Quagmire: The GWAC Farewell Tour (Archive)Ace of Spades -- Thursday, August 22, 2002 -- 09:16:26 PM
Make sure you read the new thread rules, which, in short, discourage lengthy yes it is/no it isn't fights, extended personal spats, and excessive parsing and hashing simple words and sentences into meaninglessness.
Farewell Tour Topic: Resolve old fights connected with Afghanistan and Iraq, like LizardBreath's curious insistence that Clinton told the truth when he said Saddam had WMD, but Bush told an Impeachment-worthy lie. Also, let's see those "predictions" one more time, huh?
New issues should go to GWAC:TNG.
We were right; you were wrong. Deal with it.
This thread is read-only.This thread is tagged: iraq
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
That's the thing that always gets me about the Confused Left. They always put us into double-binds.
They say: "America supports tyrants."
We say: "Okay, we'll take those tyrants out."
They say: "NO! We didn't mean that."
They say: "America doesn't share aid with these countries."
We say: "Okay, we'll give aid to these countries, and trade with them."
They say: "You're supporting tyrants!"
They say: "You created Saddam!"
We say: "All right, we shall correct our error."
They say: "NOOOOOO! Don't touch a hair on his precious head!"
They say: "This embargo is killing the Iraqi people!"
We say: "All right, we'll take out Saddam and immediately end the embargo."
They say: "NO! We should give the embargo more time to work!"
They say: "The Iraqis claim that some of these SAM attacks have resulted in civilian casualties!"
We say: "Okay, we'll get rid of Saddam so that the air raids are no longer necessary."
They say: "Wait a minute! These air patrols are a cost-effective method of containment!"
Or rather: I don't see, and I don't think I'm expected to see. Whatever America does, it's wrong.
They don't have policy prescriptions, i.e., a systematic plan for what America should do. All they have is bitching. No matter what action America takes, they reserve the right to bitch about it. Trade with Iraq? We're supporting a tyrant. Embargo Iraq? We're killing Iraqi babies.
When they're confronted with this, they always retreat to the stock answer "Well America created this situation in the first place!" In other words, confronted with the fact that they criticize all possible present and future American actions, they claim that it is past American actions that have brought about this odd state.
Not only is this wrong -- Saddam seized power himself without the aid of the CIA -- but it is irrelevant even if true. Even if America caused some problems in the past, surely there is some action we could take that would satisfy the Confused Left. But no-- if we do A, they whine. If we do not-A, they whine louder.
Further, as Christopher Hitchens points out, if it is true that America "caused all this," that makes it all the more morally necessary for America to solve the problem. The Left whines that America "created" the Taliban. Okay then-- doesn't that mean that America has the responsibility of removing the Taliban from power?
Of course not.
Because the Confused Left isn't interested in announcing a coherent program for American action. They only want to bitch about whatever it is America does.
You can't beat "something" with "nothing."*
Double-binds. The last recourse of a moral and intellectual coward.
* For reasons to obvious to enumerate, I reject "Let's get rid of SUV's" as a coherent plan for American action.
"I . . . I can't."
"Jesus Christ, Ramsey, you turn your fucking crate around right now or I will shitcan you from this man's Navy, do you understand?"
[over radio] "That's a good lad, Ramsay. Turn the plane around and do your duty."
"But . . . look. I . . . This is madness."
"Ramsey! This is a direct order. You go back and mow down those Iraqi stragglers this instant."
[over radio] "Please, lad."
The problem with that analysis is the timing of it. When was Gulf War I relative to the election? What was 41's popularity after Gulf War I? Hence...
...isn't strictly true. It's highly unlikely that Bush will be as self-evidently successful in the War on Terror as his father was the first go around in Iraq. Moreover, the first time it didn't make any difference in the election anyway.
Unless we have some new at least mini-WTC type setbacks between now and 2004, I think the WoT's impact on the presidential election will be minimal. Provided the Democratic nominee doesn't shoot himself in the foot totally by being a George McGovern about it.
You're right that getting the nomination is different and allows for more leftward tilt than does winning the general election, but so far Gore's likely opponents are staying well to the right of the position he's staking out, so he needn't go any farther left than that. In any case, the hard left in the Democratic Party can't be counted on, especially to vote for Gore and over this issue: remember his record on Gulf War I, which primary opponents could always hammer him for as a "flipflop," not to mention quoting what he said during Operation Desert Fox.
Again, the sole advantage for Gore I see is that he stakes out his territory and tacitly declares, "Yeah, I'm running, I'm the opposition."
But it would have been much more advantageous to take the opportunity given him to not commit and instead stick to the economic message. Which is what the Democrats have to pin their hopes on anyway. They won't win if the major issue in 2004 is one of foreign policy.
An analysis that Eric the Red can endorse...
Robert Fisk decides that the fact that Saddam is vigorously producing WMD is a ringing indictment: of America and Britain.
"Tony Blair's "dossier" on Iraq is a shocking document. Reading it can only fill a decent human being with shame and outrage. Its pages are final proof – if the contents are true – that a massive crime against humanity has been committed in Iraq. For if the details of Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction are correct – and I will come to the "ifs" and "buts" and "coulds" later – it means that our massive, obstructive, brutal policy of UN sanctions has totally failed. In other words, half a million Iraqi children were killed by us – for nothing."
And now we return to the Geopolitical Insights of Pulitzer-Prize Winning Columnist Maureen Dowd, already in progress...
As my girlfriend Dana said: "Bush is like the guy who reserves a hotel room and then asks you to the prom."
Ah yes. I *thought* he reminded me of someone.
(Myself, that is.)
The pre-emption proclamation had the tone of Cheney Caesar and Condi Ben Her.
Again, the recurring trope of every single Maureen Dowd column is to take one political event and somehow glibly tie it to one "hot" cultural trend.
I expect she has some sort of computerized, randomized Dowd-O-Matic like so:
Input A (Political Event/Figure)
The Bush Twins
Lauren Bush (the model)
The Entire Bush Family
Input B TV Show/Movie/"Hot" Cultural Trend
The Hula Hoop
The Godfather films
The Sopranos AND the Godfather films
Madonna's Marriage to Guy Ritchie
Madonna's "Poppa Don't Preach"
Planet of the Apes (original)
Planet of the Apes (remake)
I Dream of Jeanie
The Beverly Hillbillies
Charlton Heston movies (except not The Omega Man, which frankly glorifies violence and individuality)
Miniskirts and/or Ally McBeal
Izod Shirts and "Preppiness" (note: Petting, Necking, The Pill, Preppiness aven't been "hot" cultural trends for decades, but MoDo is getting old, despite her efforts to remain hip and sexy)
Sex and the City
You just add a randomizer to the process and the columns virutally write themselves.
It makes me glad to know that someone who considers Sex and the City great and important art is busy fashioning a coherent American foreign policy for the next century...
...based entirely on the themes expressed in Sex and the City, of course!
The United States = Samantha
Britain = Charlotte
France = Carrie
Germany = Miranda
Ahhhhh... NATO explained for the Money Dowd crowd.
The New Republic's new blog feature...
HACKWORK? Was Al Gore's thumping of the administration's Iraq policy yesterday politically motivated? Of course it was. ...
But all politicians are politically motivated. The more important question is whether Gore was being cynical--that is, saying something he didn't believe for political gain. And on that question the answer isn't so clear....
But whatever the answer to the question of Gore's cynicism, he was certainly being less cynical than the Democratic leadership in Congress. It was these same Democrats, you may recall, whose only position on Iraq prior to last week were timid calls for more debate. Then all of a sudden, having realized that action on Iraq was more or less inevitable, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt decided that a "debate" wasn't so important after all. What was important was passing a congressional resolution as quickly as possible, giving Democrats ample time to get back to get back to their talking points on prescription drugs and Social Security, which they see as the surest way to pad their vote totals in November. According to one party official quoted in The Washington Post, "Daschle put a pin in the Iraq balloon [by agreeing to an early vote on a resolution]. It is not going to be a divisive, polarizing issue for the elections."
The problem, of course, is that Daschle and Gephardt presumably still have reservations about attacking Iraq. In fact, many of the questions they're probably asking in private are the ones Gore just raised in public. Isn't this the very definition of cynicism?
I don't know. If Money Dowd is able to write a column linking Democratic cynicism to the amoral shenanigans on the old CBS Television show Dallas, it might become more clear to me.
Thanks. I try.
"You've got a lot of hate in you, kid."
"It keeps me warm inside."
-- Red Dawn
I've come to a decision on the Iraq question.We should drop the idea of getting rid of Saddam. Countries deserve the leaders they have. We should drop the idea of inspections; they would be futile. We should end sanctions; they are counter productive.
I believe there is a way to contain Iraq and the Islamic Fundamentalists, and it would take strong, decisive leadership that I believe Bush could provide.
Bush should go back to the U.N. with the following message. For some 40 years we faught a cold war with a well armed evil empire whose stated goal was destruction of our system of government. Not once in those 40 years did this, powerful, well armed evil empire attack our country. The reason, as all sane people know, is that we would have used all our force to destroy them, and we had the ability to do so.
We are stronger now. We except the fact that we are at war with Islamic Fundamentalism; let it be a cold war, for the alternative is dire indeed.
We realize that some say the case is different since the U.S.S.R was identifiable, a known target, while we might suppose no nation could be held accountable for an attack on America. Therefore, unless it could be clearly proven the attack came from, let us say, Sweden, we will assume to came from the people who our vowing our destruction and mark all of those nations who harbor these people responsible and destroy them.
If Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudia Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. knew what the consequences of an attack on America would cause, would they not get serious in dealing with the terrorists in their countries? Who knows, Iraq's neighbors might even want Saddam Hussain's head on a stick.
Nice to see Minister of Emotion Ace von Poopstain fulfilling his duties. I knew I could count on you.
It's nice to have him concede the bloody obvious, but I'd like to see Eric now internalize that concession and work the logic through.
I have. You demonstrated how the "deterrence" argument has flaws in it, because Saddam was emboldened enough to try what he did back in 1993. You've done well. Now run home and tell Dick what a man you are.
The point is that Saddam is not deterred, not that he poses a direct threat to our high-tech air force.
Okay. I agree.
Notice also that Eric the Red says "If it is true that Saddam is shooting at our planes..." as if he really wants to dispute the claim but doesn't have the balls or the facts to do so....Read a fucking newspaper from the last ten years, dude.
I wasn't disputing the claim at all; I know it's true. I was merely saying that if it's happened that often, and no pilots have been hurt, then Iraq's actions here have been either half-assed or half-hearted.
Bullshit. You would claim 1) that Bush had deliberately sent our planes into a dangerous SAM trap in order to provoke a pretext for war, and 2) that we were violating their sovereignty for even flying over their country, so you can hardly call a counter-attack an "act of war."
I see your mind-reading lessons are paying off.
Apparently Eric the Red thinks that Saddam can shoot at our planes from now until next Red Oktober and it doesn't constitute an act of war... until a missile actually hits home.
Well, this has been going on for years. So far it hasn't constituted an act of war. Indeed, even the hawks have devoted much more time to the "but he gassed his own people!" argument than the "he keeps firing missiles at our patrol planes" rationale. And it's a perfectly acceptable rationale. I just haven't heard it brought up in the context of "this is why we have to bomb these fuckers".
299 total Coalition troops died last time.
Right. Whether or not we have a coalition this time will probably depend on how we handle the UN. I have no doubt that Saddam, being who he is, will give them all the reason they need to join in.
A har har har har har. Right. We attack "Nearby villages."....You know, just for shits and giggles....Asshole. Fuck you, you dipshit.
Go take your Prozac, numbnuts. I wasn't saying it disparagingly at all. I don't have a problem with it. If they're going to fire on our pilots, they need to get a little payback.
Okay. Let's go through this again:
Saddam is buying uranium from Africa.
Saddam is buying weapons technology from the Ukraine.
Saddam has a staff of nuclear scientists and yet no need of a peaceful nuclear reactor.
Some of Saddam's nuclear scientists have defected and confirmed that he is still attempting to build a nuclear bomb.
Saddam built a reactor in the eighties.
Saddam smuggles in dual-use technology from Europe.
Even while weapons inspectors were in his country, Saddam was *still* working on WMD, and we know this because we *found* lots of WMD and WMD technology.
I demand that you respond to each one of these facts.
That is a pretty good case building up there. I have already conceded several times that it's probably a done deal, because the whole inspection deal will unearth the truth, without any actual inspections. If Iraq attempts to meddle with the inspection terms (as they already are), then they must have something to hide. Which is good enough reason to initiate some sort of military action, imho.
And after checking out the Blair dossier (thanks for the link, Dick), I'm pretty much at my 50% benchmark. I suppose all that's left is quibbling over the mechanics of the operation. I mean, it is okay with you guys if I ask questions, isn't it? I certainly don't want to upset Bow-Tie Man & Zoloft Boy, my favorite ambiguously gay superhero duo.
No matter what the question, Eric the Red's answer is that we should stop driving SUV's.
Oh, no. I think we should just continue guzzling as much gas as possible. Dumbass, isn't it just basic common sense, that when your economy and ability to function as a nation is incredibly dependent on a commodity -- a commodity which requires your involvement in an exceptionally unstable and violent area of the world -- that you take steps to at least moderate, if not actively reduce, your dependency on that region?
Personally, I was in favor of drilling in ANWR, provided that the fuel efficiency standards were also tightened back to where they should be. Look, for me it's not an enviro issue. You have never heard tree-hugger boilerplate from me; I seriously doubt you can point to anything I've ever said about global warming.
I just think it's dumb -- unconscionably reckless and needless and dumb -- to not actively take steps to extricate ourselves from this nasty little backwater region of the world. I realize it doesn't happen overnight. I realize that we don't have Magic Fuel yet. But what's galling is that we don't even bother to try; in fact we keep going heedlessly in the opposite direction.
I've never ever said that we all must ride bicycles and live in hemp-powered communes. But it is unrealistic and short-sighted to just completely place ourselves at the mercy of these assholes. You want to talk common sense? There it is.
Like so many on the America-hating Left, Eric the Pink Pussy is far more concerned about the threat America poses to her enemies than the threat her enemies pose to America.
Go fuck yourself, douchebag. Then, learn to read.
Eric obfuscates about the "thousands of America dead" he fears. Bullshit. His cute little lies about our planes "attacking nearby villages" for no reason other than simple muderous rage gives the game away.
Unfortunately, you completely misinterpreted that remark. But I'm sure that doesn't matter; your real goal is to paint everyone and everything in the worst possible light.
He's not concerned about Ameican casualties; he's concerned about American victims....But just like racists have learned to use a more acceptable vocabulary, i.e., "racial codewords," to get their points across, the Hate America Left has learned to stop whining about enemy casualties and claim they're just worried that some of our boys will come home in boxes....Our boys will be fine and I'm pretty sure you know that. But that's never been your worry.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. It seems to never have occurred to you that some people operate by the credo "love your country, be skeptical of your government".
Oh, I know you do when it's a Democrat being discussed. But that's different. They're eeevil. And shallow; how dare they sit on their fatty-fat asses and make fun of poor W's random syntax? For shame! Fat bastards, all of them.
It seems to never have occurred to you that some people operate by the credo "love your country, be skeptical of your government".
Sure, be skeptical of your government.
But do try occassionally being skeptical of the likes of Saddam Hussein as well.
Just to be fair, you know? I mean, just pretend to occasionally be dubious about Tariq Aziz's representations. Just so you won't look so much like a foreign dupe or shill.