Has the CIA Balanced Your Checkbook?

[mike777]

".....Do I think radical Islam is equal to the threat of the old U.S.S.R.? ......"

 

Heck I did not know you are a senile old coot...ok..so much for ugly personal attacks... ;)

 

As usual you have really hit the main debate point.

 

 

For sake of discussion let's assume the threat is equal or greater......

if greatly minor...Bush is insane.

[luke warm]

Interesting, from my view what I see is an expression of the importance of a sovereign U.S. but an equal importance of a sovereign Iran and a sovereign Iraq and a decided negative view of U.S. imperialism. I see no evidence at in support for a one-world government.

i will assume you mean what you say, that the sovereignty of iran and iraq are equally important to you as is that of the u.s. ... i don't see it that way at all... part of a sovereign u.s. (imo) is to weigh our nat'l interests against those who our elected officials see as threats... our interests outweigh those of others... as for the one world thing, i thought i've seen many posts that point toward letting the u.n. handle things

 

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

[Winstonm]

For sake of discussion let's assume the threat is equal or greater......

 

Mike, this seems to be where we differ: I don't think this can be assumed - I think this IS the debate.

[mike777]

3 cases

1) equal or greater

2) sign.. less

3) insanely less

 

oh and the posters stand where? ;)

[hrothgar]

3 cases

1) equal or greater

2) sign.. less

3) insanely less

 

oh and the posters stand where?  ;)

Mark me down for insanely less

 

If at some later point in time nano-tech really takes off I might get a bit more scared.

Then again, if nano-tech really takes off, I'm gonna be scared of everyone, not just the muslims.

[mike777]

that looks like a half vote for me....tech.... ;)

[Winstonm]

Interesting, from my view what I see is an expression of the importance of a sovereign U.S. but an equal importance of a sovereign Iran and a sovereign Iraq and a decided negative view of U.S. imperialism.  I see no evidence at in support for a one-world government.

i will assume you mean what you say, that the sovereignty of iran and iraq are equally important to you as is that of the u.s. ... i don't see it that way at all... part of a sovereign u.s. (imo) is to weigh our nat'l interests against those who our elected officials see as threats... our interests outweigh those of others... as for the one world thing, i thought i've seen many posts that point toward letting the u.n. handle things

 

i don't see anything inherently wrong with allowing the u.n. certain powers, but those powers disappear when measured against our nat'l interests... do you agree?

Jimmy, let me address these points one at a time. It may come as a shock but I would classify myself as leaning more toward isolationism than one-world government, and have a strong belief in the concepts of the constitution - I believe, because human nature does not change, that the reasons for the strong separation of powers in the 18th century are just as valid today.

 

My views begin with the individual - the best any of us can hope to do is to control our own actions. We have absolutely no control over what another person chooses to do. This extends to countries, as well.

 

Iran and Iraq should be sovereign nations, and as such should decide for themselves what is best for them - to ask them to do what is best for the U.S. is a silly proposition, as no country will sacrifice its own interests for another. However, with that said, if a populace within a country is in the throes of a dictatorship and asks for help to overthrow that dictatorship, I see nothing wrong with supplying them with the arms to do so - but it is their conflict to win or lose and as such does not require the U.S. military.

 

If a sovereign nation attacks another nation, then there is cause for intervention and forcing a retreat - to invade because the government of another country is not what we would optimally like is imperialistic aggression.

 

I also have strong beliefs that the U.S. Congress should step up and assume their constitutional duty to declare war and stop allowing the president to involve troops in wars that are non-wars. If Congress agreed that an Iraq invasion was needed, they should have declared war on Iraq and not just acted as a bunch of bankers fincancing the president's new house.

 

I do not back the U.N. unilaterally, but I can understand the reasoning for having a world body where the nations can meet and attempt to resolve differences on a world stage.

 

And lastly, blindly supporting our leaders simply because they are elected to me is the antithesis of patriotism, as leaders are only in office a short time but the effect of their actions can destroy the country. I believe it our duty to be on constant vigilence against abuses of power and to constantly challenge our leaders motives.

 

IMHO.

[pbleighton]

"3 cases

1) equal or greater

2) sign.. less

3) insanely less

 

oh and the posters stand where?"

 

Both threats are (were) hugely overrated, but real.

 

Militarily, the old U.S.S.R. was orders of magnitude greater.

 

So, in military, "hard" terms, "insanely less".

 

As to the old U.S.S.R., the reality, of course, is that the doves were proven right. The so-called "cold war" was unnecessary, and was essentially invented by fanatics on both sides. Richard Nixon, of all people, did the most of any Westerner to diffuse the threat through detente.

 

Detente took years to work.

 

The same model won't work with radical Islam itself, since we cannot negotiate with Al Quaeda. We can, however, negotiate with Islamic governments, work on the Palestinian issue, and more importantly, stop being mass-murdering imperialists. The last thing, of course, will be the most difficult.

 

This process will probably take 50-100 years. If we could get our act together, it would be less, but we won't.

 

So, in cultural, "soft" terms, radical Islam is "greater than".

 

Reality's a bitch, isn't she?

 

Peter

[mike777]

"...... believe it our duty to be on constant vigilence against abuses of power and to constantly challenge our leaders motives......."

 

amen AMEN!

Darn you ex hippies

 

 

btw if you vote 3...insane...God help us ...we(me) elected him.......

we can only hope the Dem. Congress can save us!

[mike777]

Heck at least I was in Grant Park in 68 if front of the Hilton if that means anything to old guys...... ;)

[Winstonm]

As for what the president describes as protecting American lives, the cold war was so far above as to be in a class by itself - not only was the threat of the U.S.S.R. sending over their ICBMs, but you also had the threat of the U.S.A. sending their ICBMs - it was a gigantic game of chicken with the survival of the globe in the balance. All out nuclear war between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. would have ended the world as we know it.

 

A few poor religious-driven zealots blowing themselves up every now and again doesn't come close.

 

It would take, I would guess, around 20-30 more years for any country in the middle east to develope enough nuclear capacity to seriously damage the U.S. with a first strike, and even then they risk doing only partial damage while having themselves wiped off the planet by a counterstrike.

 

IMO, this entire middle eastern, Islamic fanatical story is a ploy to hide the actual reasons for war - to guarantee the perpituity of U.S. dominance by having access to oil. That is a sane reason, a legitimate reason, to go to war - not a reason I happen to agree with, but one certainly that has some logic to it, and one that can be argued does safeguard U.S. national security as without oil there is no U.S.A.

 

It also happens to be part of the plan of the PNAC, whose members happen to be littered throughout the Bush administration. Powerful men in powerful position planning powerful world-changing events is a lot easier for me to believe than an old Saudi na'er-do-well, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, orchestrating a world-wide terror organization intent on dismantling the U.S.A. with stolen airplanes and car bombs and tales of 44 virgins waiting in heaven for the faithful.

 

I don't think the National Inquirer would dare put that one on the cover. ;)

[Winstonm]

Heck at least I was in Grant Park in 68 if front of the Hilton if that means anything to old guys...... ;)

What did you do there?

I got high-igh

What did you touch there?

I touched the sky-ay

It's all too beautiful, it's all too beautiful

 

Oh, wait....that was Itchikoo Park. Never mind. :P

[mike777]

1) let's assume the USSR can kill 100 million with the push of one button

2) LET'S assume that radical Islam can only kill one million or less with the push.

3) let's assume radical islam is as dangerous(whatever that means) as the USSR.

[mike777]

Heck at least I was in Grant Park in 68 if front of the Hilton if that means anything to old guys...... ;)

What did you do there?

I got high-igh

What did you touch there?

I touched the sky-ay

It's all too beautiful, it's all too beautiful

 

Oh, wait....that was Itchikoo Park. Never mind. :P

Hey i was in L.A. too.....and S.D a few months later :)

[mike777]

btw I am not surprised by your uninlightend.....responses to those of us in Grant Park to those of us fighting for your old fogeys rights....

[hrothgar]

i will assume you mean what you say, that the sovereignty of iran and iraq are equally important to you as is that of the u.s. ... i don't see it that way at all... part of a sovereign u.s. (imo) is to weigh our nat'l interests against those who our elected officials see as threats... our interests outweigh those of others... as for the one world thing, i thought i've seen many posts that point toward letting the u.n. handle things

Some of us take a rather broad view of National Sovereignty. With the exception of a few cranks like DrTodd I think that all of us prefer living with a functional government. We recognize that ceeding certain rights to the government is preferable to living in anarchy. In a similar fashion, I'd argue that the United States is better off working in a system with well established international laws and norms. When we flaunt these norms we hasten our own demise.

 

I don't find it at all surprising that the Bush administration, which its extremely hostile attitude towards international law also launched a largely unprovoked war of aggressive against the wrong country. In doing so, the Bush administration severely damaged many of our long standing alliances and convinced much of the world that we're nothing more than a bully.

[mike777]

I cannot agree more strongly(rats poor sp) that if...if...we are a bully or...flaunted the norms..we have damaged ourselves.

 

 

let's assume we have...lets assume we have in the extreme.

What can we do now?

[Winstonm]

1) let's assume the USSR can kill 100 million with the push of one button

2) LET'S assume that radical Islam can only kill one million or less with the push.

3) let's assume radical islam is as dangerous(whatever that means) as the USSR.

I believe your comparisons invalid.

 

1. At the push of a button, the U.S.S.R. could make the Earth uninhabitable (as the U.S.A. responds in like kind)

2. At the push of a button, the U.S.A. could make the Earth uninhabitable (As the U.S.S.R. responds in like kind)

3. At the push of a button, a radical Islamic can blow himself up and kill 30 Americans in Times Square.

 

If and when a middle-eastern country developes a nuclear weapon, there will be time then to take action if it is deemed necessary - and I would not necessarily be opposed to that action.

 

Now let me ask you one: which of these scenarios seems most likely.

 

1. A group of neo-conservatives organize a Washington think tank called the Project for a New American Century, whose purpose is to develope a plan for a Pax Americana. This group developes a plan, including a military plan, and each member signs it.

 

Not long afterwards, a new president is elected, whose running mate happens to be a PNAC member, and the president appoints many of these same PNAC members into key positions within the executive: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, Member, Defense Advisory Board; John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security; Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State; Elliot Abrams, Special Assistant to the President; Zalmay Kahlilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq; Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice-President Cheney; Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; James Woolsey, Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board.

 

A terrorist attack is launched against the U.S. In response, the U.S. invades both Afghanistan and Iraq, which happens to be the military blueprint for the Pax Americana of the PNAC.

 

Hyposthesis: Like-thinking men in power saw an opportunity to go "real life" with their believed-in Pax Americana and used 9-11 as the reason to masquerade their real intentions.

 

2. Prior to 9-11, there were isolated and rare terrorist attacks against the U.S. overseas, one on the World Trade Center, and each attack was treated individually with individual responses by the U.S. After 9-11, a world-wide radical Islamic organization materialized and virtually overnight become the greatest threat to the American way of life since Russia sent missiles to Cuba.

 

Hypothesis: The success of the last attack so galvanized the entire Islamic world that a world-wide terror network was born that could only be fought on a global scale by attacking countries that harbored and aided these groups.

 

Taking into consideration basic human nature, which seems most likely?

[Winstonm]

btw I am not surprised by your uninlightend.....responses to those of us in Grant Park to those of us fighting for your old fogeys rights....

Grant Park anti-war demonstration? I remember you saying you were at the 68 democratic convention when Mayor D sent out the storm troopers. Which end of the baton were you on?

[Winstonm]

I cannot agree more strongly(rats poor sp) that if...if...we are a bully or...flaunted the norms..we have damaged ourselves.

 

 

let's assume we have...lets assume we have in the extreme.

What can we do now?

Agree here, as well. What to do?

 

First, a complete withdrawl of all troops from Iraq - now. Will there be a bloodbath? Most likely. There will be one anyway. We will have to deal with Iraq after Iraq determines what it is to be - just as we have learned to deal with Vietnam now that Vietnam had determined its own course.

 

Second, support strongly a Palestinian state - the U.S. supported the creation of Israel - are the Palestinians any less deserving of their own nation?

 

Third - totally exhaust all possible means of dipomacy before any talk of future wars. Compel Congress to declare war before any future combat that is not a direct assault by armed forces on U.S. territory.

[mike777]

btw I am not surprised by your uninlightend.....responses to those of us in Grant Park to those of us fighting for your old fogeys rights....

Grant Park anti-war demonstration? I remember you saying you were at the 68 democratic convention when Mayor D sent out the storm troopers. Which end of the baton were you on?

the end...that hurt.....as a very young.........

[Winstonm]

in fairness i was idotic......

 

At least you get to use the past tense - I, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. :)

[pbleighton]

"I cannot agree more strongly(rats poor sp) that if...if...we are a bully or...flaunted the norms..we have damaged ourselves.

 

 

let's assume we have...lets assume we have in the extreme.

What can we do now?"

 

The answer to this is simple, obvious, and very difficult to accept for most Americans, even now. We must leave, soon, with our tails between our legs, knowing that things will get worse when we leave. Consider these facts:

1. We have totally screwed up

2. Our national security has been damaged

3. Iraq has been damaged

4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged

when we leave Iraq

5. This will happen whenever we leave Iraq

6. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the total damage will be in the

long run

7. We will "lose" (though I think that "acknowledge failure" is more accurate) when we leave Iraq. However, there will be no winners. No one in Iraq will be a winner, though it is possible that a faction or factions may have success in the civil war. Those of us on the left in the U.S. who opposed the war and predicted the outcome are not winners. I certainly don't feel like one. The Republican party has damaged itself politically, but the sooner we leave the sooner they can begin to heal themselves, so the Democratic party won't be a winner.

8. We owe Iraq. Unfortunately, this is not the time to repay it. We (and should) give limited humanitarian aid, but major reconstructive aid should wait until they are finished with their civil war. Right now it accomplishes nothing.

9. We may have to come into Iraq again militarily, as part of a multinational force, when they are mostly done with their civil war, and need (and request) help getting things together. Right now, our presence exacerbates the civil war. It may be that sometime in the future (5 years? 30 years?) we may be able to help. This is not contradictory.

 

This is a gloomy post, but it is a gloomy subject.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

The US is the wind, blowing mightily to get the traveller to take off his overcoat.

 

Sanity and reason is the Sun that, when it shines warmly, will win the day. We have only to espouse the values of human dignity and mutual respect. Economic, political and yes, spiritual well-being can provide the future with the fruit of the seeds that we are planting today. Will it be bitter or non-existant? Or can we transform the world of hate and recrimination into the garden that it once was and could be again?

[luke warm]

taking peter's list, and imo:

1. We have totally screwed up

if by this he means tactically, then yes.. if he means strategically, then maybe... that's exactly why reasonable people discuss iraq

2. Our national security has been damaged

i would (or could) argue that our nat'l security has improved as it pertains to terrorist attacks on our soil

3. Iraq has been damaged

yes, and in another decade or two that damage will approach the genocide proportions during sadaam's rule

4. Our national security, Iraq, and the Middle East will be further damaged when we leave Iraq

this is not necessarily true, although if we leave prematurely it's probable we will receive more attacks at home

5. This will happen whenever we leave Iraq

this depends on the answer to mike's question re: "winning" the war

6. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the total damage will be in the

long run

to whom?

7. We will "lose" (though I think that "acknowledge failure" is more accurate) when we leave Iraq. However, there will be no winners. No one in Iraq will be a winner, though it is possible that a faction or factions may have success in the civil war. Those of us on the left in the U.S. who opposed the war and predicted the outcome are not winners. I certainly don't feel like one. The Republican party has damaged itself politically, but the sooner we leave the sooner they can begin to heal themselves, so the Democratic party won't be a winner.

assuming loss, this follows

8. We owe Iraq. Unfortunately, this is not the time to repay it. We (and should) give limited humanitarian aid, but major reconstructive aid should wait until they are finished with their civil war. Right now it accomplishes nothing.

based on the assumptions that we leave now and civil war erupts.. see #4

9. We may have to come into Iraq again militarily, as part of a multinational force, when they are mostly done with their civil war, and need (and request) help getting things together. Right now, our presence exacerbates the civil war. It may be that sometime in the future (5 years? 30 years?) we may be able to help. This is not contradictory.

it isn't contradictory for any who view contradiction as justifiable