The Unnecessary War

[shostakovich]

I read the first page of the report, and it's what I've said since way before Dec 15, 2003. I should work for those guys. Unfortunately, they have the same flaw as Mozart (in Amadeus): too many words.

Here's something from a Sept 6 Newsweek article on Bush. It's even-handed. I'm selecting just one paragraph about "the unnecessary war".

"In Bob Woodward's 'Plan of Attack', the best inside account so far of the Bush administration's lead-up to the Iraq war, it is striking how little Bush talks to his top advisors about whether to go to war. He meets constantly with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top military commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, to go over war plans. But there is almost no debate over whether invading and occupying Iraq is a good idea to begin with."

Some of my friends (in person and on the BBB) are disenchanted with Bush, but loathe to cast a vote for Kerry. And the candidates are fodder for comedy. This is no time for either hesitation or humor. There is a quantum difference between Kerry and Bush. It's essential to get that world menace out of the White House. Even if Kerry did commit atrocities in Viet Nam and the (discredited) swift-boat ads demoted him from hero status, that pales in comparison to the atrocities caused by bombing Iraq, the "collateral damage", and the deaths of innocents and warriors that will likely continue for years. And if we quibble about Kerry's 20-year record in the senate, it can't compare to the damage done by Bush in his first 3 years in office.
OK, you undecideds, vote Kerry even if it hurts. You'll be doing the world a favor.
Shos in a mood

[NudewigVonB]

Shos,

Regarding your question about the loss of freedom of expression for government workers. IT IS REAL!! This administration's flacks have set chilling precedents by making examples of those who publicly disagree with outrageously poor policies (on the Environment, on Security, on funding priorities) or who point out that "Gee, maybe the Emperor does need some real threads." Most govenment employees have no choice but to hunker down and wait it out, because it has become clear that they risk demotion/or and dismissal by speaking freely.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

NvB: most of us silly servant type government employees are restricted in many ways by the Hatch act. Look it up, it's not a new thing.

We can not engage in partisan political activities at work. We are not allowed to run for nor hold partisan political office, nor can we hold any office in any political party. We can campaign and do unpaid volunteer work for the party of our choice, but only as private individuals and on our own time. We are allowed to run for and hold non-partisan elective offices, such as member of a school board, or homeowners association, or civil defense warden.

Regarding public criticism of any given administration, it has always been understood to be an act best left until you're ready to retire. Civilian employees of the government really are not supposed to publicly attack the elected officials. This not new to this administration.

Funding, laws, and public policy are also very much influenced by bodies usually referred to as the Senate or House.

Do I correctly understand that you are not fond of the present administration?

[shostakovich]

Shos,

Regarding your question about the loss of freedom of expression for government workers. IT IS REAL!! This administration's flacks have set chilling precedents by making examples of those who publicly disagree with outrageously poor policies (on the Environment, on Security, on funding priorities) or who point out that "Gee, maybe the Emperor does need some real threads."

-------------------------------------------------------
Hi Nude. The post I made was about a friend who was afraid to see Fahrenhiet 9/11 because of possible repercussions. That's far less than disagreeing publicly with the administration. This particular administration gives added meaning to "Just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get you."
Shos

[barfle]

Genuine sworn federal employee here. Although most of the discussions around the water cooler involve other things, I do hear political discussions and occasionally engage in them myself. While there are supporters of the existing administration, most of my coworkers are intending to vote for candidates other than the incumbent.

Freedom of speech is still guaranteed to federal employees. I did have to relinquish some rights to take this job, although they generally involve avoiding a conflict of interest or the perception of one.

[lhuffman]

I think the 'should we have or shouldn't we have' arguement is rather moot at this point. I know I feel we should not have, but I have listened to plenty of convincing arguements to the contrary.

The real flaw in my opinion is the objective and the insueing 'plan' (if you can call it that) to rebuild Iraq and extricate the US.

To begin with, a democracy is almost impossible in that region. We can give them the semblance, but the culture advocates a theocracy. A democracy is contrary to their way of doing things, because they always have looked to clergy to dictate their path, which is not the will of the people but the will of Allah...and that is clearly apparent when you look at who is leading the open rebellions in the current situation...all clergy.

I will also add that democracy is always bad anyway...we are not a democracy politically (though we have some ressemblance of a social democracy), we are a constitutional republic. We are not even close to a democracy. Why are we telling them we are giving them a democracy? That is not what they need...democracy will equal theocracy, because I can guarantee that a simple majority would easily vote to put their Mulah in charge. And republic require mass citizen buy in. It requires many people to get involved in govt. At the rate they are being assasinated, will we find enough willing to risk it?

Did anyone in the administration even once stop to think about the end game here? If I were president, and I am in no way qualified, in determining a course of action using our military I would first and foremost determine if the goal is reachable and if there is a clear cut point when they can be removed from the situation. Did they actually see such a case here? It has never been apparent. The region will always have insugencies. That is part of why Saddam ruled with such dictatorial control, because the history of the region shows that if you are not a theocratic leader you have to rule with fear. The house of saud is only in power in Saudi Arabia because they are feared and have such an iron grip. The Shah ruled the same way in Iran and was finally toppled and replaced by a cleric. In almost every country in the region there is a firm dictator or monarchy or there is a theocracy. A democracy (or constitutional republic) will not survive, because they will have to grant freedoms to the very groups that are rising up to wrest control. Our culture is such that the majority will resist those small attempts...not the middle east, because they will not be small attempts. In the west, the culture of the majority has evolved into personal freedoms, but the middle-east has a long way to go until they get there...and in some ways I feel it has to be earned...or wanted. Not sure how to say it, but a lot of sacrifice and work went into forming our current culture. To think we can just drop it on them like a template is absurd.

(note: I have heard people use Japan taking to democracy after WWII as an example...and that is not close to this. Japan had no allies after the war. They had burned every bridge and were alon in defeat. They had been utterly defeated and depleted after years of war. In a way, they had paid a great price to learn that they really wanted to be a more free society.)

To remove ourselves now and anytime in the foreseeable future will result in a bloody civil war. Eventually a theocratic govt. will be put in place or a military backed dictator will get control. probably a religious leader. Those who aided the US and who tried to shape what we came in and told them they needed will be arrested and most likely executed. We will be compelled to stay because if we leave everything we are doing there will fall and the bloodshed will be significant.

In my opinion, I would have looked at it and figured that in taking out Saddam, I would only be serving to get many Americans and even more civilians of Iraq killed and cost the US billions of tax dollars, for a cause that has no bearing whatsoever on our national defense. I would be getting the military into a situation that they could not easily be pulled out of. And finally, I would not actually be stopping terrorism, which brings me to my last point...

The reason we have become so hated in the Middle East is because of our policy only in the last 60 years. After WWII we were good friends with most nations in the region. It was not until the establishment of the state of Israel (and I am not taking a side on this, just stating a fact) that we began to loose our status with the region, because it was a case where we came in and acted against the popular will of the region. We have tried to place leaders in the past...the Shah was our doing. He was as bad as Saddam to his own people and they finally overthrew him. That is why Iran hated us...we propped up a ruthless dictator and they bore the brunt. We then backed Saddam against Iran, until he did things we did not like, then we decided we did not like him. We then promised to back the people of Iraq in a rebellion against Saddam and then failed to keep our promise. It goes on and on. Each event caused more middle easterners to dislike us...even hate us. One would think that the best way to avoid future terrorism would be to not make more terrorist enemies. Now, chasing Osama...that is one thing, and the region does understand justice and revenge and would expect us to do no less. But to invade and occupy Iraq is completely different. It is an act that should illicit this kind of reaction. We would react if someone invaded one of our neighbors, even if they did think they had the right. We went to war with Iraq the first time because they invaded Kuwait. Saddam thought he had reason...it was probably just as real as WMDs. So how are we any better and why does this make us safer? It does not. We are even more vulnerable, because of the sheer numbers that are showing open hatred to us. And I know countries like France and Germany got in our face, and maybe that hurt our pride...but was Iraq really worth generating so much hatred for us, as well as burning bridges with many of our longtime allies? I do not think so.

Sorry to ramble on. I am new here and just read this thread and decided to add my 2 cents...or as it turns out my 99 cents. hehe.

[TheRefinedGarg]

I just thought I would add a quick praise to our soldiers over in Iraq, fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves, against those, that would hide behind women and children in order to keep their campaign of terror going.

I will also add some praise for our President, George W. Bush, who didn't listen to the pacifist, wimps who would have just looked the other way.

I for one will certainly not demean our soldiers sacrifice by criticizing their efforts. Too much of the media is controlled by left wing, liberals who prefer to use LIES to paint pictures that just aren't true, and take away from the FACT That we have eliminated a problem before it got out of hand, but some people would rather wait until 6 million people have been exterminated, since Hussein has been compared to Hitler in this forum.

Shame on those that take away from the Good that is coming out of this Necessary war on terror, that should have been initiated a long time ago, but someone was too busy "gettin' busy" in the oval office.

[OperaTenor]

Hi TRG, welcome to the pit. Looks like a very happy family you have there.

I don't think anyone here on the BBB feels the actual War on Terror is unnecessary, or shouldn't be fought. Those who have doubts are mainly concerned with our presence in Iraq. I am counted among that number.

I do not feel our leaders have been honest about our intentions there. However, we have deposed a tyrant, and have opened up the country to a kind of freedom they haven't known for some time. Hopefully the situation will continue to improve, and we can leave them in some kind of self-governing stability.

As for GWB's predecessor: I've been reading the 9/11 Commission Report. So far, it seems as though President Clinton did at least as much as any leader could have done(more, and bolder in a couple of respects, IMO), given the amount of information available to him at the time. The one instance in particular I was most impressed with was the Tomahawk missle attack on the Iraqi intelligence center in Baghdad in response to intelligence that there was a plan to assasinate GB41 when he visited Kuwait. He could have simply beefed up security, had the visit cancelled or rescheduled, but he chose to go on the offensive. I feel that took a certain amount of resolve and guts, irregardless of his dalliances with Monica.

[lhuffman]

TRG,

I assume that since you posted after my post that you somehow thought I was in some way being disrespectful to our troops. On the contrary. I am a former US Naval officer, who served my country with pride. My father is a 'lifer' having retired a captain in the US Navy and having given some years of his life in the service during another ill-advised conflict in Vietnam, an era that I was keenly aware of, since that conflict took my father from me for some time.

If you read my post carefully you will find that my complaint is that there was no plan for our troops to be brought home from the conflict. No goals. No end game. The end was not considered, only the fact of war and a very poorly substantiated reason to go to war in the first place.

I will tell you very clearly, our troops are not fighting a war right now, they are occupying a territory. That is a task that our troops are not very well trained for. They are acting as police in a land whose culture and ways are radically different from our own. I will say that I believe they are doing a fine job...better than can be expected, I think.

I will not say the same for the president. In fact, it is because of our troops that I do condemn the president for getting us into this war without a plan to remove us from it, ragardless of who or what he is doing in the oval office. This is not a comparison between our current president and any other. I would feel the same regardless of who is in office.

I seem to remember that we lost a few soldiers in Somalia a few years ago. The republicans went crazy blaming our then president for that fiasco and the lives lost. I actually agree...though the mission was painted in no less noble shades than the current war. The number of lives lost is radically different now though. The cost, at a time when the money could be used to infuse our own economy, is vastly different. The president who got us into Somalia had the sense to pull the plug and bring our troops home when it became apparent that the mission was more difficult and would entanlge us in ways we did not want to be entangled. The current president has rushed headlong into the current war and has no clear plan to get us out, despite US soldiers dying every week.

No, do not think that because someone is against this war it makes them less of a patriot. I, sir, am a patriot, with a hard and true sense of loyalty to this nation and our constitution. Because I love this country I proudly reserve the right to critisize when it's leaders, republican or democrat, lead us into paths we should not be treading. I don;t base loyalty on political party as so many do...as I pointed out, when Clinton did it it was bad, now when Bush does worse, it is good...all because it is their party in office.

So I guess I would ask you a couple of questions then....Do you think that we can turn Iraq into a democracy? If so, on what basis? Do you know of any other islamic nation who has opted for democracy? How long will this transformation take? How many US lives will be lost in making it happen? (You know, the soldiers being killed by the militant citizens who, as you said, "cannot fight for themselves".) If you were president, when would you bring our troops home, since you seem to care for them so much? How many of our men and women can die before you say enough is enough?

So, answer these questions...and stop and consider what you are writing before you post. How crazy is it to accuse people who oppose this war of not supporting or caring for our troops. We seem to care that they are dying more then you, because we want them all to come home now, alive.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

<sigh> Welcome, Garg. What's that short for? I like your quote - Mother T had my extreme respect. It's the whole praying with calloused hands thing.

OT, I have this reflex to remind you that NO head of state can afford to be honest in public about anything intelligence-related. Usually not for decades after the event. This is why we try to elect representatives and executives with good judgement. And I specifically decline to discuss any of the recent executives, or their judgement.

I really, really wish the Democrats had found a candidate.

[RC]

"Do you know of any other islamic nation who has opted for democracy?"

Does anyone remember Anwar el-Sadat?

He ran a Republic, (as opposed to a democracy), but it was atheocratic; That was the exception in that part of the world.

He actually brokered peace with Israel...imagine. He shared a Nobel prize with Menachem Begen.

Not that he was perfect but that's the closest example I can come to. I'll leave out Sadam Hussein (another atheocrat), because he kinda went nuts there didn't he.

Sadat was assasinated of course.

[Shapley]

RE: "Do you know of any other islamic nation who has opted for democracy?"

Malaysia. Still Democratic after all these years.

[haggis]

<small>[ 10-05-2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[RC]

OT, I have this reflex to remind you that NO head of state can afford to be honest in public about anything intelligence-related.

Selma, remember Kruschev pounding his shoe on the table and remember when the pictures of the missiles in Cuba were produced and the TV cameras were there...

<img src="http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/lae/images/LE283L5A.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.dingwall.bc.ca/history/db/places/Cuban_Missile_Crisis_1962.jpg" alt=" - " /> <img src="http://web.simmons.edu/~baildon/520/atomic/images/cuba2.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~srheaney/misslebase.jpg" alt=" - " />
That last one actually has a missile on a trailer.

What's the difference between that and what we presented for evidence of WMD in Iraq: edited (picture removed 'cause it was skewing the screen for everyone - sorry, I can't find another picture anywhere)

Is there some international threshold as Kerry says or is it OK to forge ahead on a hunch? Did it matter then and does it matter now?

<small>[ 10-05-2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[TheRefinedGarg]

Originally posted by LHuffman:

So I guess I would ask you a couple of questions then....Do you
think that we can turn Iraq into a democracy? If so, on what basis?

Yes, I do, on the basis of their own judgment. Whether or not we give them a
democracy will not be our accomplishment. Whatever style of government they choose
is fine with me. What we are in the process of doing is giving them that CHOICE,
and that is worth fighting for, don't you think.

Originally posted by LHuffman:

Do you know of any other islamic nation who has opted for democracy?

No.

Originally posted by LHuffman:

How long will this transformation take?

Years, and that is what Bush said in the beginning, that this would be a
long process. Also keep in mind that the war on terror is currently being
fought in Iraq against those that would oppose a society based on certain
freedoms that you and I enjoy everyday, not with Iraq itself.

Originally posted by LHuffman:

How many US lives will be lost in making it happen? (You know,
the soldiers being killed by the militant citizens who, as you said,
"cannot fight for themselves".)

Don't know, I can't see into the future, and just what are "militant citizens"?
Don't try to play on words. The only people I referred to were "people
who couldn't fight for themselves", which under Saddam's Rule,
was just about every average Iraqi and his family.

Everyone against us supports the terrorist to some degree, i.e. france.
Even if you do not choose you have made a choice, and
they chose to not to do anything, which makes them just as guilty.

Originally posted by LHuffman:

If you were president, when would you bring our troops home, since
you seem to care for them so much?

When the job was done.

Originally posted by LHuffman:

How many of our men and women can die before you say enough is enough?

As many as it takes. To quit before victory is a dishonor to those that have GIVEN
their lives for their country, fighting for a cause they believe in, or else they wouldn't
be there.

Originally posted by LHuffman:

How crazy is it to accuse people who oppose this war of not supporting
or caring for our troops. We seem to care that they are dying more then
you, because we want them all to come home now, alive.

1. Crazy? It's pretty easy, since you can't support our troops, and
be against their cause at the same time.
2. It is not possible to bring all soldiers home alive in a war. To hope for that
is a pipedream and will lead to disappointment.

I sure am glad that our Forefathers didn't acquire a "give up" attitude,
even though they lost 4,435 men (accounted for) during the American Revolution.

I'm also glad we didn't give up during World War 2 because tens-of-thousands of our "soldiers were dying", we would be speaking German now if we had.

In fact, if we would have done then what Bush did now, the Nazi's would have been stopped a lot sooner, and thousands, if not millions of lives would have been spared. So in the end, I still disagree with you, thankfully I have that privilege.

[barfle]

Larry, it looks like you and I are cast from the same mold on this and many other issues.

Clearly, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, in spite of what we were told. The "war on terrorism" seemed to be what we were fighting in Afghanistan (althoug I sure would like to see the "evidence" of obl's guilt that was shown to Musharif (sp?) and not to the American people. But even that genuine attempt at wiping out the guilty parties seems to be of less interest to the administration than settling an old score.

The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.

- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'

- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know....

- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site

I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.

- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

I am truly not that concerned about him.

- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

And Kerry gets the accusations of flip-flopping?


Garg, I have also been in the military, and while I decry the actions that got our troops in the situation they find themselves in, I support their loyalty and appreciate the sacrifices they are making. By opposing the war, I am most certainly not demeaning the brave soldiers who carried out the orders of their Commander in Chief.

While I agree that the war on terrorism is necessary, I, and many others, don't see the invasion of Iraq as a useful element of that struggle, for reasons that have been posted and reposted several times.

The most important document in the United States of America is the Constitution. It defines what the United States is. Treating it lightly in response to a perceived threat is demeaning to the thousands who gave their lifes or major portions thereof to defend it. I sincerely believe the current administration has lost sight of the Constitution, and therefore I call into question their patriotism, in spite of their rhetoric. Demeaning "liberals" because of their belief in the supremacy of the Constitution is a partisan ploy and a straw man.

[RC]

So Haggis...I'd be interested to know why you are not reacting to the most recent posts the way you did to NvB?

See, in my mind, they are identical - opinion only. The only difference is, this particular opinion is polar to NvB.

And yes, I am asking seriously - totally nonfacetiously, non antagonistically.

[RC]

Hey Garg, welcome - beautiful family!

I'm having difficulty getting my mind around several things you are posting and I wonder if you would humor me. I find that it is easiest for us simple folk to digest big statements in little pieces so forgive me if I miss the context of some of the below quotes as I dissect:

Originally posted by LHuffman:

So I guess I would ask you a couple of questions then....Do you
think that we can turn Iraq into a democracy? If so, on what basis?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I do, on the basis of their own judgment. Whether or not we give them a
democracy will not be our accomplishment. Whatever style of government they choose
is fine with me.

and then again, with the next quote, I get the impression that you might be naive (as most of us were pre-9/11 and Iraq), about how Islam effects their countries political culture:

Do you know of any other islamic nation who has opted for democracy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

OK, so here is my point; Frequently, when citizens in Arab/Muslim countries have the option of choosing, they specifically choose someone like Ayatolla Kahmenei who purport to be divinely appointed. That is part of the Muslim faith. He is no sweetheart! Just today Iran is bragging about having a missile capacity to strike southern Europe.

AND, when the US tries to meddle, we end up with people like Hussein (whom we supported). He is no sweetheart. Or, a Sadat who will be assasinated because he wasn't their choice!

Another example: trying to tell the Vietnamese what type of government they should have - well, we know how that went. Unfortunately, we ended up doing one of these:

To quit before victory is a dishonor to those that have GIVEN their lives for their country, fighting for a cause they believe in, or else they wouldn't be there.

Also, on that same specific quote, I wouldn't necessarily say that all the troops are fighting for a cause they believe in.

Their cause may be honoring their country and they may fight and still think the battle itself is wrong. To pretend that you honor something for the sake of honoring the fatherland in spite of what you believe is moral is more discgraceful than protesting...speaking of Nazi Germany. Do you suppose those lads fighting for Germany all thought the Jews deserved the halocaust?

Or they may have signed up for the education $$ and accidentally ended up in Iraq. Either way, they are fighting in the name of my country and I respect that.

More later.

[RC]

Everyone against us supports the terrorist to some degree, i.e. france.
Even if you do not choose you have made a choice, and
they chose to not to do anything, which makes them just as guilty.

Opposing the US decision to invade Iraq does not mean that France does not support the US against terrorists. Your statement would include every nation on earth. None supports every action we take. That's an awful lot of enemies even for a Super Power! So I'm thinking we shouldn't condemn our allies...

French/Afghanistan

[haggis]

Giora Eiland, Israel's national security adviser, made a startling statement: November will be the "point of no return" for taking out the Iranian nuclear program.

"It is rather significant that the United States is now selling Israel over $300 million worth of bunker-busting bombs. They don't need those for the Palestinians," Richard Holbrooke told Bill O'Reilly on Sept. 23."

Hmmm, maybe it's time to dust off OPLAN "Persian Freedom" and start updating the TPFDs.