If that’s the case, then why hasn’t he used these alleged WMD. It’s not like he’s been playing fair so far.
Robin
Just for shits & giggles, CTB how would you have handled this whole situation, starting from say, January?
And what situation would that be? The hijacking of this thread? The possibility of WMD in Iraq? The possibility of ties between Al Queda and Hussein? The plight of the Iraqi people? The decrease in resources available to target actual terrorists? The lack of bin Laden’s fucking head on a stake in the middle of the Ellipse? The crumbling economy? Rampant corporate corruption? Growing world-wide resentment of America? The list is endless. I will again ask that you or skankwierdall provide an actual problem to find a solution for. I’m afraid “this whole situation” does not particularly cut it as a problem to solve.
I guess I hope that gives you the shits and giggles:p
CTB, I can’t be here 24/7 to address every single point of a post. I have work to do, and it’s stacking up now. So are you saying that because I can’t post a reply point by point I shouldn’t post at all until I can, or just shouldn’t post at all?
Thanks for the benefit of doubt. I’ve been in great debates but admittedly only current threads. It’s really tough and time consuming to try and read through some of these threads with several hundred posts in them to glean some small tid bit of info. though. Although I didn’t mean to attack any or all anti-war posters here I can see how that might have been construed. I was ranting in general based on what I have read in recent threads and have seen on the news. Sorry if it came across any other way.
Robin, not being a mass murdering dictator myself I have no idea why he hasn’t used them yet. Possibly he can’t get to them now? Waiting for who knows what? I don’t know. Maybe so when he falls he can make the US look like a bunch of jackasses and his own life might be spared? I can’t say. It would only be speculation on my part.
All’s well then. My apologies for taking the attack posture so readily. I do encourage you to keep at it on this board, as the lively, yet knowledgable discussion I believe you seek is hidden in here, yet sometimes lost among the partisan squabbling. I would suggest that you examine postings from Collounsbury and Tamerlane regarding the current situation, as they have not only the historical perspective but have “been there and done that”. While they I guess could be termed “anti-war” in this particular instance, you will not find them to be anything like the bleeding-heart variety. There may well be people on the pro-war side that have a similar knowledgeable perspective, however, I have not yet come across their posts as yet.
Well duh the Iraqi situation.
Put yourself in the President’s shoes, how would you handle everything. Feel free to go as far back as you like, (never calling Iraq axis of evil, etc)
Yabbut, it was your apology* that contained the phrases I objected to …
*More accurately, they appeared in a post you made to remind people that you had apologized.
OK. I’ll bite. I would:
- First priority. Catch the motherfuckers that killed 3,000 of my nation’s (actually many nation’s) citizens. Try them in a court of law and dole out the harshest punishment available to me within the law (but preferably put them in the general prison population to be everybody’s personal bitch). Allow for international oversight of this trial by the UN (to attest to its adherence to standards of fairness, not to have any say in the verdict or punishment). Once that is done, hunt down every last member of the organization the perpetrated this atrocity and do the same as above.
- Use the international goodwill post-9/11 to get every country possible to help in the eradication of terrorism. Propose the the UN adopt a stance that any support or willful harboring of international terrorism will be considered a crime against humanity. All signatories of the UN charter would be obligated to provide material and monetary support to the removal (by force if necessary) of the government that has been proven to be supporting international terrorism.
- Listen to all sides of an issue from my subordinates, not minimize and ostracize those who express dissent (e.g. Powell).
- Fully vett all evidence used to justify action to determine its validity, its source, and its objectivity.
- If and when US forces were to be used, I would ensure that they represent an overwhelming force that is properly supplied and has a clear and fully developed mission and exit strategy.
- Proactively ensure that no members of the administration have even the slightest hint of conflict of interest which could result in monetary gain from a policy they endorse.
- Not smirk like a nasty little schoolboy (OK, that was probably unnecessary).
- Embrace dissent and questioning of my policies by my country’s citizens as the lifeblood of democracy, rather than try to pass them off as harmful at best and traitorous at worst.
- If I should find myself leading my country into a war with the majority of the world’s population against the idea, actually stop to think that maybe I am not being particularly valiant, and maybe I am being really fucking stupid.
- If after all of that, I still found myself going at it almost entirely alone against Iraq, then I would at a minimum have a clear plan for what would happen in Iraq after the war. This plan would be developed in consultation with area experts, heads of state from the area and representatives of the state being invaded. Once agreement has been reached on that plan, I would present it to the world in every possible way, along with the signatures of those folks involved in its planning. I would allow a period for comment, and those comments would be seriously and publicly reviewed and considered.
- I would be big enough to not use the patriotic fervor post-9/11 to slip fiercly partisan legislation through the legislature.
- I would fully and completely support a thorough investigation of the events leading up to 9/11, and be prepared to get rid of some of the folks responsible, instead of promoting them (and I mean both those people personally responsible as well as those above them that actively or passively encouraged such criminal negligence). I would ensure that this effort is fully supported materially, and that it would have full subpoena powers from which no one is immune. I would put someone in charge of this commission that has impeccable credentials and a strong reputation for non-partisanship. I would most definitely not put forth someone who is wanted as a war criminal in some countries.
- I would not introduce a new military strategy based upon pre-emptive strikes at any one who may at some time in the future be a threat, without a whole shitload of debate from all sides to ensure that that is truly the way to go.
- I would not introduce the idea of using low-yield nuclear weaponry as standard part of my conventional war plan.
- I would take a long hard look at the history of foreign policy for my country and honestly look for potential causes for the kind of hatred it takes to fly a plane into a building. I would recognize that determining causation does not mitigate guilt on the part of the wrongdoer, but can be essential in avoiding such an occurance in the future. I would take the results of that examination to the public to admit to any past wrongdoings, and to announce to the world any policies that will be implemented to avoid such actions in the future. Simultaneously, I would crow about the good that my nation has done as well internationally lest anyone forget that my nation has been a great power for good in history as well.
Is that enough to start? Any shits or giggles yet?
oh, and I apologize again for the continued hijack. I tried to remove myself gracefully. I really did.
Spiff, actually if you look back further in the thread I apologized at least twice before that. The one you are refering to was another attempt to again apologize for my actions with a bit of explaination added as to the true meaning of what I was insinuating. It was not an attempt to legitamize it, just explain it. So can I say I’m sorry for the last time on this? Or will I forever have to flagellate myself in front of you all for the rest of my time here?
Is it as hard for him as it is for the Iraqi troops being mowed down by machinegun fire, because they were given the choice of fighting against our forces or having their families tortured and killed?
Is it as hard for him as it is for every soldier that experiencing the artillery fire as they approach Baghdad? Is it as hard for him as it will be for every terrified young recruit in the streets of that city as intense urban combat rages around them?
Is it as hard for him as it has been for every family (on either side) that has learned that they have lost a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, a father, a mother to this war?
Is it as hard for him as it is for the civilians in Iraq who have been forced to pledge their support for the US invaders, and conduct their espionage for them, revealing the Saddam loyalists in their area in exchange for food and clean water? What about all the civilians in Bosra, where they don’t even have that choice because the fighting has eliminated their access to electricity and clean water? Is it as hard for your fucking president as it is for them?
Is it as hard for him as it will be for that entire nation when the US inevitably sets up another oppressive, despotic fuckhead who will yield to our interests instead of caring for his people?
No, huh? Well then alert John Ashcroft that my Fuck Bush Alert System is staying steady at red.
LC
No, because that’s part of the job description.
“Pope Wanted: Must be called by God to give spiritual and moral leadership to the world’s Catholics. Ability to read and write Latin highly desired. Speaking in tongues optional. Should look good in white. Send resume and photo to P.O. Box 4266, Vatican City.”
I don’t see where being “called by God” is anywhere in the description of the President of the United States.
Worse, George W. Bush isn’t Saddam Hussein’s “parent”, so he’s got even less justification to invade Saddam’s room and look for wacky tobaccy.
I believe I will vote for CTB in the next election (assuming there is one).
Hell, someone in a newgroup has put together a more coherent plan in about 5 min. than our ‘leader’ has in 2 years! Kudos, CTB–I’d vote for you.
BickByro and Wabbit, thank you for the kind, if undeserved, praise.
I believe we are currently in the process of doing this. I would hope that we are doing pretty much what you described here.
**
Perhaps we could do this better, but I’ll tell you it’s one hell of a balancing act. Keep in mind that in dealing favorably with one country (say, oh, Pakistan) we risk alienating another (India?). In theory what you said was a nice blanket statement, in execution it’s very difficult. We should do our best to avoid squandering it, which doesn’t seem like we’ve done.
**
We have the UN and NATO, I don’t think a 3rd level of bureaucracy is what we really need.
**
I don’t think listening is the problem. Once the actions are carried out that’s when people will start feeling ostracized.
**
I agree, but what level is this done at? How much would the public need to know, and how could you convince them of its existence if it wasn’t prudent to declassify it? **
We definitely need better exit strategies, however I doubt anyone will ever agree on a crystal clear one. I think in the case of Afghanistan, we went in and did what we had to do, but the exit strategy was pretty fluid. In such cases inaction could be worse then having an exit strategy that needs revision along the way.
**
This would be impossible for pretty much any elected official, regardless of party affiliation. True conspiracy people would just turn to the six degrees theory 
**
Yep that pisses me off to no end. The only thing I can say though, is it’s tough to tell what is going on behind the emotion we perceive. The fact that Bush appears to be smirking, doesn’t mean that he is smirking, but since people think he is, his message is totally changed. Gerald Ford seemed pretty stupid and clumsy, but IIRC correctly he was a pretty bright guy. If I ran for President I would be in trouble because I laugh when I’m nervous. If I had to deliver a speech that Moscow just launched ICBMs at us, people would think I was nuts because I’d be cracking a joke or nervously chuckling.
Unfortunately it’s important in this day and age that a leader be media savvy. It’s even more unfortunate that a perfectly qualified candidate will be overlooked because they are not.
**
I agree wholeheartedly. If I hear “WMD” or “evil doers” I’m going to slit my wrists. I think the White House needs a better focus group to run these silly ideas and terms by.
**
This is one of my biggest problems with this war. We have said fuck you to the world. Bad move, we need the world more then some people would like to think. Unless I get hungry
**
I think they have a clear plan. In fact it’s ‘their’ clear plan that we (you & I) as well as millions of other people around the world have a problem with.
**
Not only is this completely unrealistic, I couldn’t even fathom the time frame to accomplish this.
**
Agreed, but I’m sure both parties have been taking advantage of current (in their time) events to slip that stuff through since the dawn of this country. As President I’m sure you would try as well, if you had some legislation you truly believed would be better for America.
**
We all know how these political investigations go, they become witchhunts. The good intentions they usually start out with usually end up becoming mired in fingerpointing and little else. I’m not saying we should do away with them, just to be prepared for the same amount of disdain when you are President.
**
This would never happen.
**
This is impossible.
**
And after said debate, lasting decades, you wouldn’t be able to please half the people anyway. Debate is necessary, but action is necessary as well. People have, at times in history done good things and came out looking like a bad guy. I’m not talking about Bush, but stating the fact that as a President, you won’t be able to please everybody.
**
Fine by me.
**
And if any President had the brass to do that, we would be in a much better place. I couldn’t have said it any better.
Let me say thanks for taking the time to type that out, and putting the effort into a well thought post. I don’t think we’ve really answered anything here, but it’s certainly gotten me thinking about a great many things.
Surely, World Eater, you’ve heard that President Bush does not make decisions based on focus groups! That would be equivalent to, you know, paying attention to whether or not people are protesting your war…
“Size of protest—it’s like deciding, ‘Well, I’m going to decide policy based upon a focus group.’” - GWB
Yeah, well the focus group that told him to use that quote needs to be replaced.
I don’t know, how hard do you think it was on the 500,000 Iraqi children that died of malnutrition for those eight years that Iraq was under sanctions or their parents? At the rate of nearly 6000 children dying every month should we have waited this long?
Don’t believe me? Check the link.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/irakids.htm
And I’m sure John Ashcroft cares as much about your Fuck Bush Alert as I do fucktard.
CTB, nice post. Nice ideas as well, I wish it could work that way. I tend to think like World Eater though in that I believe some of your ideals are not feasible. Nice, just not realistic. Oh well, we can dream can’t we?
World Eater and skankweirdall,
I recognize, and surely you do as well, that in the interest of terseness some of my statements were unable to explore all possible ramifications and so tended to the idealized. However, I would be interested in hearing why you think some of the items are not within the realm of possibility. It may be difficult to read, but I will use the numbers in my original post to respond.
-
Perhaps that is what we are doing. However, we have an administration that has said “I am not worried about him” re: bin Laden after promising him “dead or alive”. They are giving the appearance of putting this on the back burner, and I find this dispicable. This should be our top priority and any administration with honor would remind the people every day that the search continues, give updates re: progress, and not take a goddamn vacation to Texas or the woods of MD every goddamn month.
-
I recognize that not all countries can always agree with everything and that dealing with one country my anger another. That is why I suggested that the UN have a role in the process so that it is not the US dealing with these countries, but the weight of the entire UN and all of its signatories. Please read my suggestion again, as I am not suggesting a third international body, just a strengthened UN. I have no understanding of the neo-con’s loathing of this organization.
-
I don’t see how you can disagree with the idea that Powell was sidelined until he “got with the program” and became a hawk. There are also numerous reports of folks in our intelligence agencies who have felt pressures to only report those things that agree with the previously stated intentions of the administration. Surely this happens a bit with each presidency, but it at least seems to be greater in this one.
-
I am not familiar with the standard levels of review for intelligence information. I would expect that review and vetting would need to take place at every single level. Whoever passes that information up the chain of command needs to have some accountability for the quality of that information. If it is crap, but interesting crap, then sure pass it along, but at least let everyone know that it is probably crap. The embarassment to this nation because of the quality of our “proof” presented to the UN is immense. And as much as I (used to) admire Colin Powell, he needs to take responsibility for the contents, because it was his face, and his prestige, that put it before the world.
-
Again, yes this was simplistic. I recognize that once the first shot is fired, almost all planning goes straight out of the window, but I do think that a clear exit strategy comes from a clear view of the end-game. If this administration has a clear idea of why we are in Iraq and when they will know that they are done killing people, they have made neither the plan, nor the fact that they even have one, very well known.
-
I wouldn’t say that this is so impossible. This administration has a greater challenge because of the strong ties its members have to the oil industry and the defense industry. All the more reason that they publicly acknowledge these ties, and demonstrably sever their ability to profit from the policies they promote. Why is this so unreasonable?
-
This could too easily come down to Bush bashing and, for this thread at least, I will decline to expand the original, somewhat snarky comment.
-
I am glad to hear that you are not a “dissent=anti-America” crowd. It is my opinion that these folks are hurting America more that bin Laden and Hussein combined could ever do.
-
Bush promised a “humble” foreign policy, and has delivered one of the most arrogant in history. He also promised a “foreign handed” one, whatever the fuck that means, but maybe that is what we are seeing now.
-
If you know of a clear plan for post-war Iraq, please point me to it. I have heard rumours, most involving and US ex-general as an interim head of state, which is pretty bone-headed in my opinion. What I have not heard about is any consultation with area experts, or people who actually live there. Why does this necessarily have to take so long. I am not suggesting that you need unanimous acceptance of the idea. I am simply suggestion that you very publicly, and very genuinely, consult with people who actually know what the fuck is going on in that area. Of course you can’t please everyone, but asking them in good faith is the first step towards (grudging if necessary) acceptance.
-
I am regrettably not familiar enough to know if similar things happened during similar events such as Pearl Harbor. I would agree that it is standard practice to try to push things through whenever you can. However, 9/11 was an extraordinary occurrance, and so required extraordinary restraint. Bush has so far shown extraordinary nerve.
-
There have been witch hunts and there have been effective investigations. I would say that it primarily depends upon the qualifications and perceived non-partisanship of the commission chairman and members. Thus my listed qualifications. Why is this so impossible? For example, certainly there are many individuals with “impeccable credentials and a strong reputation for non-partisanship”. I do not mean that someone must not have any party affiliation. If Powell had not, for some reason I will never understand, become the administration’s favorite lap dog, I would consider him a perfect example of someone to lead such a commission. These people exist, it just takes a President with enough character to create a commission that will not use the commission as a tool to further their own political ends.
-
Again, debate need not last decades. Many intelligent people have already thought this stuff through very well. They just need an open forum to discuss possible issues, and an administration that is clearly open to discussion. I do not know the legal basis, but I would also desire that a change of such magnitude must pass through some legislative review and approval. I guess not though.
-
OK
-
Great. Why don’t “We the people” fucking demand this then? Why are we so goddmaned afraid to admit our mistakes. We would be a stonger and more respected nation if we could just muster the nerve to take a critical view of ourselves. Yeah, I know it’s a pipe dream, I just don’t fully understand why it has to be so.
Thank you for the rational discussion. I am a bit confused that I had to come to the Pit in order to discuss some of these things in a rational environment. I appreciate your cold realism, and recognize that some of my ideas are a bit idealistic, but, and I guess this is why I would have to put myself in the progressive camp even though I vote fairly centrist, if we do not have ideals to work towards, we are just spinning our wheels in a rut.