Secret missile plans -- very sophisticated!

Politics International Politics
81

Bravo flike:

That was most creative. Let me sum up. I believe that the Iraq war was needed not because the threat was imminent but to get rid of Saddam before he could cause a problem or conceivably forget a closer relationship with al Qaeda.

Truth be told, I don’t believe that man necessarily causes global warming or that the Kyoto treaty will do anything to help solve the problem.

So given that I believe that something can be done and was done regarding Saddam, and given that I don’t believe any action will stave off global warming, nor do I believe that it has been adequately proven that it is the serious threat that requires devastating economic sacrifices, your attempt at linking the two issues has proved creative but futile.

I believe that action was possible and positive for the first.
I do not believe that action is possible or will be positive for the second.

so? wherein lies your point regarding inconsistency?

freddie

82

[quote=“Saddam”]
be wary of cooperating with foreign “jihadists.”

WASHINGTON (CNN) – U.S. officials Wednesday confirmed reports that Saddam Hussein, in a document found when he was captured, warned supporters to be wary of cooperating with foreign “jihadists.”

…
The document, which appears to have been written after he lost power, advises against getting too close to Islamic jihadists coming into Iraq from other countries, officials said.

The document could be seen to contradict the assertion by some Bush administration officials that there may have been close cooperation between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.
…[/quote]
Source: edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast … index.html

83

[quote=“Rascal”]

[quote=“Saddam”]
be wary of cooperating with foreign “jihadists.”

WASHINGTON (CNN) – U.S. officials Wednesday confirmed reports that Saddam Hussein, in a document found when he was captured, warned supporters to be wary of cooperating with foreign “jihadists.”

…
The document, which appears to have been written after he lost power, advises against getting too close to Islamic jihadists coming into Iraq from other countries, officials said.

The document could be seen to contradict the assertion by some Bush administration officials that there may have been close cooperation between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.
…[/quote]
Source: edition.CNN.com/2004/WORLD/meast … index.html[/quote]

Rascal,

That indicates to me that there either was or was contemplated, by either Saddam loyalists or by al Qaeda, attempts or consideration regarding cooperation Between Saddam and al Qaeda.

From your cite:

[color=red]"[Saddam] advises against getting too close to Islamic jihadists"[/color]

How close is [color=red]“too close”[/color]?

Does it mean, we can cooperate, but we ain’t gonna be pals?

:laughing:

84

About 1 foot.

85

[quote=“fred smith”]Bravo flike:

That was most creative. Let me sum up. I believe that the Iraq war was needed not because the threat was imminent but to get rid of Saddam before he could cause a problem or conceivably forget a closer relationship with al Qaeda.[/quote]

I agree.

You missed the point, then.

Isn’t there some quote here, somewhere in this forum, where you ridiculed some other posters over their “feelings”?

[quote=“fred smith”]I believe that action was possible and positive for the first.
I do not believe that action is possible or will be positive for the second.[/quote]

Noted.

[quote=“fred smith”]so? wherein lies your point regarding inconsistency?

freddie[/quote]

It’s something along the lines of this:

[quote]Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O’Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical goons … priceless.

talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv … 01_11.html[/quote]

86

[quote=“flike”]It’s something along the lines of this:

[quote]…Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical goons … priceless.

[/quote][/quote]

Is that it? I thought you had a stronger point to make than just that. Doesn’t every administration act in a self-serving way? Anyone like to calculate the number of days between Clinton about Monica and admitting he lied (or being forced into Rascal-like contortions to avoid saying so.) What about the time between Ollie shredding papers and Reagan being “out-of-the-loop.”

I mean, if that’s all your point is, its not exactly epoch changing stuff.

I think Fred has stated his case quite clearly - his point has always been one that Kyoto was an extremely expensive way of delaying for maybe 6 years, something that activists would have us believe is inevitable in 100 years. Basically, its a trade-off. You may agree or disagree, but his argument is hardly based on “feelings.”

87

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”][quote=“flike”]It’s something along the lines of this:

[quote]…Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical goons … priceless.

[/quote][/quote]

Is that it? I thought you had a stronger point to make than just that.[/quote]

Yes, it’s a stronger point than that.

Yes, I believe that every administration does act in a self-serving way. But self-serving is not always the same as “wrong.” If you put ideology ahead of facts and call the result objective, while taking steps to actively silence anybody who disagrees, then it’s likely to be wrong. The Bush administration based its case for war in Iraq (and away from Bin Laden’s AQ) on a need to find WMDs that was so immediate that it would not wait until its coalition had UN backing (or was at least more than bilateral in effect). And now there are no WMDs, the US is largely alone, and Iraq remains insecure (to the point that foreign investment is nil) 9 months after the Iraqi army dissolved. GIGO.

And by the way, I partially agree with your conclusion that this ranks with Clinton’s and Reagan’s worst moments. I say “partially” because I think this may prove to be worse, especially given the Plame situation.

[quote=“imyourbiggestfan”]I mean, if that’s all your point is, its not exactly epoch changing stuff.

I think Fred has stated his case quite clearly - his point has always been one that Kyoto was an extremely expensive way of delaying for maybe 6 years, something that activists would have us believe is inevitable in 100 years. Basically, its a trade-off. You may agree or disagree, but his argument is hardly based on “feelings.”[/quote]

I probably shouldn’t have used fred’s post, then. My quote of fred’s post was not directed at fred personally, I’m not arguing environmental policy per se, and I’m not even focussing on Kyoto. I’m simply saying that the Bushies put their ideology ahead of pragmatism*, or that ideology, not objective reasoning, guides decision-making in the Bush administration. I used fred’s post as an accurate proxy for the Bush administration’s general argument about global warming. My point was to show that the Bushies (Hitchens, tigerman, others) are being inconsistent when they say that “given imperfect information, the only responsible action is to assume the worst.” Given their past behavior (I provided some examples, there are many more), it’s much more likely that they were wrong about WMDs because they systematically screwed up the information that was passed to Bush, refused to listen to anyone who differed with their tactics or conclusions (even attacked them, see Plame), and now are trying to claim that hey, we used the best information we could put our hands on, cut us some slack, we assumed the worst, who wouldn’t?

If they actually assumed the worst in each such case, then those who argue that “we must not assume the worst about global warming because our information is imperfect” could not argue that “we must assume the worst about Iraq because our information is imperfect”. After all, the outcome of global warming is much worse than the outcome of Saddam’s WMDs. Actually, either they aren’t truthful or they put their ideology ahead of security, and when life is at stake, as well as the lofty goals and unpleasant outcomes they’ve deliniated themselves, not to mention 87 billion US taxpayer dollars (and rising–and didn’t Bush’s information say that the Iraqi oil patch would pay its way, and within weeks not years?), then it makes no difference.

It’s along the lines of hypocrisy, but it’s actually much worse: it’s rank ideology posing as objectivity.

(I think Rove prefers something other than “epoch,” and I don’t expect to change anybody’s opinion in this forum)

*–I think this is actually something Wes Clark says or said in his campaign, this phrase “ideology trumps pragmatism”.

88

Do you believe, really, that there was ever going to be UN backing/approval? I don’t think so. At least not until it would have been too late. And then, the US wouldn’t have even sought UN approval .

I don’t think so.

Let’s look at each situation.

[color=red]Kyoto[/color]

Fact set 1: Global warming caused by man/fossile fuel consumption / Dire predictions for calamitous future

Fact set 2: Don’t know what causes global warming, if indeed the globe is warming / evidence that global warming is not occurring / evidence that global warming not caused by man

Now, what happens if we accept and act on Fact set 1?

We accept and ratify Kyoto and suffer massive harm to our economy while averting theoretical predictions of calamity for all of 4 to 6 years during the next 100 years.

Conversely, what happens if we accept and act on Fact set 2?

We reject Kyoto, save our economy and welcome the theoretical calamity in 94 to 96 years rather than in 100 years.

What is the difference between our decision to act on one fact set as opposed to the other fact set, and what is the risk of selecting the wrong fact set? These questions must be asked in order to determine the best course of action. Regardless of one’s ideology, I think it obvious that it was most prudent, or “pragmatic” to act on fact set 2. Even Clinton’s cabinet agreed (after Clinton was gone) that Kyoto would not work. Were Clinton’s advisors acting out of ideology or pragmatism?

[color=red]Iraq[/color]

Fact set 1: Iraq possesses WMD and is likely to cooperate with terrorists in the future.

Fact set 2: Iraq doesn’t have many WMD and will not likely be able to obtain them for quite some time, and Saddam probably will not cooperate with terrorists in the future.

Now, what happens if we accept and act on Fact set 1?

We remove Saddam and usher in regime change.

Now, what happens if we accept and act on Fact set 2?

We do not remove Saddam and do not usher in regime change.

What happens if we acted on fact set 2 but learned later that fact set 1 was correct?

The analysis is quite simple. And pragmatic.

I think its much more likely that they looked at all the intelligence and decided that the consequences of choosing incorrectly were too frightening to risk taking the chance on imperfect knowledge.

Now, what happns if we accept and act on Fact set 1?

Yes, who wouldn’t? Let’s also remember… previous intelligence gathered on Iraq had proven false… that is, in the past, intelligence had failed to understand how much closer Iraq was to certain WMD than we initially thought. In that light, again, it was reasonable to look at conflicting intelligence and assume the worst.

89

Fact #1: Country “A” has a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction targeted on us which can be launched within minutes and annihilate us within thirty minutes.

Fact #2: The leadership of Country “A” is composed of extremists who have pledged to “bury us” and who are disciples of a creed which pledges to destroy our government and our way of life.

Fact #3: Country “A” arms, funds and supports terrorist regimes throughout the world including providing them with weapons of mass destruction technology.

Fact #4: Country “A” is suspected of having used chemical weapons against freedom fighters in Afghanistan.

Fact #5: Country “A” has invaded and occupies a dozen or more of its neighbors and holds their populations and governments in virtual bondage.

Fact #6: The government of Country “A” has murdered and imprisoned millions of people who oppose its dictatorial power.

Fact #7: Our president has labeled Country “A” the “Evil Empire.”

Fact #8: Country “A” is our size and strength.

Fact #9: Due to Fact #8, forget about facts 1 through 7 and find somebody smaller than us whom we suspect poses a serious risk to us too and kick their ass instead.

90

I think that is a stretch.

WTFDTM?

I would probably agree with the sentiment behind this. I think Bush is an ideological President. His thought processes do seem to be those of a kid shifting play-blocks around. Hence all the jibes about his stupidity.

And you criticise this by saying:

And that is certainly a big change from the Clinton administration.

But let’s not forget that “pragmatic” thinkers also cause their own problems. Ideology leads to clarity of thought and decisiveness of action. Something Bush has in spades. Pragmatism can often lead to over-complex thinking, confusing bureaucracy and lack of decisions… does anyone remember Hillary’s healthcare plan?

So, i think you have some good points to make about Bush - but you neglect the good side of his qualities.

91

Do you believe, really, that there was ever going to be UN backing/approval? I don’t think so. At least not until it would have been too late. And then, the US wouldn’t have even sought UN approval.[/quote]

This is where I disagree strongly. I think that UN approval was necessary to the overall success of the mission in Iraq. That is, in order to install a pro-UN democracy there, you must have the UN on board before you change regimes. The morning after, the minute after, Hussein abdicates real power, the UN must be seen to be standing in the void–not the US alone. In other words, the Bush goal in Iraq is limited to its easiest, least-effective outcome–the removal of Saddam–if it’s done by the US unilaterally (even bilaterally in effect, with the UK). Not only is it limited in effectiveness, but also in efficiency. In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming: [list]Effectiveness: Iraq remains insecure (defined by lack of foreign investment) nine months after the Iraqi army was eliminated as a defensive force. (In addition, Bush seems to be laying the groundwork for an exit strategy more tied to his reelection than to the putative goals of the mission. The nation building is threatened by lack of security, by the lack of a UN presence, and by the too-direct link to US voters rather than UN member nations.

Efficiency: Bush went to Congress and asked for, and got, 87 billion US taxpayer dollars to cover the effects of this inefficiency–and that’s only a down payment. And this: [quote=“NY Times (via 3rd-party archive; actual link is closed)”]Perhaps the most difficult task for the American troops is not to alienate civilians with their tactics. One night recently, First Lt. Leonardo Flor’s platoon from the new Stryker Brigade conducted a raid against a group suspected of recruiting insurgents. At the suspects’ house, soldiers wearing night-vision goggles first tried to batter down the front door and, when that failed, blew it open with eight shotgun blasts. Soldiers poured in, rifles at the ready, streaming into bedrooms. More than 20 women and children were herded into one room, under guard. Half a dozen men were put in another. In the end, the raid turned up only a couple of World War II-era rifles and some sheaves of papers. Lieutenant Flor, 23, a West Point graduate, ordered his men to tidy up. He reviewed the damage

92

You didn’t address my question.

In any event, I don’t think that UN approval and or cooperation is necessary to the success of the mission. The UN failed miserably in its mission in Iraq for 12 years. 12 years, for God’s sake! How was the UN going to suddenly become efficient and effective?

But that wasn’t my question. I don’t believe the UN was ever going to agree to actual regime change until it would have become too late, i.e., until a WMD was used against the US that was found to have originated in Iraq. Sorry, but we’re not going to wait for that to happen. Not when a good case foe immediate regime change existed already. Tell me you don’t know that the UN is nothing more than a tool used by the likes of France and a bunch of despotic regimes to stymie the US agenda, whatever that might be?

Finally, who ever said anything about turning Iraq into a UN-friendly democracy? I want an US-friendly, or at least, a democracy not hostile to the US.

The UN reeks of corruption, ineficiency and cowardice. You can keep it. I wish the US would kick their good-for-nothing asss out of New York. Why doesn’t the UN relocate to Paris?

93

Show me where the UN has been more effective. Bosnia? Rwanda? Korea? Anywhere? Name a successful UN mission.

You’ve never seen the pictures nor heard the stories of Belgian and Canadian soldiers in various recent UN actions, have you?

I think you’re changing your argument. You first argued that Bush was acting inconsistently because he didn’t act on the worst-case fact set in regards to both Kyoto and Iraq. Now, you’re saying that Bush must act effectively and efficiently in both cases. But, this is a difficult argument to make, as the meanings of “effectively and efficiently” are different in the two situations.

In both situations, the analysis when looking at two different fact patters must be to ask what happens if we act on one set and not the other, and then ask, what if we are wrong. This analysis easily explains what you perceive as an inconsistency in Bush’s approach. I see consistency.

You assert that the effects of global warming will be catastrophic. But in fact, we don’t know that.

Bush asserted that the effects of the use of a WMD in the US would be catastrophic. In fact, we can be quite certain that this is true.

94

Many would argue the UN mission to repatriate 250,000 refugees and conduct elections in Cambodia was fairly successful. Many would argue it wasn’t as Hunsen is about as despotic as Saddam. However, it’s probably created a semblance of democracy.

The UN mission to Timor allowed for its independence and elections to take place.

The mission in Cambodia was the first of its kind in UN history, Timor much more successful was the second. Neither of which were as bloody, costly or so left field as the US’s endeavours in Iraq.

In fact, both greatly reduced the level of violence in both countries.

95

flike’s argument is that the US has been inefficient in Iraq a mere 9 months after the Iraqi army capitulated (but terrorism hasn’t yet ended) He supports this claim with the fact that no foreign investment has entered Iraq yet.

He claims that the UN could do the job much more efficiently than the US is doing. Here’s a conclusion regarding the UN’s efforts at establishing a judiciary in East Timor written 18 months (in 2001) after the UN became involved:

[quote]The joint UNTAET-World Bank background paper prepared for the International Donors Meeting (held in Canberra on 14 and 15 May 2001) contains only three sentences on judicial capacity building. This is somewhat surprising given that the very authority and credibility of the UN’s mission in East Timor is at stake in its response to the challenge of creating a fair, transparent and effective judicial system. The task of creating a stable legal system presents a particular challenge in a society such as East Timor where, under Portuguese colonial administration and repressive Indonesian occupation, there was little opportunity for the East Timorese people to develop an understanding of and commitment to concepts such as the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. After one and a half years, the UN mission in East Timor is currently confronted with a crisis in confidence in the judicial system on the part of the East Timorese political leadership and civil society. If enthusiastic judges who have admitted to a need for assistance must continue to express frustration at a perceived lack of institutional support, the prospects for the development of a corruption-free judicial system and a flourishing rule of law in independent East Timor are less than good.

216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:EP … n&ie=UTF-8[/quote]

96

Many would argue the opposite. Human Rights Watch said the following:

[quote=“Human Rights Watch”]“Cambodia has now been holding elections for a decade, but little has been done either to protect opposition parties from political violence or ensure they can campaign on an equal footing with the ruling CPP,” said Ross.

“If things don’t change, no one should be surprised if Cambodian voters start losing faith in this process.”
Cambodian voters remain at the mercy of local authorities, who continue to use threats, coercion, and intimidation to ensure support for the ruling party. Cases of politically related violence and intimidation go unpunished so often that voters, party activists, and even senior political figures remain highly vulnerable.

Human Rights Watch found that the Cambodian government has used the January anti-Thai riots–in which government security forces stepped aside and allowed mobs to attack the Thai embassy and Thai businesses–as an excuse to clamp down on the right to demonstrate and hold political rallies. In late May, the National Election Committee and the Ministry of Interior decided to restrict private and public meetings of political parties outside the campaign period on the grounds of maintaining public order.

“The pretext of national security and public order is now being to used to deny peaceful rallies by students, victims of domestic violence, and environmentalists,” said Ross.

In addition, the government’s persistent unwillingness to open up the broadcast media to opposition political parties means that only information about the incumbent CPP consistently reaches voters.

“If voters cannot get information about their choices at the ballot box, parties cannot meet freely and get their messages out to people, and fear is determining voters’ choices, the purpose of holding an election at all is defeated,” said Ross.

Human Rights Watch also called upon the National Election Committee to implement a thorough and impartial electoral complaints process. All political parties should refrain from violence, racist rhetoric, and vote buying.

Human Rights Watch urged international and local observers to refrain from reaching hasty public judgments about the election immediately after the polling without taking into account the full context of the election and long-standing problems with violence, intimidation, media access, and the fears of voters, activists, and candidates.

hrw.org/press/2003/06/cambodia061303.htm[/quote]

Nobody would define that as “successful” if it was the result of an US effort, right?

97

Quite right Tiger.

So what makes you think the US will do any better in distilling democracy in Iraq than the UN achieved in Cambodia. Mind you it was their first ever attempt at this form of politicking. It is my view that the US saw this as being more a trend than a one off and it was more in US geopolitical strategic interest to control the outcome more in its favor.

For a long while the US with held it’s UN contributions as a means of manipulating the UN to work in its favor. However, in the end I guess you guys have decided to go it alone. It’s not necessarily cheaper, but its a great way of returning the trickle down into the upward gush for the contractors.

98

I’m not at all certain that the US alone will fare better. I hope we do. In any event, for whatever reasons you or I believe, the UN didn’t and doesn’t want to help with Iraq. So, the point is kinda moot.

Never mind that the US foots a disproprotionate amount of the bill to begin with, and the UN has mostly been an instrument to berate and or hinder the US.