Anybody hear Sen.Boxer and Condie Rice?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Buckner, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    But it will take two things to succeed (three if you count luck) – power and will. In the war on terror, our enemies have the will to defeat us, but they do not have the power to defeat us. We have more than enough power; the question is whether we have the will to do what must be done to prevail. President Bush has the requisite will. But does anybody else? Thank God for the “Greatest Generation.” For I get the feeling most of us would have given up in 1943. "Europe's problems are Europe's problems," we'd have said.“We should have just kept Hitler in his box.”

    BRIGHT RIVERS FOR PRESIDENT! I LOVE THIS GUY. Thanks for the great perspective, my friend. If you ever want to hit the water, lunch is on me.
     
  2. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    Bugnuts/BR,
    My post about the slaves is simply to remind us that 140 years after the slaves were freed, we still have significant issues to resolve within our own country. If we use that measure of time and see what has gone on here in regard to slavery, we may be able to extrapolate to some degree the amount of time, money, and lives that the endeavor in the middle east will require to instill democracy. Sure we can say they're free and having elections but is Iraq really a democracy? Maybe, if we use the term loosely.

    Another example is Korea. We're still in Korea after 50 years, and we now have an even greater threat as North Korea has recently reported that it's nuclear arsenal is now at 8. Is the US really that committed to seeing this through? Diplomatic conversations between the US and N. Korea are non-existent and the relationship has worsened since GWB took office.

    We simply do not have the manpower, the inititiative, or the resources to fight as many wars as GWB would like. We've done a terrible job in Iraq and things are not too rosey in Afghanistan. As Cactus suggests, we'll have to wait another 50 years to see what happens because this is not going to be resolved in short order. A larger percentage of the American public (the same 85% that was referred to as being pro-invasion) is now wishing we would get our troops out of there.

    I don't think you've been persuasive that we were welcomed with waving flags, I'd say it was more that we've been welcomed with improvised explosive devises, snipers, rocket propelled grenades, and gorilla warfare. Bush did try to convince the US that we would be welcomed but it appears to have been been anything but a happy reuninion. The country stands on the brink of a civil war, and with the US killing 37,000 Iraqi civilians, it's going to be tough winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people by the US.

    We still don't have much support for our efforts in Iraq, more countries have pulled out since the fighting began, and I don't see any of them jumping in because our cause is so great. Our forces are so thin that soldiers are in short supply. It's no wonder we didn't help the Haitians.

    So this has been my point, the US only has interest in those countries that provide economic value back to the US. At least we agree that this was no humanitarian mission to invade Iraq. If only Africa, Haiti, etc. had more oil we would have/could have helped them.

    Do you believe that the US will allow Iraq in their first election to go back to the system they had? GWB's inaugural speach today stated that his mission is to bring "the fire of democracy/freedom" to the rest of the world. So how are we imposing democracy? First, we invade Iraq using WMD's as the reason. Second, we capture Saddam. Third, when we can't find any evidence to support our predisposition for invasion, the US declares this mission to free Iraq and to bring democracy to the middle-east. So if we're not occupying their country and imposing our views of democracy, what are we doing? Which corporation currently holds all of their oil contracts?

    In their culture, their is no distinction between religion and politics. It was/is the same in Afghanistan. It is their philosophy, whether you buy it or not. We're not going to change the way they think in this generation or the next or the one after that. People are in fear of voting, or voting for anyone other than the warlords. Is this democracy? Granted, this system is young there and we cannot expect things to change overnight. What we do know is that we've ignited a powder kegg in the middle east and have proven to the Islamic fundamentalists all of those things the Osama had warned them about. How about a little Jihad?

    BR, the next two statements are your quotes and they're contradictory. In one, you state that this is not about imperialism and in the next, you state that our self serving mission is the preservation of the US at whatever cost. GWB declared this the "American Century". If we're not an imperialism, I don't know what is.

    The bottom line is, if we're invading other countries, killing innocent people, making up intelligence, deposing leaders, we're really not that different from the very nations that have been labeled by GWB as the axis of evil.
     
  3. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    393
    Location:
    .
    BR, that was pretty well written. You ought to quit your day job and go become Bush's press secretary or at least his speech writer. ;) Gotta break the news that you didn't tell me anything that I haven't heard before - I've come across quite a lot of well thought out, well written and logical explanations of Bush's war on terror. But (here comes another compliment) you distilled it into a few hundred words and it reads pretty well.

    There is still the nagging little question: why Iraq? Of all the countries in the Middle East where an invasion could have made a real difference in the war on terror, I still don't understand why Iraq ahead of Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, just to name a few? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the only clear evidence that Saddam was supporting international terrorism was his $25,000 payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. On the other hand, if the publicly available intelligence can be believed, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are much bigger supporters of international terrorism - Iran, which apparently makes little effort to hide it, and Saudi Arabia, due at the very least to the state's dirty alliance with Wahabism. So, again, Iraq makes no sense to me, unless Bush perceived it to be an easier target than places like Saudi Arabia and Iran and that an invasion was going to start democracy's equivalent to communism's "domino effect" - i.e., that once Iraq "falls" to democracy, it's inevitable that all those around it will too. It's a grand thought, but not one I would have bet so much blood and treasure on. (Which is not to say I believe we should be sitting on our hands.)

    By the way, I think saying our generation would have cut and run on WWII is way off the mark. In that war, it was pretty obvious who the enemy was: Japan, Germany and their allies, what they had done, where they were and what needed to be done to uproot them. It was obvious what the threat to us was from the people we were bombing and shooting at. Here, we may know who the enemy is (at least at a conceptual level), but no one has convinced me yet that they were hanging out in or getting material support from Iraq. To suggest we're cowards because we're a little skeptical about the argument that the key to the war on terror is to plant democracy on the soil of countries who were only marginally (at best) involved in international terrorism is kind of insulting. Believe me, I think democracy is a great thing, but I think it's a stretch of major proportions to assume that democracy will inevitably wipe out radical Islamist tendencies, and I am even more skeptical that it will produce the domino effect assumed by the Bush Doctrine. Without that domino effect, by the way, we would have to impose it at the barrel end of a gun, just as we are in Iraq. Again, I don't think we have the economic resources or enough volunteers to do that every place where Muslims who hate America reside.
     
  4. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    And how exactly is America responsible for this "fertile ground"? :mad:

    The Abraham Lincoln Brigade were anything but "liberals". It consisted primarily of member of the American Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party that were recruited by the Soviets to fight against Hitler. They were fighting to save Communism from Fascism, not out of any desire to save European democracy.

    Spain was being used by Hitler and Stalin as a proving ground for the weapons and officers that would fight in the war they knew was coming. At the time of the Spanish Civil War, Germany and the USSR had not yet signed their non-aggression pact. Spain was a forerunner of the proxy wars of the Cold War.

    The Spanish Civil War was a brutal war with autrocities perpetrated upon civilian populations by both the fascists and communists. It served to foreshadow the horrors commited by the Germans during their eastern campaigns and the horrors perpetrated upon the Germans when the Soviets invaded Germany.

    FDR had a very good idea of what the "real deal was" prior to our entry into the war. If he had been able, he would have allied with the French and British in 1940. The trouble was that isolationists and pacifists had more political sway with the American people than did FDR. Americans felt very safely protected by the two oceans (sounds a little like Sept., 10, 2001).

    FDR knew that it would take a major event to change America's mind and did his best to provoke both Germany and Japan into providing that event.

    Citing America and western Europes reluctance to engage Hitler earlier, before he gathered strength, doesn't help support the arguement of those who are opposed to the war against Islamic terrorists!
     
  5. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    That's quite simple! First off however, there is more than just Saddam's payments to the Palestinians as evidence for Saddams links to terrorism. He sheltered various terrorists and provided training sites for terror groups. He also had loose contacts with al Qaeda throughout the 1990's and up to 2003.

    Now, as for the reasons of "why Iraq", one of the main reasons is that Iraq was in violation of 17 United Nation resolutions as well as the fact that we were still in a state of war with them; with our war planes being attacked almost daily over the "no-fly" zones. Iraq NEVER surrendered, they only signed a truce in 1991. U.N. Resolution 1441 also gave us some international sanction.

    And yes, I do think that you are correct in that President Bush felt that we would have much greater support from the Iraqi people than we have, based on their actions to overthrow Saddam after the first Gulf War.

    Iran would have been a more difficult target logistically. We would not have had any bases adjacent to Iran as we did to Iraq. Also, most intellegence estimates predict that Iran will most likely soon fall from internal pressures.

    Syria, while a weaker target than Iraq, probably would have caused Iraq to join in the fight, creating a two front war.

    Saudi Arabia, while it has citizens providing support to al Qaeda, is officially opposed to al Qaeda and has been co-opporating with us to a certain degree.

    I believe that is a large part of the calculation on the President' part. It has worked before in S. America and the former Soviet Union. I share the President's belief that ANY NATION, if given the opportunity, will choose liberty over tyranny.

    No one is questioning the courage of those opposed to the war in Iraq. The question is one of vision and will.
     
  6. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    Steve: "Diplomatic conversations between the US and N. Korea are non-existent and the relationship has worsened since GWB took office. "

    It's getting late, so I just skimmed these long posts - but this caught my eye.

    Are you suggesting that the Clinton Admin \ Madeleine Albright had things under control regarding N Korea? :confused:

    Seems they were telling her one thing and doing the opposite all along. At least now we know the real threat over there...
     
  7. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    ChadK,
    I found this article which summarizes the events in Korea up through 2003. Here's the URL:
    http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp

    The issues with N. Korea have spanned from George Bush I, through Clinton, and now to GWB. At this point, the US is unable to have conversations with N. Korea. Dialogue was intact through George Bush I and Clinton but today, they're non-existent. Without dialogue, it will be hard to come to any reconciliation on the topic.

    GWB declared N. Korea as part of the 'axis of evil' and in doing so, has scared them enough that they're afraid of a US invasion. Having witnessed what has gone on in Iraq, N.Korea's fears are justified. Most of the time, the "bull in the china closet" approach doesn't work and it has backfired on GWB. Here is another article by the Washington Post dated 9/28/2004 that gives more details: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55179-2004Sep27.html
     
  8. Monk

    Monk Redneck

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Marblemount, WA
    "By the way, I think saying our generation would have cut and run on WWII is way off the mark. In that war, it was pretty obvious who the enemy was: Japan, Germany and their allies, what they had done, where they were and what needed to be done to uproot them. "

    What did Germany do that Saddam hasn't done?
    -genocide
    -taking over a different country
    -using banned weapons
    -refusing to let inspectors into his country
    -secret police
    -gassing whole towns

    the list goes on.
     
  9. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    "Dialogue was intact..."

    What good in 'intact' if it is all lies. They were building nukes right under Clinton's nose. Is that really the kind of dialogue you think is good??
     
  10. ceviche

    ceviche Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    Shoreline, Washington, U.S.A.
    How about setting up puppet governments in the Middle East? Who set up the Shah of Iran? Who funded Saddam Hussein in the first place? Who recklessly funneled money to Afghan Islamic fundimentalists (the Taliban)--against the better judgement of Afghan moderates--during the Soviet occupation? Of course, it was our own government. Time and time again, our government has let the end of regional sway justify the means of obtaining it.

    Commies and Socialists ARE a part of the left, by which I placed them under the umbrella of being liberal. At the same time, one cannot place Communism and Socialism as dialectically opposed to Fascism. Communism and socialism are economic strategies in league with capitalism. Fascism and democracy are political systems. If anything, these latter two are opposed to each other. You can fight for democracy and still be a communist or socialist.


    Mostly correct here. The fighting wasn't all proxy, though. And it wasn't simply a fascist vs communist conflict. The Popular Front, a coalition of Republicanists, the Esquerra Party, the Communists, and Socialists were united against the Rightist National Front--the Falangists being the nastiest of the right. The Popular Front was basically pro-democratic reform.


    While I don't feel qualified to argue facts on this, I almost feel like you are suggesting that FDR "allowed" Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. This is like suggesting that Bush "allowed" Al Qaeda to attack the World Trade Center Buildings. On both issues, I am not prepared to touch with a ten-foot pole. :eek:


    I agree. It is rather tenuous to compare the present rise of Islamic extremism to the past historical rise of political fascism in Europe--though once established in political power, ideological extremism tends to be fascistic. We are talking about the denial of life, liberty, and freedom to pursue happiness for Joe and Jane Average when this happens.
     
  11. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    As I mentioned, the trouble with Korea has spanned multiple decades and multiple administrations. But back to your main point, what isn't clear is if N. Korea had nuclear bombs during the Clinton years, we do know they were building reactors and it looked like they were preparing to build long range balistic missiles and building nuclear reactors capable of creating weapons grade plutonium starting with George Bush I and maybe earlier. We do know that weapons have now been built under GWB that the arsenal has grown within the past year or two, largely because N. Korea views the US as a threat, and rightly so.

    At this point, Clinton is no longer president and so the better question to ask is "What has GWB done during his first term to to reduce the threat, what is the status of the threat now, and what are his plans for to deal with the threat in the future"? Without having dialogue, this is a problem that will not resolve itself.
     
  12. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    Fair enough. My point was in challenging your assesment that things are actually worse now because of Bush. I think we are better prepared now to make progress and I hope we don't fall into the same mess Clinton did when he said all is well in N Korea, but they were working against him the whole time. I agree that we need to start making some more progress. This doesn't look good...
     
  13. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,348
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    Chadk,
    I would still argue that things are worse now. North Korea's arsenal has continued to grow. We're now arriving at year #5 of the Bush administration and talks between the US and N. Korea are non-existent. How could things possibly be better?
     
  14. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Snohomish, WA.
    I'd rather know if my enemy has a gun hidden in his jacket than walk down the street blissfully while thinking he will keep his promise of throwing away his gun - as he quietly points it at the back of my head...

    The first step in progress has to be cutting through the BS. We are at a better starting point today than we ever were. We will hopefully not be deceived as easily again...
     
  15. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    The Shah of Iran was initially set in power by the British in 1941. The Soviet controlled National Front assumed control in 1951, driving the Shah from power. Forces loyal to the Shah, with assistance from British and American operatives, restored the Shah to power in 1953.

    The Ayatollah Khomeini came to power when the US, led by Jimmy Carter, refused to support the Shah and allowed the Ayatollah to take over.

    Iraq and Saddam Hussain were a client state of the USSR. You may have noticed that the Iraqi weapons are Soviet made, not American. America only gave minor aide to Saddam during the Iraq - Iran war because we feared a spread of Iranian style Islamic fundamentalism (unfortunately, we got it to some degree anyway, although probably not as wide spread).

    Who exactly were these so-called "Afghan moderates"? They wouldn't have been the Soviet supporters now would they?

    The Taliban did not even exist until the mid 1990's, years after the Soviet's left Afghanistan. Immediately after the Soviets were expelled, Afghanistan was ruled by a coalition that included the same people that fought with the U.S. to expell the Taliban in 2001/2002.

    America's mistake in Afghanistan was that we did not support this coalition after the Soviet's left, but let the United Nations "handle it". :rolleyes:

    Are you sure you really want to equate communists with liberals? :eek: Somewhere, I'm sure Ann Coulter is smiling.

    Nonsense! Communism and fascism are BOTH totalitarian political systems. Communism is based on the economic theory of total government control of property, industry and capital; while fascism is based on a racist, nationalistic theory.

    FDR did not "allow" the attack on Pearl Harbor anymore than Abe Lincoln "allowed" the attack on Fort Sumter to begin the Civil War. What FDR did was to provoke both Germany and Japan with certain actions, such as Lend-Lease to the British and embargos on oil and steel against Japan.

    FDR's hope was to prod either Germany or Japan into some sort of incident that would change the American peoples attitude on isolationism and allow him to ask Congress for a declaration of war. FDR had no intention of losing nearly the entire American Pacific fleet in an attack on Pearl. I presume that he intended for Japan to attack our small forces in the Philippines or for Germany to attack our convoys carring supplies to Great Britton.

    FDR was right to want America to enter WW2. If we did not, Nazi Germany would have controlled all of Europe, costing even more millions of lives than those lost during the war.