Look, I'm not a GW supporter - but what does global test mean? It means that you can convince other governments/peoples that a particular action is worth taking. That we WON'T act (as GW did) without a 'global consensus' on an issue. Certainly Kerry does not mean to say that he would check with Europe to see what we should do before acting if Mexico was about to invade us. But it DOES mean that in far away places he would seek that consensus as a barometer of whether or not we should act. By that measure, no action would have been taken in Bosnia or Kosovo, for example. The EVIDENCE was overwhelming and uncontested, and yet Euros failed to act, or to agree that action was warranted. Even if you're right (about your interpretation of what global test means) the assumption that Kerry is such a strong leader that he can rally Euros to any just or necessary cause is just hogwash. Clinton couldn't do it, and he was wildly popular in Europe. No reason to believe Kerry could do it. Kerry could get MORE cooperation than Bush Jr, but that's a far ways from getting action in Iran.
Whether Kerry is strong enough and has the leadership to do it is up for debate. But it often depends on the evidence. The stronger the evidence we present the less persuasive the leader has to be. In addition presenting the problem to the allies and asking them to help devise solutions will make them more willing to follow through. Kerry's plans include both of these aspects. What he can and can't accomplish is unknown.
Not necessarily true. Look at Kosovo. Overwhelming evidence. Well respected leader. No action from Europe. Please explain. I agree, so let's not exaggerate what we 'know' would happen with Kerry in office. My contention is that no European action will be forthcoming (sans sanctions possibly) on the Iran issue. If you have reasoning contrary to that, then please advise us.
Again, the difference is that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a threat that only the most foolhardy would ignore. A good leader would be able to get the UN to take action against Iran. Actually, it bolsters my position since it has become clear that Iraq was simply not the kind of threat that the administration claimed, just as the UN suspected. They didn't follow us based on questionable "intelligence" and it looks like they were the ones who were right on this. In other cases, global concensus DID emerge, albeit at the behest of the US and in some cases after we threatened to go it alone. Some of those action were supported by NATO and others were supported by UN troops, but in all of those actions, those organizations needed to be led by a statesman. That is not inherently bad, it just shows that Europeans have more distaste for war, which is understandable given their history. Saddam had stopped interfering and was giving the inspectors full access in '02. He did some interfering in the '90s, but once Saddam saw that we were serious about invading if he didn't show that he was disarmed, he became compliant to the point that he offered to allow the CIA and FBI in to help the weapons inspectors. Once Saddam was faced with invasion 9in fact, before then) he complied. BUSH was the one who pulled the weapons inspectors. If Saddam had kicked the inspectors out again, I would agree with you that invasion would have been warranted, but that was not the case. He may very well have reemerged as a threat, but by all accounts, it would have taken a decade or more for that to happen. In addition, he STILL would have been contained by no-fly zones and the US would have continued to keep a VERY close eye on Iraq as long as Saddam was in charge. BTW, how does "containment" bring problems like 9/11? Certainly not with Bush at the helm, but I believe that Kerry has what it takes to bring people back to the table since he has not discarded every shred of credibility with the worldwide community as Bush has.
The Europeans did get involved in Kosovo. Why do you keep acting like it was only the U.S. The Italians have the most troops on the ground, and Europe provided the most money as well. I hardly call that no action. I'm not saying he will get it done. I just am willing to give him the opportunity to get it done. I think the plan he has is not earth shattering, but seems sound. I also wouldn't dismiss sanctions as if it's not really an action. I think it depends on how they are applied and what's going on inside Iran as well.
Containment necessitates troops in Saudi Arabia. Troops in Saudi Arabia = 9/11. Not ignoring the rest but will get to it in a minute.
You're not that bright. Advocating action other than permanent containment can go either direction, either drawback or direct engagement.
You're not understanding. It's your simplistic theory of causation that is inherently flawed. If you are going to make that the proximate cause of 9-11, then I can just as easily make fighting communism the proximate cause, or supporting Israel, or any number of things - and say we shouldn't have done them in retrospect, invalidating any number of strategems, ideologies, etc. It's pointless. You're playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. I'll leave you to your little grudge match with glynch or whatever you've got working these days. Enjoy.
As FB says, we can't predict what Kerry could or could not do. I'll give you he has a BETTER chance than Bush, if that helps. No, with overwhelming evidence the international community has failed to act. Yes, a leader better than Bush would be better. That does not mean that a better leader would get UN action in Iran. There was no consesus in Bosnia, or Kosovo. Let me ask you this: do you know why action in Bosnia went through NATO instead of the UN? I believe Saddam was offered 11th hour reprieve and refused. Yep. That's why I always said he was an 'inevitable' threat, not an imminent one. But as I've indicated, permanent containment (if it would even be possible once sanctions were lifted) has its own set of problems. Hey, no Bush support here. You're right that Kerry would be better, but the question is would he be able to get backing for intervention in Iran. I say no. You haven't shown any reason why that's not true.
Simplistic theory of causation? Osama: we are attacking you because of US troops in SA. How is that either flawed or (overly) simplistic? You cannot say Israel because that is not the reason AQ attacked us. You cannot say communism because that is not the reason AQ attacked us. I am not moving ten links down a causality chain, I am naming THE reason AQ moved against us. And how does my point 'make a case for isolationism?' How am I 'misunderstanding' you?
Hayes, you are, in fact, moving several links down the chain. Troops in Saudi Arabia - > failure to attack saddam earlier -> containment, which I guess is a disjointed post hoc attempt at justification. I don't think this is very difficult, I'm playing your game: -without the US supporting Saddam and Iraq against Iran -- there is no invasion of Kuwait, thus no troops in SA. THerefore, this policy is responsible for 9/11. The blood is on Reagan's hands -without arming the mujahadin to fight the Soviets, Osama bin Laden remains a rich bum kicking around SA and never becomes a terrortist, therefore, this policy is responsible for 9/11. Communism would have collapsed anyway. The blood is on Reagan and Carter's hands. -without US support for Israel, muslim anger isn't directed at the US and Osama bin Laden's movement doesn't get off the ground or finds another target in Russia or something. Therefore, this poicy is responsible for 9/11. but for any of those things, and probably a million more 9/11 would not have happened. Therefore, any ideologies/strategies behind them caused 9/11. Wow, I feel great.
Uh, no. My observation was that containment has its own set of problems. Containment (troops in SA) -> 9/11. Not true. Saddam was armed mainly with Soviet, French, and Chinese weaponry. But/for US support Saddam could still have invaded Kuwait, and would still have had the same motivation to do so. Not true. But/for US support for the mujahadeen Osama most likely still would have went to Afghanistan. There is no link between US aid and Osama going to Afghanistan. On the other hand he attacked the US because of US troops in SA. One link vs many. Uh, not true. Israel had nothing to do with Saddam's venture in Kuwait. Israel had nothing to do with the US support of the Shah in Iran, etc. And we are still left with but/for US troops in SA Osama would not have attacked us. Ignorance is bliss. By your reasoning you couldn't say 'the US entered WWII because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.' Germany could have taken Britain possibly and then attacked the US. Japan and the US could have scrapped later - and so on and so forth. That line is infinitely regressive and would make any casual determinations impossible. Whereas your assertions are counterfactual, my point is empirical. What caused the US to enter WWII? Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. What caused AQ to attack the US? Containment.
So Hayes, I take it from that long response that your position is that your particular Kevin Bacon theory in this instance is valid, and that all other Kevin Bacon theories that might conflict are invalid because you say so as you are content to argue them on the merits. Like I said initally: that theory sucks, precisely because I could trade meaningless arguments on the merits with you all day long and have it be just as valid as yours. It's simplistic and pointless. We're back at square 1. Isolationism is the way to go - if you don't want to lose six degrees of Kevin Bacon, don't go to hollywood.
That is really all I am saying. Kerry has a FAR batter chance than Bush of being able to lead the world. No, they have just acted slowly when not prodded by the US. In virtually every instance, once the US pushed for action, they (or NATO) took it. They fail to act on their own, but IMO, that is not a bad thing in and of itself. It just means that we need a leader who has the ability to lead the international community. Does it matter? Whichever international group is used, the point is that any military action will have more legitimacy with the world if there is an international effort rather than a limited one. You believe wrong. Inspectors were doing their job in Iraq until GWB pulled them to invade. Saddam offered to allow the CIA nad FBI in to help the inspectors and GWB refused to even meet with their representative. You are correct, but I think those problems would be minimal compared to the monetary and human costs of this invasion. The real point is that Bush does NOT have that ability, and thus Kerry is the FAR better choice.
Well, NOT acting would have an effect as well, so your 'isolationism' claim doesn't hold up even then, silly. Not suprising you're packing up your bags and running away, Sam. That's ok though. All flash and no substance. If you don't see the connection between containment and 9/11 (ie the one drawn directly by osama) then I guess I can't say anything else to convince you. Oh sad day.
Osama said that containment caused 9-11? When and where? No, wait, Hayestreet said that, in some bizarre diatribe to justify the disastrous mistake of the invasion of Iraq. EDIT: Meant to mention this earlier - but you do realize that even within the confines of your model, most acknowledged as time went on that the primary purpose for the continued American presence in the Kingdom was not to protect it from without, but to protect it from within, right?
Agreed. Well they have not acted when not prodded by the US in virtually every instance. That indeed is a bad thing because it puts us in the constant position of having to convince them to take an action, and then substantively take the action ourselves, and then put up with the anti-americanism such actions inevitably cause (oops! I said 'cause.' Be gentle, sam). Yes, it does. Some say the UN is the only legitimate arbiter. FB seems to think Italy's involvement is good enough in one case (Kosovo) but not in another (Iraq). NATO is much more limited than the UN, for instance. Where is the brightline of legitimacy? The UN is inherently too large to gain a consensus on an issue like intervention in every case but TWO in its HISTORY. That does not bode well for a potential action with concern to Iran. Hmmm. Don't think so. I guess I'll look it up but I distinctly remember MacBeth and his cohorts using the last minute offer to prove Bush's concern was WMD not humanitarian (ie if it was humanitarian then why the last minute offer not to invade). Couldn't disagree more. The WTC blowing up is not minimal, IMO. The current conflict with Al Queda is a result of containment. The same war would have to happen eventually, since we all agree Saddam would use oil cash to rearm. You RISK him obtaining nukes at some point in the future. And you eat the impact of continued sanctions up to that point. If you weigh it out the impact of this intervention is not even close. Agreed.
Ok, d******d: [Why are U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia? Their purpose is to deter Iraq from attacking Saudi Arabia and monitor the "no-fly" zones (which are off-limits to Iraqi planes), U.S. officials say. Has bin Laden called for a U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia? Yes, repeatedly. In his writings and speeches, bin Laden has hotly argued that since at least 1991—the year of the Persian Gulf War, which was waged by a U.S.-led coalition with bases in Saudi Arabia—the United States has been "occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people, threatening its neighbors, and using its bases in the [Arabian] peninsula as a spearhead to fight against the neighboring Islamic peoples." ] http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html Try another: [Bin Laden's anger with the United States stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow the U.S. to stage attacks on Iraqi forces in Kuwait and Iraq. After the U.S. victory, the U.S. military presence became permanent. In a CNN interview with bin Laden in 1997, he said the ongoing U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia is an "occupation of the land of the holy places."] CNN Or another: [Bin Laden: It is known that every action has its reaction. If the American presence continues, and that is an action, then it is natural for reactions to continue against this presence. In other words, explosions and killings of the American soldiers would continue. These are the troops who left their country and their families and came here with all arrogance to steal our oil and disgrace us, and attack our religion. As for what was mentioned about the ruling [Saudi] family those in charge, do bear the full responsibility of everything that may happen. They are the shadow of the American presence. The people and the young men are concentrating their efforts on the sponsor and not on the sponsored. The concentration at this point of Jihad is against the American occupiers.] Just for fun have one more: [bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members stated privately within the organization that a) Al Qaeda should put aside its differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezbollah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies; b) the US forces stationed on the Saudi peninsula, including both Saudi Arabia and Yemen, should be attacked; and c) the US forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked.] PBS Oh shoot, one more: [Why does Osama bin Laden hate the United States so much? Bin Laden believes that the United States and its allies are anti-Muslim. He was furious when his native Saudi Arabia allied itself with the United States during the Persian Gulf War (1991). He condemned the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which is the site of Mecca and Medina, Islam's holiest cities.] Current Events, 2003. Gee, I must just live in a bizarro world and make stuff up to irritate super genius SamFisher, lol. OR I could have my eyes open and realize that 'containment' is not a get out of jail free card. It has consequences just as intervention does. EDIT: Simply false. 'Most' is what you say, so please qualify that with a source. It's a ridiculous assertion. Ridiculous because NO regime in the middle east needs US troops to crush a rebellion, if there was one. The governmental apparatus is simply too strong. Furthermore, you'll never be able to back it up because the UN, along with almost everyone not involved in the intervention in Iraq favored continued 'containment.' According to you they wanted that to keep down the peoples in SA, lol. You get really funny when you start to look stupid....or is it the other way around - I never can remember.
Thanks for keeping it civil Hayes. You'll be fighting off the treacherous glynchs of the world from now on without the benefit of my input. Bye.
