Downing Street Memo Part II

We ARE the global hegemon, buddy. So I'm not sure what this babble about a quest is referring to. I think you mean unintended by-products, the way you wrote it would mean that they intended it to be a by-product. I've handled this sort of objection before: First, you'll have to defeat McMark's argument that the main motivation was the removal of Saddam because he was a bad man, not geostrategic gain. Second, you'll have to explain how neoconservatives are the same as realists. Good luck. When you fail to adequately get that far, we can possibly address any other concerns you have. Thanks for playing.

 

So you DO NOT believe the source that you yourself cited? Again, for the THIRD time, please address how you resolve this with the position O'Neill takes.

Further, lol, now we're back to the neoconservative outlook - which necessarily promotes our VALUES of a democratic world, lol. BTW: McMark, I am curious - have you actually READ the report?

 

Sorry you holy democracy war-advocator, first show me neocons are not war profiteers, one way or anther, then we debate further.

 

You'll have to define the parameters of your question. Do some neoconservatives own interests in defense industries? Er, yes. So do many liberals. So what. That hardly invalidates anything.

Holy democracy war-advocator...that's cute. I like it!

 

cool! you're so proud of how much lives and money this war has cost the US.. so what you get out of it? be in a higer tax bracket?

 

Thanks for playing politics, but I don't differentiate between Dianne Feinstein and Condi Rice as far as war profiteering is concerned.

The other "liberals" you are referring to, if as involuntary war-profiteers they were in positions to vote against the war, but did not do so, they are guilty as well, to somewhat lesser degrees.

 

I certainly wasn't 'fooled' by the Administration into supporting the war as my opinion was not dependent on their justifications of the war. Hayes.

As far as I have ever determined your reason for the war was because you state that war with Iraq was "inevitable" in the future due to some speculation about the threats from Sadam. This of course can not really be disproved or disproved and is in fact your rhetoric. At other times you have gotten more specific and claimed it was necesessary due to Iraqi feminism or to end the murderous sanctions or other rather eccentric reasons.

I really think that you should try to evaluate your position on the Iraq War in terms of what has actually been found to date , about the war rather than to claim none of that matters to your justification.

Part of being rationale is to adjust one's beliefs when contrary evidence is found. This is the reason so many Americans including moderates and even conservative intellectual pundits, experienced military and intelligence personnel have changed their minds on this war.

Please detail for me which wars that the US has fought in in this century that you feel were unnecessary --since you assert that it is such a straw man to say that you believe all US wars are necessary for vital interests or moral reasons.

 

Money spent pales in comparison to lives lost, but yes - I do believe it was the right decision to intervene in Iraq.

Sigh. wnes you are so nonsensical. I can only guess at your point since you have an inability to make a clear statement. I assume you are saying that if one gains financially from the defense industry then they can't also believe that spreading democracy is desirable? That's such a bad corollation that its hardly worth comment.

McMark, back to your New American Century report, can you please cut and paste the part where it talks about intervening in Iraq? I missed that part, lol.

 

Geez, your ramblings are getting more and more incoherent. My position is that the gaps in the administrations justification of the intervention (things like Saddam is connected to 9/11, yellow cake, conspiracy theories about oil grabs and base expansions) are irrelevant to my own beliefs about the justness of the intervention. They are so because I never believed there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 (or at least never saw any evidence of such a connection), I was convinced Saddam had WMDs because he kept playing cat and mouse with inspections (not because of vague claims of yellow cake and aluminum tubes), I believe we should remove artificial impediments to self-determination (or democracy) if we can and if other means are unlikely to produce such a change, I believe Iraq was a state sponsor of terror (just not linked with AQ). I also believed another conflict with Saddam was inevitable - better to go ahead and remove him. From that you should be able to discern how I say I was 'not fooled by the administration' as you claimed. But if I evaluate my opinions based soley on what's happened so far (putting aside future outcomes), we've still:

Removed a genocidal dictator
Removed a government that was violating weapons agreements
Removed an artificial impediment to Iraqi self determination
Removed a state sponsor of terrorism
Removed sanctions that you claim were killing millions of Iraqi & were immoral
Affected positive democratic reforms in Egypt and Lebanon
Removed our troops from Saudi Arabia (the core cause of 9/11)
Seen the public (including anti-coalition forces) turn against Al Queda

I know there are more but that's off the top of my head. Not a bad list.

I have changed my mind on Saddam definitely having WMDs. Happy? And I believe you mean 'rational' not 'rationale.' Of course they do things differently in Canada, so...

Er, how many wars have we been in during this century - Iraq and Afghanistan are a little small for a sample size don't you think? I have said in the past that Vietnam was a mistake (although I understand why they made the mistake).

 

Hell if you gain and you don't put your arse on the line then someone has to lose -- whether it's poor GIs or "collaterally damaged" innocent Iraqis. Is this really beneath you?

OTOH, if the war is started by frugalist Ralph Nader who by the way is also pro-democracy, not by blood oil thirsty corporatist-imperialist, then I'll have entirely different opinion.

 

While it would be easier to assess the motivation if Ralph Nader had started the intervention, the reverse does not logically hold up. It is not necessarily true that because someone has economic ties to the defense industries that they are a 'blood oil thirsty corporatist-imperialist.' Although I will grant you that if said person did proclaim that they were a 'blood oil thirsty corporatist-imperialist yankee dog' then you might have good reason to doubt their motivations, lol.

 

Hayes

Removed a genocidal dictator True, but so far the war has killed many more than Sadam was killing.

Removed a government that was violating weapons agreements
I really don't think you believe that we should war with all governments that violate agreements. Getting legalistic does not justify a hundred thousand deths.

Removed an artificial impediment to Iraqi self determination We are now an artificial impediment to Iraqi self determination, replacing Sadam. 80+ % want us to leave, but we keep occupying.

Removed a state sponsor of terrorism Very tenuous. The CIA and American intellgence found no terrorism from Iraq directed at the US for instanc. Are you advocating our working class troops ,who you refuse to join, war with all such countires?


Removed sanctions that you claim were killing millions of Iraqi & were immoral The sanctions were not necessary. See no wmd or real threat from Iraq as Rice Cheny and others argued before becoming Bush II officials. Therefore you can't justify killing another 100 k based on them

Affected positive democratic reforms in Egypt and Lebanon I think you are just parroting the neocon line. Egypt is so democratic now and Lebanon is so much more democratic that 100k Iraqis needed to be killed. Don't forget the over 2,000 American soldiers. Also no proof the invasion of Iraq cause this alleged increase in dmocracy in Egypt or Lebanon.
I guess we could say in a similar vein that the invasion of Iraq affected decreasing democracy in Iran as the moderates got beaten as they were seen as US agents, and it also affected a greter desire by Iran to obtain nuclear weapons to ward off an US invsion.

Removed our troops from Saudi Arabia (the core cause of 9/11)Again, if this was a problem, this could have been done without invading Iraq. BTW there is no proof that Sadam was a threat to Saudi. SAdly just as the presence of US troops is as you admit a "core cause" of 9/11, we have most neutral experts predicting the presence of US troops in Iraq as well as the invasion itself will spur terrorism directed at the US.

Seen the public (including anti-coalition forces) turn against Al QuedaYou are really mixed up here. There was no appreciable Al Qaeda in Iraq before our invasion. Therefore there was no need for the Iraqis to oppose Al Qaeda in Iraq. They probably did. Actually Sadam had kept Al Qaeda out. I'll give you an "A" for chutzpah on this one.

I know there are more but that's off the top of my head. Not a bad list
I agree not bad for rhetorical effect, but we are talking about a 100k killed to date and perhaps many times that as Iraq hovers on the cusp of a civil war.

It just was not worth it and it must irk you to see that you are in a dwindling minority who thinks so.

 

The intervention has not killed more than Saddam. That's part of the problem with you're angst to take a 'snapshot' of the intervention. We won't know for sure how it turns out until it turns out.

You asked me to ponder what effects have actually happened. This is one such. I never said it independently justified the intervention. BTW: Your 100,000 figure is a gross exaggeration.

Sigh. No. Elections. Get it? Saddam - no elections. This is just a terrible argument for you - you have ZERO chance of showing the Iraqi people have no more say than under Saddam.

First off, unlike your chicken**** self I have never 'refused' to join our armed forces. Second, there is no tenuousness to the claim - it is fact. Third, no - I am not advocating war with all such countries. I don't have to do so. As I have said many times before: if I help a poor person on the street it makes no sense for you to say 'if you don't help EVERY poor person you are a hypocrite.' As I have detailed endlessly beforehand, there are many avenues to affect change - all of which we exhausted in Iraq's case. So intervention was the most logical choice.

Whether or not you consider them necessary (although this is laughable since in other places you harp on about how Saddam was not a threat BECAUSE of the sanctions, lol) - they were there. They were killing, according to you, millions of Iraqis. Remember when you said that? MILLIONS of Iraqis. So by any calculation the intervention has been of net benefit to the Iraqis up until at least the point that MILLIONS are killed by the intervention. MILLIONS minus the actual number of civilian casualties (maybe 20,000 to 30,000 being generous) gives Iraqis a net benefit of 970,000 or so. Plus the other advantages. If your calculus is to count dead, and it appears that it is, then we're FAR ahead of the curve on that evaluation.

No, you are just parroting the anti-war.org line. There is plenty of literature that indicates the intervention spurred these reforms.

You're getting tricky with the edits . Certainly it is possible that you could claims such. You would have to show some literature that suggests as much I would think re: moderates losing. As far as Iran's nuclear desire - good luck with that one - the majority of evidence indicates that desire was well on its way before the intervention, at least according to the EU.

Again, you asked me to evaluate the benefits of the intervention. This is undoubtably a benefit of the intervention.

Sigh. AQ had been recruiting based on the perception that they were fighting for everyday Muslims. In Iraq they are killing everyday Muslims. This is crushing their public perception which in turn hurts recruiting. Yes, Muslims may resent the US for the intervention, but they WILL NOT be turning to AQ and their ilk. Its having the affect of neutering AQ.

Irk me? Not in the least, lol. I have my reasons which I can clearly articulate and to which you have little of substance to reply.

 

I'm curious Hayes. If the Admin. had gone through with the UN inspections program and went to a second resolutions vote on invasion that was defeated, as it was believed it would, and accepting the will of the UN and not invaded would you be dissapointed and be arguing about the need to invade?

 

Hmmm, hard to say. I generally am a multilateralist, lol, although I think some people will find that hard to believe. I think removing a genocidal dictator is a worthy action. I think that containment as practiced pre-intervention was both failing (sanctions were becoming less effective as more countries circumvented) and that we (the US) were the main target of the blowback (9/11) - and as such I was not in favor of continuing it. That means either a complete pullback from the region or intervention, so I guess I would say 'yes' I would still be advocating intervention - especially in light of my opinion that future conflict with Saddam was inevitable. But that's going back in time and so I can't say for sure. However, I also am crossed up between the point that the intervention may not have had the best timing (although I don't think it detracted as much from Afghanistan as people assert, it does stretch our military) and the point that we shouldn't wait forever to remove such a dictator.

Yep. I didn't see anything in there about intervening in Iraq. You?

Well, I think that may be a slight exaggeration. My position has never been that the administration is a monolith on a moral crusade. My position is that there was what I call a confluence of interests on Iraq. The realists and neoconservatives viewpoints on Iraq merged and a decidedly noninterventionist President changed his outlook because of 9/11. There is undoubtably a moral component to the intervention, but that does not mean I am saying there is no realism as well. I think Iraq is unique because of that confluence of opinion from decidedly different worldviews.

No, I just recognize them for what they are - indictments of the administration not necessarily of the worthiness of the intervention.

I think we are in agreement that Bush had no idea what he was doing.

 

Yes.

Correct. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! There is no direct or indirect reference to action in Iraq.

Yes, in fact it goes in depth about shoring up the bases we already had in the Gulf. No where, in no way does it talk or refer or insinuate anything about bases in Iraq, or oil in Iraq. Every single reference is only about making sure the military can contain Iraq and maintain no fly zones etc. So let's dispense with the (not necessarily you, mcmark) general wave of the hand at this 'outline' of the neocon conspiracy. Really the clearest thing you could get from the study was the emphasis on East Asia, not the Gulf. THAT is where the project forsaw the next greatest military challenge, not the Gulf.

You too! And I like you to - I think you're honest and reflective and that's not a bad thing.

Even if you're wrong.

 

The intervention has not killed more than Saddam. That's part of the problem with you're angst to take a 'snapshot' of the intervention. We won't know for sure how it turns out until it turns ou


Well it is pretty clear that the intervention has in the last three years killed more than Sadam was killing prior to removal. There is still the brewing or current civil war that seems to be escalating. I guess we could do a a happy Rumsfeldian/ Bush prediction of no future deaths or costs. the lack osf surety is one reason why wars should not be entered lightly.



BTW: Your 100,000 figure is a gross exaggeration.

I don' think the 100k is a gross exaggeration. You are trying to wiggle out of the costs of the war in human terms.



Sigh. No. Elections. Get it? Saddam - no elections. This is just a terrible argument for you - you have ZERO chance of showing the Iraqi people have no more say than under Saddam.

Occupation by a foreign power is not self determination. Is that hard to get? BTW note how we are struggling to keep the winner from forming a government. Is that self determination by the IRAQI people?



First off, unlike your chicken**** self I have never 'refused' to join our armed forces.

I think your cussing shows that you are irked.

Second, there is no tenuousness to the claim - it is fact.

I don't think so, if we are talking about such links to terrorsm that it meritted the massive killing that continues.

Third, no - I am not advocating war with all such countries. I don't have to do so. As I have said many times before: if I help a poor person on the street it makes no sense for you to say 'if you don't help EVERY poor person you are a hypocrite.'



If you help one person by killing 100k that is not a good argument for helping the one person. Just war theory. I know you hate it, but it has stood the test of time. Most of world's religions had the war failing the just war standard and the war is generally recognized as having violated international law. Again you probably hate international law. Y claim idiosyncratic reasons, unrelated to neocon thinking or Bush's reason,but still you might want to consider long standing moral and legal conventions in your commitment to remain among the dwindling number who still think it was worth it.

As I have detailed endlessly beforehand, there are many avenues to affect change - all of which we exhausted in Iraq's case.

Tell me you are joking. You sound so much like Bush.




Remember when you said that? MILLIONS of Iraqis.

I never said millions I believe it is between 500,000 and 1million. Exaggeration does not help your case.

So by any calculation the intervention has been of net benefit to the Iraqis up until at least the point that MILLIONS are killed by the intervention. MILLIONS minus the actual number of civilian casualties (maybe 20,000 to 30,000 being generous) gives Iraqis a net benefit of 970,000 or so. Plus the other advantages. If your calculus is to count dead, and it appears that it is, then we're FAR ahead of the curve on that evaluation.

The sanctions were wrong and immoral they should have been stopped war or no war. Stopping them without the war that killed an additional 100k was the way to go. It would have saved another 100k. Not so hard.


No, you are just parroting the anti-war.org line. There is plenty of literature that indicates the intervention spurred these reforms.

Yeah right. Answer my question. Point out the great increase in democracy in Egypt that meritted so many US and Iraqi lives.



You're getting tricky with the edits .

I sense some frustration here as you fail to address the issue substantively.

Certainly it is possible that you could claims such. You would have to show some literature that suggests as much I would think re: moderates losing. As far as Iran's nuclear desire - good luck with that one - the majority of evidence indicates that desire was well on its way before the intervention, at least according to the EU.

Their is plenty of literature showing our Iraqi intevention hurts the moderates in Iran, has spurred them to go for nukes, and is likely to spawn more terrorism. In fact the increased terrorism is not just prediciton but has been measured.



Sigh. AQ had been recruiting based on the perception that they were fighting for everyday Muslims. In Iraq they are killing everyday Muslims. This is crushing their public perception which in turn hurts recruiting. Yes, Muslims may resent the US for the intervention, but they WILL NOT be turning to AQ and their ilk. Its having the affect of neutering AQ.

Got to love it. The Iraq war was worth it because now that war has opened up Iraq to Al Qaeda and they are killing Muslims in Itaq it hurts them from a pr point of view. Have you taken into account intelligence estimates that Iraq has been a great operational training ground for Al Qaeda in bomb building and urban terrorism or are you just happy with a purported pr loss?

By this type of "logic" 9/11 was worth it to you as it got Americans more upset with Al Qaeda.


Irk me? Not in the least, lol. [/QUOTE]

You are getting into TJ territory with your frequent claims to victory in net arguments. Why just say "owned" or whatever. like TJ? I sense you are getting irked.