Rant on war, terrorism, and taxes...

[Reager]

Here's my take on the impending war with Iraq. Yes, Saddam is in material breach of UN resolutions, yes containment and inspections won't work forever, yes military force is needed to disarm him, yes we should go in and disarm him. BUT, I don't agree that we should invade Iraq right now. Why? Because, despite what Bush would have us believe, Iraq is not our most pressing security concern. Dealing with Iraq should be a long term goal. Instead of focusing our energy and resources on ousting Hussein, we should be more worried about the continued risk of future terrorist attacks posed by AL Queda and other terrorist groups. In fact, just this week, FBI Director Muller stated before Congress that Al Queda, not Iraq, poses the gravest threat to the United States. Another major terrorist attack could happen at any moment, and disarming Iraq won't do a thing to stop it.

While I'm on the subject of focusing resources and where our priorities should be, right now we're spending $41 billion a year on homeland security. That may seem like a lot (and it is), but let's put that figure into perspective. President Bush is pushing for a tax cut of (depending on your political persuasion) between $600 billion and $1.3 trillion. Add to that the hundreds of billions more we'll spend on the invasion and postwar occupation of Iraq (not to mention hundreds of billions for a ludicrously impotent SDI missile defense shield..anyone ever heard of the Maginot Line?), and it's no wonder even Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan predicts the only thing we'll get for our money are increased budget deficits and soaring national debt.

The funny thing is, I'm ok with deficit spending IF that money is used to effectively respond to the grave threat posed by international terrorism. The economy is cyclical, it always has been. Perhaps a huge tax cut now will help, perhaps it won't. Eventually the recession will end pretty much without us doing anything. But, even if cutting taxes lifted us out of recession tomorrow, will that be any consolation when a nuclear device is detonated in New York Harbor because we tax-gutted away the resources necessary to safeguard our port cities? Or because we failed to properly train our local law enforcement how best to respond to terrorist threats and incidents?

The bottom line is, this nation is not appreciably safer now than is was before September 11, 2001. I have yet to hear a cogent argument why an Iraq war and further tax cuts should be higher on our To Do list than more effectively securing the homeland (man, I hate that term..fatherland, motherland, homeland...) and combating global terrorism in its most dangerous and immediate form. Anyone? Anyone at all...?

Mike

 

[AndrewHarter]

Iraq etc...

I think a large part of our decision to put our focus on Iraq is the realization (post 911) what can happen if we neglect potential threats to our security.

Iraq is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world. Hussein has offered bounties and support to organizations such as Hamas. Although Hussein's government is "secular", it has never failed the opportunity to align itself with non-secular organizations that share Iraq's anti-western or anti-Jewish sentiments.

We've fought two front wars in the past. We were able to defeat both the Germans and the Japanese in World War II. Ignoring Iraq could have very painful consequences.

If Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (which they certainly act like people trying to hide them) it would mean that one man, Hussein who has already launched missile attacks on 5 of his neighboring countries, has more power of destruction in his hands than any other head of a rogue nation. Both North Korea and Iran have administrations with at least some people in positions of power who might provide dissent (to some extent).

We have an awkward situation. We as citizens want more information. We want to know that any military action we might take is justified. To know this we want to know what our government knows. What information do they have? But the problem with that is that we can't know everything.

If our government reveals too much, we might loose certain sources of information. If we reveal transcripts from phone calls made in one of Saddam's palaces, we can be sure he won't use those phones again. Even if we reference information and not the source we might jeopardize our ability to gather future information.

Some of us are uncomfortable with the idea of putting our trust in the hands of our lawmakers to make these decisions without full disclosure. Frankly, I don't know how to answer that. It's a fair observation. We need to be vigilant and skeptical.

There are several conclusions we can come to with certainty from the information we do have: (1) Hussein is in violation of the treaty under which we originally pulled out of Iraq. (2) Hussein's prior history indicates that he is willing to use whatever weapons he has at his disposal. (3) Hussein is in violation of the current resolution (ie. reach of his missiles, failure to fully comply, etc.).

The uncertain questions remain: (1) Does Hussein have nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons? (2) Does Hussein have ties with a terror organization that would use these weapons? (3) Will Hussein use these weapons in an act of aggression?

I think there is credible evidence that Hussein at the very least has allowed Al Qaeda to function freely in his country. As he has given assistance to Hamas, it's not at all unlikely that he would consider supporting another terrorist group. In his interview with Tony Benn he said that he wouldn't be ashamed to have a relationship with Al Qaeda (a relationship he of course denies having).

There are several things we have to fear: (1) Doing nothing now and increasing the likelihood that later on we might experience the use of a weapon of mass destruction. (2) Taking military action and bringing havoc to that region which will result in the loss of human life (chiefly Iraqi civilians).

Iraqi citizens are not at peace right now. They live in fear of their military dictatorship. Hussein has killed thousands of his own people openly. As with all dictatorships, we never know until much later (if ever) how many tens or hundreds of thousands have been killed secretly.

According to Jane's Information Group, the number of Iraqi soldiers who died in the Gulf War is estimated at 1,500 the number of civilian deaths is approximately 100. American casualties were 148.

Looking at these numbers it should put the consequences of military action in perspective. An American soldier stands a 1 in 3,300 chance of being killed (the death rate in my high school was higher than that!). As far as the Iraqis are concerned, their biggest threat to life is Hussein's police state. Saddam killed off a lot more than 100 of his own people last year for political reasons.

Although I'm not happy with the cost to us taxpayers for military action and the ensuing peacekeeping efforts, I'd much rather pay that then face the possibility of another 911.

 

[Segnosaur]

Instead of focusing our energy and resources on ousting Hussein, we should be more worried about the continued risk of future terrorist attacks posed by AL Queda and other terrorist groups. In fact, just this week, FBI Director Muller stated before Congress that Al Queda, not Iraq, poses the gravest threat to the United States. Another major terrorist attack could happen at any moment, and disarming Iraq won't do a thing to stop it.

A couple of things should be noted:

While I agree al Queda is still a threat, the military will be of little use in eliminating them. The best way to take care of this terrorist group is using covert operations and intelligence gathering, best done by groups like the CIA and FBI. In addition, the U.S. does have the resources to both persue al Queda and invade Iraq.

In additon, invading Iraq will eliminate many problems. Although there may not be direct evidence Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, he has provided support (financial and otherwise) to other terrorist groups in the world. And if the U.S. is able to establish a democracy in Iraq, it may make countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran (who have a much more fundamentalist Islamic society and are also strong terrorist supporters) act responsibly.

The current system of ignoring human rights abuses in the middle east while allowing fundamentalism to grow has failed. Invading Iraq is the most logical step in changing the statis quo.

 

[Girl 6]

Re: Iraq etc...

Iraq is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world. Hussein has offered bounties and support to organizations such as Hamas. Although Hussein's government is "secular", it has never failed the opportunity to align itself with non-secular organizations that share Iraq's anti-western or anti-Jewish sentiments.

What? You're kidding, right?

Is everyone ignoring the fact that we FUND terrorists?

Oh, welcome to the board, Andrew! Decided to join the fray, have you?

G6

 

[demon]

Girl6
"Is everyone ignoring the fact that we FUND terrorists?"

Shush! You ain`t meant to mention that! History started on 9/11, nothing before that matters.

Harter:
"I think a large part of our decision to put our focus on Iraq is the realization (post 911) what can happen if we neglect potential threats to our security."

I see. Focus on Iraq and forget about Osama, the guy that actually perpetrated 9/11. That makes a lot of sense.
What are the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Very tenuous at most and as for a link with Hussein? Well that`s wishful thinking in the Powell sense of the word.

If you want to find a country with real links to Al Qaeda then try America.

 

[Girl 6]

Girl6
"Is everyone ignoring the fact that we FUND terrorists?"

Shush! You ain`t meant to mention that! History started on 9/11, nothing before that matters.

Man... I hate it when I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut!

So, what do you say Andrew? And everyone else? There is AMPLE evidence of us funding terrorists. In fact, we funded the very same terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.

G6

 

[Charles Livingston]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what do you say Andrew? And everyone else? There is AMPLE evidence of us funding terrorists. In fact, we funded the very same terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is? Actively supporting terrorists and allowing them to plan and train unknowingly are two different things. I am not necessarily arguing with you, I just didnt know there was such evidence. Unless, of course, you are talking about how we supported bin ladens buddies in the 80's afgan stuff, which may or may not be supporting terrorists in my mind

 

[Segnosaur]

I see. Focus on Iraq and forget about Osama, the guy that actually perpetrated 9/11. That makes a lot of sense.
What are the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Very tenuous at most and as for a link with Hussein? Well that`s wishful thinking in the Powell sense of the word.

I've already covered that in my post. (Does anyone ever read what I write anymore?)

Yes, Al Qaeda is a threat. But at this stage, they don't provide a military target. The way to eliminate them is through intelligence gathering and covert operations. Thus, it will be no problem to handle 2 operations at once: A military one (against Iraq) and a CIA/FBI one (against Al Qaeda).

And although Iraq may not have had anything to do with 9/11, they are quite fond of funding other terrorist groups, such as the ones who attack Israel. (Note: There are rumours that some al Qaeda operatives have moved to Iraq in the past year or so.)

 

[Tmy]

So they fund terror against Isreal. Thats their problem. Im worried about terror aimed at us! If we are out to fight general terror then we should have forces in all parts of the world. Not just the mid east.

 

[Segnosaur]

Man... I hate it when I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut!

Well, I certainly hope you keep posting...

So, what do you say Andrew? And everyone else? There is AMPLE evidence of us funding terrorists. In fact, we funded the very same terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.

The U.S. also supported Iraq for a brief time in the 80s.

Basically, politics makes strange bedfellows. A decade or 2 ago, the U.S. supported some pretty bad characters. Things were different back then; the cold war was on, and if the U.S. didn't support its own right-wing dictators and terrorists, they were worried about the soviets taking over with their left-wing dictatorships and terrorists. (Hence, the U.S. support of bin Laden against the soviets in Afghanistan.)

Now, I don't know if the U.S. made the right decision in all cases, but at least there was a basis for it.

Now that the Soviet Union is not an issue, the U.S. will hopefully encourage democracy in places like Iraq, rather than just trying to keep the Russians at bay.

 

[Girl 6]

I've already covered that in my post. (Does anyone ever read what I write anymore?)

Yes, Al Qaeda is a threat. But at this stage, they don't provide a military target. The way to eliminate them is through intelligence gathering and covert operations. Thus, it will be no problem to handle 2 operations at once: A military one (against Iraq) and a CIA/FBI one (against Al Qaeda).

And although Iraq may not have had anything to do with 9/11, they are quite fond of funding other terrorist groups, such as the ones who attack Israel. (Note: There are rumours that some al Qaeda operatives have moved to Iraq in the past year or so.)

Actually, WE are quite fond of funding terrorist groups and coup d'etats. The bottom line is we give money to governments that support our specific short range objectives at any one point.

Then, oops!! The short range objective doesn't work out in the long range.

So, are you telling me that you would go to war on RUMORS??

Please... Take that somewhere where there is ignorance of history of how we got to this stage.

G6

 

[AndrewHarter]

US funded terrorism...

Girl 6 wrote "So, what do you say Andrew? And everyone else? There is AMPLE evidence of us funding terrorists. In fact, we funded the very same terrorists that attacked us on 9/11"

Of course we've funded or backed some really bad people. I got news for you, in most of the underdeveloped world, virtually all the people in charge are bad dudes. That's what rises to the top there.

However, unless you have some information the rest of the world is not privy to, we (the US government) never funded al Qaeda. We did provide support to what became the Taliban. But that was a different matter - it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Demon wrote "I see. Focus on Iraq and forget about Osama, the guy that actually perpetrated 9/11. That makes a lot of sense."

Uh, is that our only option? Should I tell the cop across the street to stop writing tickets and get his ass over to Pakistan to hunt up some al Qaeda?

Why is it an "either or" situation? Only you are presenting it as such.

Girl 6 wrote "Please... Take that somewhere where there is ignorance of history of how we got to this stage."

And every new administration has to deal with the problems created by the last.

If Clinton had captured Osama when the Syrians offered him to us we'd be in a different situation.

If Bush 1.0 had taken the Gulf war all the way to Baghdad we wouldn't be facing war again.

The "ifs" keep going on.

We can't solve the past. We can only fix the present.

I don't pretend for a moment that we can bring a democracy to Iraq. That's not the goal. The goal is to keep Saddam from getting too much power and killing too many people. Some of those people might be Americans.

He made an agreement for us to pull out. He broke that agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to keep him from becoming too big of a threat. We can do nothing and take the Neville Chamberlin approach and see what happens... Or we can act within our rights and take action (not necessarily all out war) and prevent a larger problem and in the process save a lot of Iraqi lives (see my previous statistics).

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Re: US funded terrorism...

We can do nothing and take the Neville Chamberlin approach and see what happens... Or we can act within our rights and take action (not necessarily all out war) and prevent a larger problem and in the process save a lot of Iraqi lives (see my previous statistics). [/B]

Point of order here. In all the threads about the Iraq situation, I constantly read stuff about "being like Neville Chamberlain" or "taking the Neville Chamberlain approach to dictators."

Historians may have thought this 20 years ago, but i think you will find there is a fair bit of debate about why Chamberlain followed the foreign policy route he took. The current weight of historical opinion (given access to documents kept secret under the 50 and 60 year rule) is that Chamberlain knew full well war was inevitable, but knew there was nothing the UK could do about it. His policy was to buy time for Britain to re-arm.

Given the closeness of the Battle of Britain his policy may have been right..............

At any rate, evoking the spirit of Chamberlain's foreign policy regarding the situation with Iraq, is not as simple as we may think............

 

[rikzilla]

Re: US funded terrorism...

Girl 6 wrote "Please... Take that somewhere where there is ignorance of history of how we got to this stage."

And every new administration has to deal with the problems created by the last.

If Clinton had captured Osama when the Syrians offered him to us we'd be in a different situation.

If Bush 1.0 had taken the Gulf war all the way to Baghdad we wouldn't be facing war again.

The "ifs" keep going on.

We can't solve the past. We can only fix the present.

Very well said. Eloquent even.

The trouble with the anti-war side is that they know what they are against, but don't seem to have much of a clue as to what they are FOR.

Continued sanctions....Sanctions that took Baghdad from a standard of living comparable to Athens....down to a standard now comparable to Mali.

MALI!!!!

Are suffering people in Iraq somehow less deserving of a humanitarian military mission than those in Kosovo were? Why? Is it because they were European and mostly white? Doesn't it strike anyone other than me odd that we (NATO) is willing to let Iraq starve, but lead a huge military force to save the people of Kosovo?? ...and there was not even a question of WMD's there!
It could almost be construed as racism?!

-zilla

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: US funded terrorism...

Very well said. Eloquent even.

The trouble with the anti-war side is that they know what they are against, but don't seem to have much of a clue as to what they are FOR.

I think a major reason many people are "anti-war" is simply due to the Bush administration's inept handling of its case. For example, Bush signaled he was prepared to invade Iraq without providing any detailed justification why such action was necessary. Instead of attempting a diplomatic solution first, then building consensus and a case for war, the administration chose to threaten war and "regime change" first. This allowed everyone to question both Bush's motives and his justification. It doesn't help that the administration's (and its supporters') attitude toward critics has been to question the loyalty of US citizens, the friendship of US allies, and the relevance of international institutions.

But even if war IS warranted, it's not unreasonable to demand that the US make its case before acting. Does anyone here think that, if not for the intense public outcry and international pressure, the Bush administration would ever have provided evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda (such that exists) until, perhaps, after the fact? As for the security concerns implicated, yes a certain amount of trust is necessary when our leaders believe a certain course of action is warranted. But that doesn't mean we should accept their word blindly without demanding all evidence that they can reasonably provide. After all, this administration in particular doesn’t have the best record when it comes to public scrutiny of its inner workings.

Incidentally, the point I was trying to make in my original post was not that we are incapable of fighting both Iraq and Al Qaeda, nor that war is not warranted yet. I'm just worried that the push for war (and tax cuts) has superceded concerns that are at least equally important. Just this past weekend the mayors of Baltimore, Miami, and SF stated that they are attempting to implement new security measures mandated by the federal government, but they lack the funding. The federal government is providing almost no assistance for port inspections, local training, transportation infrastructure security, etc. Where is the wisdom in cutting taxes when local governments are begging for the funds to implement necessary security measures?

That's all for now, I'm busy with a paper due Wednesday, doesn't leave time for much else.

Mike

 

[demon]

Demon wrote "I see. Focus on Iraq and forget about Osama, the guy that actually perpetrated 9/11. That makes a lot of sense."

Harter wrote:

"Uh, is that our only option? Should I tell the cop across the street to stop writing tickets and get his ass over to Pakistan to hunt up some al Qaeda?"

Nice one Harter, if the reasons for war didn`t change on a weekly basis I`d take you more serioulsy.

At first it was Osama and now because he outfoxed the lot of us we conveniently move onto Iraq.

I hear you teach critcal thinking. Maybe a few students should be in for a refund.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: US funded terrorism...

I think a major reason many people are "anti-war" is simply due to the Bush administration's inept handling of its case. For example, Bush signaled he was prepared to invade Iraq without providing any detailed justification why such action was necessary. Instead of attempting a diplomatic solution first, then building consensus and a case for war, the administration chose to threaten war and "regime change" first. This allowed everyone to question both Bush's motives and his justification. It doesn't help that the administration's (and its supporters') attitude toward critics has been to question the loyalty of US citizens, the friendship of US allies, and the relevance of international institutions.

But even if war IS warranted, it's not unreasonable to demand that the US make its case before acting. Does anyone here think that, if not for the intense public outcry and international pressure, the Bush administration would ever have provided evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda (such that exists) until, perhaps, after the fact? As for the security concerns implicated, yes a certain amount of trust is necessary when our leaders believe a certain course of action is warranted. But that doesn't mean we should accept their word blindly without demanding all evidence that they can reasonably provide. After all, this administration in particular doesn’t have the best record when it comes to public scrutiny of its inner workings.

Incidentally, the point I was trying to make in my original post was not that we are incapable of fighting both Iraq and Al Qaeda, nor that war is not warranted yet. I'm just worried that the push for war (and tax cuts) has superceded concerns that are at least equally important. Just this past weekend the mayors of Baltimore, Miami, and SF stated that they are attempting to implement new security measures mandated by the federal government, but they lack the funding. The federal government is providing almost no assistance for port inspections, local training, transportation infrastructure security, etc. Where is the wisdom in cutting taxes when local governments are begging for the funds to implement necessary security measures?

That's all for now, I'm busy with a paper due Wednesday, doesn't leave time for much else.

Mike

Mike,

Excellent post. Your concerns are mine as well. I have also thought the same things...however, when I did my reading on Iraq it became obvious that over the last 12 years there have been plently of opportunities for the world community...namely the UN...AND the US....to stand up to Saddam. The Clinton admin's Iraq policy was a very unfunny bad joke. We live now with the result. And an object lesson...that ignoring Saddam does not make him less of a threat.

As I said,...great post Mike...very thoughtful. It's just weird seeing such a well worded and intelligent post coming from a "Mr. Bill" lookin avatar. What's up with that?

Of course my "evil monkey man" avatar ain't much better...but it fits the "evil warmonger" persona I seem to be cultivating these days.

See ya,
Rick

 

[rikzilla]

Demon wrote "I see. Focus on Iraq and forget about Osama, the guy that actually perpetrated 9/11. That makes a lot of sense."

Harter wrote:

"Uh, is that our only option? Should I tell the cop across the street to stop writing tickets and get his ass over to Pakistan to hunt up some al Qaeda?"

Nice one Harter, if the reasons for war didn`t change on a weekly basis I`d take you more serioulsy.

At first it was Osama and now because he outfoxed the lot of us we conveniently move onto Iraq.

I hear you teach critcal thinking. Maybe a few students should be in for a refund.

Demon,

The fact that you are attempting to debate a guy who teaches critical thinking....and has already destroyed your feeble attempts at an argument...should give you pause. I predict you will make an ass out of yourself in the near future.

Quija board not needed.

-zilla

 

[demon]

Hey Rik, you ain`t an evil monkey man.

Just a misguided evil monkey man.

I had a few dark rums and thought I`d say a genuine hello. We disagree but we can talk about it. I like that.

demon

 

[demon]

zilla, the real asses of this situation are the likes of you.

Pawns in the game, little guys who are willing to spill their own blood in the name of patriotism and what does that do? Just lets the leaders remain in their comfy ivory towers. Please read some of those books you seem so keen on.

Ok, you are a warrior, so you say. Doesn`t it get your back up that you are used by chickenhawks? What stake do you think you have in society? You are a grunt, pure and simple. Seems you like it.

I prefer to make my own mind up and keep a little integrity while I do it.

demon

edited to add stop arse licking Harter Rik. Quite pathetic.