No justice, no peace.
Isn’t that the classic slogan from your wing of the party? For once it applies.
Given the scandal that defined the Clinton years, this is a poor choice of words.
It’s my opinion that if Gore or Clinton were in office right now, almost everything would be playing out exactly as it is now. I can’t see what a Democrat would obviously be doing differently.
Anyhow, as I understand it, the President is a Commander-in-Chief in name only once the doo-doo hits the fan. Once the President generally authorizes military action, the President does not make any further strategic decisions (with the possible exception of calling everything off). The President is briefed on military events, but the President is debated relentlessly – indeed, shouted down, or even ignored – if he seems prepared to force a ham-handed decision that compromises any previously-stated military objectives.
I suppose, in theory, the President could axe some of the more argumentative joint chiefs if he REALLY wanted to take over total control of a war effort. But that would be political suicide – how could a civilian President coordinate military action better than career officers who’ve trained for battle all of their adult lives? Such a President-led war has nearly a 100% of utter failure.
AFAIC, no matter who our President would be, the events in Afghanistan would still be going on pretty much as they are.
Stoid, elucidator – I’m sure you are terrific people with big hearts in person. But I thank God every day that those holding your opinions on this matter are in such a tiny minority. In sense, the nation really doesn’t have times for craven liberalism or absolutist pacifism right now. Go ahead and express your views, as is your right, but I really hope no one of any consequence is listening to the extreme liberal viewpoint right now.
Yeah, trust Stoid to take a conversation about blood, death and war and drag it into the gutter. Such poor taste.
http://www.democraticunderground.com
I post there, and it’s not a BAD site, but it is a little zealous and at times, rather biased in a BAD way-it’s not QUITE Free Republic, but some of the people there are just as bad.
I don’t know, maybe my reading skills have diminished with old age 
but I didn’t read the OP the same as others.
Seems to me Stoid is saying this isn’t about justice, but about protecting our country.
FTR, I’m Republican with Libertarian tendencies and can say I almost never agree with Stoid, but in this case I do.
This isn’t about justice, screw justice. I hope it’s not about revenge. I hope it’s about hitting these people (terrorists & governments that protect them) until they are no longer able to attack us.
Agreed, which is why I’m glad that the strikes are being done.
The fact is that terrorists organized on the scale we see- having millions of dollars, being able to get entry into the United States, have the funding and references to get into airline schools, have the know-how and capability to murder flight attendants in quick order with a box cutter, then maintain control of the plane while flying it into a building- these are not easy things, not something that three guys can sit together and hatch up a scheme and have done. It takes a serious network, and serious training. For such a network to exist, it needs a blind eye from the state authorities, if not outright state assistance in terms of training, weaponry, or paperwork.
So long as there are states such as Afghanistan, Syria, or Sudan willing to turn a blind eye towards the actions of terrorists, we can expect attacks like these. By making sure that no country is willing to fund/train/ignore these terrorists, we can keep such organizations from gaining the strength they now have.
Yes, there will be collateral damage, and I hope we come rushing in once the Taliban has fallen to try and repair what damage was done (and go beyond that, even). I don’t believe the current attacks are being done out of a desire for justice or vengeance, and were I ever convinced of that, like Stoid I would not support them. But unless we show that we have the stomach to do what it takes to fight governments that support terrorists, we will always be plagued by terrorists. And God help us all if they get their hands on biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
I a certain sense I agree with the OP. If we could have a guarantee that Al Queda and the Taliban would never again engage in violence, if only we let them alone, then it would be worthwhile to accept the bargain even though many of the guilty would never be punished.
But of course this cannot happen. The Taliban and Al Queda are going to continue to support terrorist actions against the US and against the Afghans no matter what we do. The only option is to destroy their ability to carry out terrorist actions, and that means destroying their organizations and setting up some form of government in Afghanistan that doesn’t support terrorism.
If we could have security without justice that would be acceptable. But in this case security requires some sort of action that has some resembalance to justice.
How delightful to have so much agreement!
** Lemur866 ** re-stated my point perfectly:
Eggzackly! Justice just ain’t important in the big picture.
** bordelond **, My feelings regarding Gore and Clinton have not so much to do with how they would be handling it militarily as how they would be handling it domestically. Militarily, I actually lean towards having more confidence in the right. I believe they make war better than the left does, it’s the nature of the beast. But if Gore were in office, we wouldn’t have John Ashcroft trying to chip away at the Bill of Rights, and I would just find his presence more comforting. And I would find Bill’s especially so. Even Bill’s biggest enemies cannot deny the man’s ability to convey empathy and compassion, he rode it into office twice. Which is something I happen to be sorely missing in my leader right now. It wouldn’t necessarily solve any problems better, but it would certainly make me * feel * better. And as you pointed out yourself, the president isn’t really “doing” all that much at a time like this…except giving the country a sort of national Daddy figure to help us all feel better. And Bill was a master of it. I miss him desperately much right now.
(I missed him anyway, because unlike most people, even many hardcore liberal Democrats, I never had a problem with him. Not in the tiniest way. The only thing he ever did that really pissed me off was sign the welfare reform bill. His personal life bothered me no more than the bacteria that live on my tongue bother me. I loved him and I think he could have been a truly great President if he’d been left the fuck alone. He did a pretty amazing job anyway, given what he had to deal with.)
stoid
Of course, when Bill Maher tried to point out what a terrible job was done of stopping bin Laden, everyone ripped him a new asshole. So don’t speak too loud or you’ll get torn apart in the media.
Stoid:
No, you’d have someone else chipping away at the Bill of Rights. Please don’t tell us Janet Reno is a civil libertarian. I don’t see how Bill Clinton’s ridiculous “Frowny Face” look would have helped matters, either. (Geez, how did people fall for that?)
Hell, Stoidella, I’m a bleeding heart liberal, too. I agree that justice is out the window, and what is needed is a serious reversal of fortune for those who would threaten our security. I happen to think that the only way to do that is through bloody, terrifying, focused response.
But let’s not go traipsing down memory lane, here. This war against the United States has its antecedents in the Carter administration, and was perfectly defined by Reagan. It was under Reagan that we rolled over on Lebanon, took to hiring car-bombers who missed their targets but killed lots of civillians, and failed in every way to target terrorism except in the lone case of Lybia. Bill Clinton did nothing different. To this point, culpability for our current situation is almost exactly evenly shared on the part of Democrats and Republicans.
However, we seem to agree that now is the time to change our tune. So long as our President echoes our sentiments, we ought to back him up–on this issue.
** Sofa, ** I didn’t assign blame anywhere on anybody. Not a bit. Read me again.
Although if I were going to, I’d lay it at the feet of Daddy Bush and Clinton both, because it was on their watches that two things happened:
-
We walked away from Afghanistan, having acheived our own objective in helping them, which was simply to defeat the Soviets. Having done so, the SMART move would have been to help the damn country get back on its feet after ten years of war. But no, we just left. Bye! See ya! Good luck with all that food, clothing, shelter and employment stuff! Nice warring with you! Oh, these Taliban guys will proabbly give you a hand…
-
More directly to the point, under Clinton primarily, the CIA fell apart. . The link is absolutely riveting reading. And highly disturbing.
stoid
Don’t let facts get in the way of good rhetoric I always say. Please cite bombs dropped IN Kabul (for hours). Rumsfeld says that we have only struck targets outside Kabul with precision bombs, which only take a minute or so each. You make it sound like waves of B-52s keep flying over.
Ah yes, the “hindsight 20/20 paradox.” If we did anything in Afghanistan, I know you would have called us “imperialists?” America can do no right according to the left.
Please explain, if possible, especially the car-bomber part. I guess our peacekeeping Marines who were uncerimoniously blown up in their sleep did this? Please read the cited source thoroughly, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
If we’d used hindsight, we would have noted that in cases where we help people to their feet, even if we are the ones who knock them on their asses, they end up pretty damn friendly with us. Exhibits A and B would be Japan and Germany.
And you have * no fucking idea * what I am going to say about a single thing in life unless you’ve heard me say it once before. There is no one “left” thought process, any more than there is one “right” thought process. Otherwise, I’d have to assume you agree with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and hold the ACLU accountable for what happened…do you?
stoid
Now, just hold on there, Natasha! They didn’t blame all of this on the ACLU! There was also the queers, the dykes, the feminazis, the secular humanists, and the hippies. Actually, they left out the hippies. I think I should should e-mail them toot sweet and insist that they correct that, 'cause dammit, we’ve earned our place of honor on thier enemies list. Is that jfalwell@assholes.com? or assholes.org?
Stoid,
How seldom I agree with you!
Here, however. I think you are right on the money. We had an excellent chance to create goodwill and encourage a moderate Islamic state in Afghanistan, and we failed to do so. Carter was ineffective in his approach, and Reagan’s well-known abhorrance for all things Soviet made his administration’s goals very myopic. Bush Sr. had an excellent chance to fix it, which he failed to do. And, as you suggest, the Clinton administration, which was generally strong in the foreign policy arena, failed to give requisite attention to the CIA.
Part of this, I think, is said with the benefit of hindsight - always 20/20. But part of it is simply behaving, as a country, in a decent and yet practical manner. We don’t owe any country aid or relief efforts – but they are a good thing to do, nonetheless. Sometimes for practical reasons that aren’t immediately apparent – but always because, damnit, it’s the right thing to do.
- Rick
I am a constitutional libertarian (small “l”). So, no, I almost never agree with Robertson or Falwell. Nor am I on the “right.” You, however, profess undying love for Clinton.
Get a room.
I rest my case on the “imperialism” thing. You criticize the U.S. reflexively, before any action is taken. Also, you criticize inaction. Basically, you just criticize the U.S. The left is great on social issues, and is a lot more fun at parties. However, putting you folks in charge of military or foreign policy is frightening.
Thanks for conceding through your silence that you were blowing smoke out your butt regarding our bombing Kabul.
To Beagle:
and
However,
I guess it all depends on whether or not you care to believe that “Bud” McFarlane is telling the truth, for once.
Stoid, your point is well taken.
Wait, Stoid – Beagle did hit below the belt in his post, but he did bring up two valid factual errors in your posts:
- IIRC, no bombs are being dropped on Kabul proper. There WERE bombs dropped on airfields & military installations on the outskirts of Kabul.
The only non-military target that I can get a cite for is a former home of a Taliban mullah in Kandahar ( http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011009/ts/attack_dc_361.html ). As it was being used as a safehouse, its status as a non-military target can reasonably be called into doubt.
- What is your source that the U.S. hired car-bombers in the 80s? To what ends? That’s the first I’ve ever heard of that. My first reaction is doubt, but I’d be interested to read any cites from balanced, non-partisan sources.
I see Sofa King’s cites, but am inclined to dismiss them, as I do not hold the U.S. responsible for what people the CIA trained have done – especially when I see red-flag words like “some allegedly trained by the U.S.” Give me evidence, not speculation. Also, no evidence is presented that the CIA actually coordinated any car-bombings.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
Viet Nam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru… Disasters, each and every one, disasters that fell upon the innocent and innoffensive. Millions of deaths, untold personal misery, all directly a result of a sternly “realistic” cold-war type approach.
Nicaragua is an excellent example. Without US support, the civil war would have been over much sooner. The Commies took over, and what a disaster! What horror! They held an election, lost, and handed over power to the winners.
Turns out they meant what they said about peace and freedom. But, hey, they were Commies!
And the Central Ineptitude Agency? There must be 100,000 Farsi speakers in America. And they can’t find any to translate thier intercepts? “Send in…the clowns”
Then you found one, and a marginal one at that. Since we’re talking about my use of the word “in” versus “outskirts” - the news reported Kabul.
The rest is someone else’s post.
And Beagle, your “case” is based on nothing. Please identify a specific criticism in the quote you gave, because I don’t see anything that even resembles accusations of imperialism.
When I criticize, I’m pretty specific and unmistakable. I’m not going to defend or disavow things I never said to begin with. They’re your inventions, you argue 'em.
stoid