MediumTex wrote:
I'm not saying that the CIA and others didn't really think that Iraq had WMDs; rather, what I am saying is that people like Dick Cheney probably didn't care that much whether the WMD story was true or not--it provided the needed pretext to do what they had been wanting to do for a long time.
To paraphrase Cheney: "WMD's don't matter."
The whole thing is like a game of Stratego being played by a couple of meth heads
Anyone that hasn't seen Oliver Stone's "W", I highly recommend it!!!
MG
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
MediumTex wrote:
What you are describing is also a rationale for attacking Pakistan and North Korea (and the argument may actually be stronger with respect to these two countries than when applied to Iran).
This whole issue is just hard to reach a satisfactory position on. Almost any approach seems deeply flawed.
No way! They have nuclear weapons!
MG
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Coffee wrote:
They said the same thing about N. Korea, didn't they?
And now we've got that nonsense to deal with.
North Korea was willing to submit to all demands just as Iran has done, but Clinton (Bill) turned it down for some lame-ass reason I can't recall.
We need term limits so bad.
MG
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Coffee wrote:They said the same thing about N. Korea, didn't they?
And now we've got that nonsense to deal with.
There are two recent historical examples:
Iraq - where they were right. The USA initiated a war against another country, spent a vast sum of money, for what benefit?
North Korea, where they were wrong. The USA did not initiate a war and North Korea may have a few fission bombs. We did not spend hundreds of billions/trillions. We have not had thousands of dead soldiers and tens of thousands maimed.
So, let's stipulate they are wrong again, and Iran indeed is developing nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't a North Korean outcome be a good one?
- Iraq: RE: What benefit? They got rid of Saddam. Are you upset that this wasn't the stated goal... because you couldn't read between the lines? I don't get it? In combat, the guy who broadcasts his punches is the guy who is easily beat.
- N. Korea: Not yet. Your measure of the cost/benefit seems to be measured in months. Who does that? How are you going to successfully plan foreign policy without taking a multi-decade (or even generational) outlook? Even if one crazy dictator doesn't use his nukes... I think it's hard to argue that: If you have 10 crazy dictators with nukes... sooner or later, one of them is going to use them.
"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is. "
Coffee wrote:
Even if one crazy dictator doesn't use his nukes... I think it's hard to argue that: If you have 10 crazy dictators with nukes... sooner or later, one of them is going to use them.
The world has had nuclear weapons for 67 years now, and the only crazy dictator who has used them was named Harry S. Truman.
This is a reasonable argument that I don't think we in the U.S. think about enough. If I were on the other side of the table negotiating with the U.S. I would say "Why is it that you get to have nuclear weapons but you don't think anyone else should have them? The argument that you are afraid someone else will use them is a strange one since it is you and only you who has ever used them. If anything, your argument is that the U.S. shouldn't have nuclear weapons, since it is only the U.S. that has ever shown a willingness to actually use nuclear weapons, and it was on civilian populations at that."
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MediumTex wrote:
This is a reasonable argument that I don't think we in the U.S. think about enough. If I were on the other side of the table negotiating with the U.S. I would say "Why is it that you get to have nuclear weapons but you don't think anyone else should have them? The argument that you are afraid someone else will use them is a strange one since it is you and only you who has ever used them. If anything, your argument is that the U.S. shouldn't have nuclear weapons, since it is only the U.S. that has ever shown a willingness to actually use nuclear weapons, and it was on civilian populations at that."
Except that America (or rather, the NeoCons) believes it has the moral high ground as opposed to those doing the complaining. Collateral damage is incidental for both sides.
Here's another big factor about the Middle East:
[align=center][/align]
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
MachineGhost wrote:
Except that America (or rather, the NeoCons) believes it has the moral high ground as opposed to those doing the complaining. Collateral damage is incidental for both sides.
In my experience everyone always thinks they have the moral high ground.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
MachineGhost wrote:
Here's another big factor about the Middle East:
[align=center][/align]
MG, I'm glad you mentioned this. This is a big reason why I stop listening whenever the neocons start shouting about Iran and 9/11... 9/11 was perpetrated by Sunni terrorists, most of which were from Saudi Arabia. Iran is ruled by a Shia theocracy. The two are more likely to try and wipe each other out than to team up and try to wipe out America.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
Coffee wrote:- Iraq: RE: What benefit? They got rid of Saddam. Are you upset that this wasn't the stated goal... because you couldn't read between the lines? I don't get it? In combat, the guy who broadcasts his punches is the guy who is easily beat.
What was the benefit of removing Saddam? Do you argue the people of Iraq are better off? In what way? Are the people of the US better off? In what way?
fnord123 wrote:
What was the benefit of removing Saddam? Do you argue the people of Iraq are better off? In what way? Are the people of the US better off? In what way?
A fine example of MMR in action. The U.S. dollars earned by Iraq are actually stored in NY.
MG
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes
Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet. I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
fnord123 wrote:
What was the benefit of removing Saddam? Do you argue the people of Iraq are better off? In what way? Are the people of the US better off? In what way?
For anyone interested in Iran, I highly recommend the book 'The Devil We Know' by Robert Baer. The title belies a very open-minded, balanced look at Iran and a large part of it is about how pragmatic Shias are. Very few words are spent on the nuclear threat, though there are plenty of dangers that we underestimate. Most of them are actually outside of the country's borders: "proxy" is a word you'll see on every other page.
You can read this book in a few days.
stone wrote:The USA now essentially gets Iraqi oil for nothing in return but I'm sure that doesn't pay for the cost of the war let alone the human cost.
Do you have any sources for this? Everything I've found shows the Iraqi government signing leases where they get paid for the oil.
Stone, afaik you are not a supporter of the Iraq war. Are there any actual Iraq war supporters who can explain what the benefit was of spending $1T-$3T and having more US soldiers die than people died on the 9/11 attacks? How is the USA better off? How are the Iraqis better off?
craigr wrote:
Iran is not Nazi Germany. Iran is not perfect, but we can't police the entire planet.
Can I have an Amen please?
It's time we stop comparing every country in the world we have differences with to Nazi Germany. It discredits the analogy and it demonstrates a lack of comprehension for the true evil that was Hitler's Reich.
Amen!!
the US spends 6X the military budget of #2 nation, China. iirc the US spends ~48% of the GLOBAL mil budget, & US + NATO allies is ~70%. The US for decades has enough nukes to make the human race extinct, multiple times over.
Realistically, Iran is not a threat to the US.
BTW, how do all other rich nations exist without spending such an absurd portion of their GDP on the military? Magically, Australia, Switzerland, Iceland etc are not destroyed or invaded by the boogie-man regime du jour. In the cases where these other ally rich nations are "free-riding" on the US mil budget, fine, then the US should slash the mil budget & let them pay their fair percentage-of-GDP share.
Quite a discussion here. In war, everyone thinks they are the good guys, right? Well what happens when you realize that your leaders aren't the good guys anymore? That's how I feel about now. If we go to war with Iran, that will make 4 wars in 10 years. With the exception of Afghanistan, I can't buy the justification for this foreign policy. Whenever people vote for a war monger, I hope they do the right thing and volunteer their own son or daughter to fight on the front line of the next war.
^it does seem that many of the biggest warmongerers in the US, are hypocrite Chickenhawks that had their rich daddy get them out of Vietnam, or whenever they were a young man/prime age for warfighting. Or grasped for any excuse they could to avoid serving as a soldier in a war.
George Bush 43, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, etc.
iirc in ~2003 at the time of the Iraq War, only 1 politician out of the 535 (US House + US Senate) had a son in the Iraq War.
These are the same hypocrites that try to lecture the Average Jane/Joe about "shared sacrifice".
Wonk wrote:
Quite a discussion here. In war, everyone thinks they are the good guys, right? Well what happens when you realize that your leaders aren't the good guys anymore? That's how I feel about now. If we go to war with Iran, that will make 4 wars in 10 years. With the exception of Afghanistan, I can't buy the justification for this foreign policy. Whenever people vote for a war monger, I hope they do the right thing and volunteer their own son or daughter to fight on the front line of the next war.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
[/align]
