the US wants democracy so much, why don’t they help the democratically-elected Nobel Prize winning president of Burma who is under house arrest by a violent military dictatorship?
Is it because the Burmese Generals sell oil to the West?
The whole Middle East situation is about oil, not democracy. :rolleyes:
As for your consequence of happy pilgrims turning to Western values and dropping Islam:
- the former Head of our Foreign Intelligence Service has stated that the London terrorist attacks by our own citizens were because of the iraq invasion
- a leading UK General has stated that NATO is way under strength in Afghanistan because of resources stuck into Iraq instead.
You know, I spoke with a person today about that. I agree with you, we had no real reason to invade Iraq, I have been let down spectacularly by the current administration because I expect the elected officials to not set up the men and women that serve in a vpointless war. They call it Operation Iriqi freedom, which is just the administrations spin on it. I thought we were looking for WMDs. Funny how a lot of folks don’t see that they’ve been hoodwinked into berlieving we are there to free the Iraqi people. Yes, Saddam was an asshole. But he was pretty much contained and a buffer of sorts to Iran.
Can’t argue with that.
Thats a big if. you’re right I was there in desert storm. Iraqis folded like a house of cards in a tornado. They surrendered in large numbers. A large army doesn’t mean a good army.
To me its more than that. even if you don’t care a rats ass about theIraqis look at what debt this is putting us into. Think abouyt the lives ruined just on our side. You think some of those soldiers wanted to wounded maimed or killed for no good reason? Many people in the armed forces will tell you that they have no problem fighting a necessary war. bush, Cheney and company went out of their way to manufacture this one. I hope they don’t have one good nights sleep for the rest of their lives for the lives they’ve destroyed.
I agree with you LouisB, I was merely echoing my sentiments.
You’re premise that we cannot win and need to withdraw sounds like Obama 2007 where he said we should have withdrawn in 2008. Now that the surge is working he’s moved the withdrawal date into the future. Maybe you should write Obama and tell him he’s not paying attention.
If we are talking about Iran, we already have the “Carter Doctrine” for cold pursuit.
The region is controlled by dictators which we have been propping up for the last fifty-odd years. Suggesting that we’re promoting democracy to stabilize the region after invading Iraq for reasons totally unrelated to their system of government is not only hypocritical, it’s an outright lie.
Anyway, we’re not at the finishing line. We’re probably not even at the halfway point.
Oh, please. Iraq was a major blow against democracy in the region. We’ve managed to equate “democracy” with anarchy, conquest and mass death; “When the U.S. came to Iraq, it came in the name of democracy and freedom. But all we see are bodies, bodies, bodies.” Nor is a failed state with a joke government staffed by collaborators much of an accomplishment. And we’ve made the religious fanatics MORE POWERFUL in Iraq. Assuming that these Iranians making a pilgrimage actually exist, why do you think their government would let them ? Because Iraq is such a great bad example; “You don’t like us, but look at the alternative !” We’ve created the dream propaganda resource for every tyrant in the region.
The fact that they are a volunteer army simply makes them culpable in the atrocity that is Iraq.
The surge isn’t “working”. where are the political improvements that were supposed to be the results ? Nowhere.
And working or not, we shouldn’t be there at all.
I’m sure he is paying attention; a damn site more attention than McCain is even capable of paying. And if the “surge” is working so god damned well, why are people still dying in droves and why do we continue pumping unbelievable amounts of money into that money sucking black hole when we are experiencing unheard of numbers of people losing their homes, jobs, hope, and self-esteem right here at home? The money is needed here and, not to put too fine a point on it, my attitude is: Fuck Iraq and the god damned lying bunch of scum sucking pieces of shit that got us into the god damned place in the first place when there was no, absolutely no reason for us to be there other than the ego of a lying president and his lying clique of liars.
Au contraire, I believe. We were getting bitten in the butt, and this was the cure for it. What do you think will happen for us doing what we did…A nation will start sending terrorists against us??? Bass ackwards, my friend.
Other nations see us as rogues? Big deal. What is in it for us if they love us or hate us?
Yes I’m sure he is, to the polls. Obama said he wanted the troops out in 2008. Then the surge worked and now he’s changed his tune. Maybe there’ll be a butterfly ballot with both versions of Obama on it so you can choose the one you want. But we’re straying from the thread so I’ll stick to my original post.
Would you vote for a candidate who says he/she will pursue terrorists across borders?
Hell, yes.
If the country in question is incapable or not interested in policing their side of the border, then they have no right to complain when someone does it for them.
So why Iraq and not, say, Canada? Canada had just as much to do with 9-11 as Iraq, and it’s closer.
As for consequences, how about there being more people who want to kill us than before ? How about other countries being less willing to cooperate with us ? How about our loss of credibility with every else ? How about our general strengthening of terrorism, and weakening of democracy ? how about our crippling ourselves, and strengthening Iran ?
I’d mention the innocent people we’ve crippled and tortured and killed as a problem, but I’m sure you either don’t care or actively delight in that.
So you think it’s a good idea for all the world to hate us ? And a good idea for us to be so evil that we deserve that hatred ?
And would you feel the same if it was the other way around, and someone attacked us ? For any reason ?
Of course not; this is just about the idea that we as Americans have the right to kill anyone we feel like, and the rest of humanity are just cattle to be exploited or slaughtered as we see fit.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Well, first things first. IIRC, GWB said he would pursue Ben Laden to the ends of the earth or something very much like that. Almost immediately after saying he would get Bin Laden dead or alive, he mounted an invasion into Iraq, knowing full well that Bin Laden wasn’t anywhere even close to Iraq; in other words, he allowed the ultimate terrorist to cross a certain number of borders and isn’t, so far as anyone can tell, in pursuit of him at all. So, a declaration made by a candidate concerning crossing borders in pursuit of a terrorist would not cause me to vote for him. Nor would it cause me to refuse to consider him, if he had other policies with which I might agree.
As to the polls you say Obama listens to, I assume you are referring to the polls that indicate the country is fed up with the lying bunch of liars who have led us into the rotten situation we are in; the polls, in other words, that basically tell us the country prefers Obama to McCain. And I believe there are polls that tell us the country is sick to death of our involvement in Iraq and that the troops should be brought home as quickly as possible. I think it is a pretty fair assumption that McCain listens to the polls just as much as Obama does. I think it is fairly obvious that McCain does and says anything at all if he believes it will cause his poll numbers to increase. And, IIRC, McCain has changed his position on a fair number of issues during the course of his career. Wasn’t he the one who was nicknamed “FlipFlopper” at one point?
And I believe the use of butterfly ballots was a Republican ploy and that their use has been suspended. I might be wrong about that; I really don’t know if such ballots are still in use anywhere. In any event, it would take a vastly large butterfly ballot to encompass all of the John McCain reincarnations we have seen; such a ballot could certainly contain the (only) two Obamas you claim exist.
And I’ve seen no really compelling evidence that the holy and sacred SURGE is or has done what was promised; I think it was applied very strategically and that it worked in a very small geographic area and that some people, especially GWB, saw its marginal success as reason enough to say, “See, I told you so.” But the SURGE isn’t going to hand us victory in Iraq simply because there is no victory to be had.
. . . Eh? The Iranians don’t have any hostages.