Then why get all pissy when I drew that inference from your post. You would prefer it if Saddam was still in power. I disagree but at least we're clear now that I wasn't drawing the wrong conclusion about you. Never has been? Depends on what you mean by threat: rolling into Saudi Arabia would most definitely fall under a 'threat.' Blowing up the USS Stark would seem to fit such a definition. Having a WMD weapons program would seem to fit that description. Relevance? 'Clearly' is an overstatement or there wouldn't be disagreement. I disagree. No, its not illogical. There were two choices - intervene and remove Saddam or not intervene. THOSE were the only choices. Just as the choices for the american public were Bush or Kerry. Not Bush or anarchy. I could say I supported aliens swooping down and making Saddam disappear but that's not really a choice. The actions under consideration were either to remove Saddam or not. Those that supported the status quo (saddam) and those that supported his removal. You want to say you don't support him as in you don't like him - fine. But when discussing the intervention you clearly DO support the choice that would have left him in power. There have been lots of news about democratic reform in Lebanon and Egypt as a result of both the intervention and the pressures from the US. There was a thread about how we are putting so much pressure on Uzbekistan that they are turning to China, who doesn't care about their human rights record. Also threads about reform in Saudi Arabia, and support for Turkey. The question is 'what are YOU talking about?' We've agreed above that its silly to claim we have to invade all those countries simultaneously to avoid hypocrisy, right? If your claim is that US foreign policy doesn't have an emphasis on democratization then you don't know what you're talking about. That doesn't mean its an all-encompassing singular focus, foreign policy is a little more complicated than that. I've explained WHY I believe Iraqi liberation was PART of the reason for the decision. By definition a neocon would believe that. Most of us agree neocons had some influence on this decision - hence it had to be part of the calculus. Your answer is to say 'well that's not true and so i laugh at you.' Well that's a relief. Yes, we agree that an effect was hoped for on a regional scale. That doesn't deny my premise that the neoconservative part of the administration would, by the very nature of their neoconservativeness, have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart. Hmmmm....well that pretty basic and I'm not sure what your confusion is. Being oppressed by a bloody dictator is not the same thing as being liberated. Having democratic choice is liberating. What's confusing about that? Actually the numbers are pretty clear that most Iraqis did see us as liberators when the intervention happened. But even if you were right I'm not sure what difference that makes to this discussion. I think the assumption is that its better they have a choice (be free/liberated from dictatorship) than not. Certainly we hoped they would not move to a theocracy - and whether they do or not is unclear now. But even if they did it would still be better, encompass the neoconservative values of democratic choice, more than the continuation of Saddam's regime. Not sure why you claim this is sudden. I think you'd have to TRY NOT TO FIND plenty of references from the 'war crowd' to Saddam's genocide, his dictatorship, his torture etc since the intervention FIRST became a possibility. I think you're just being silly. If the 'war crowd' said we should intervene because of Saddam's WMDs, his genocide, his oppression - and now we find out he didn't have WMDs - that doesn't make the other claims go away. So what's confusing about that? Bad analogy. History is filled with instances of violence creating peace where there was none. Nothing to do with the 'realist' view? Who do you think put the sanctions in place? Conducted the first Gulf War? It wasn't the neocons - they weren't even close to directing the policies of the US or the UN. Those were realists - some of whom still occupy positions of power (see Cheney and Rumsfeld). A neoconservative cannot do what you accuse them of doing - having SUDDEN sympathy - they are sympathetic BY DEFINITION for crying out loud. They believe all people should have democratic governments, that we all have inalienable rights, dictatorships are bad - that we can use our power to remove artificial impediments to democracy - that nondemocratic regimes are unstable and dangerous. IF you are a neoconservative you believe these things so what you are saying simply makes NO SENSE. That doesn't prove anything. All of the countries in the coalition, in the UN - had stopping Saddam's aggression and his weapons programs as their top priority. That doesn't mean the NEOCONSERVATIVES in the US don't have as a basic tenet of their ideology the welfare of other peoples. The gap is your logic is startlingly LARGE. As I pointed out previously, decisionmakers at the time are much more likely to be labelled realists than neoconservatives. Cheney, for instance - who is the main holdover between the two Bush administrations (senior in the first Gulf war and junior in the second) is in no way a neoconservative.
Sorry - I'll interject briefly and then let you continue playing with thacabbage. There are a lot of nations that have WMDs. Why is Iraq a "threat" and others not? Where are Iraq's WMDs anyway? Why is "rolling into Saudi Arabia" a threat? This is overall a pretty subjective paragraph - I don't think Iraq was a threat at all. Well - it seems a little weird to lamblast Saddam as such a heinous dude when we supported him for so long. One might infer that our motivations are a little "convoluded". A choice that did not have to be made. There is a third choice - don't waste time in Iraq at all. Uzbekistan is pushing the envelope in this case, IMO. I recommend you read more on that before claiming we are "putting so much pressure" on them. There is an emphasis on democratization, I agree. But it's not pitched that way to the US public - which is interesting, to say the least. We differ on what a neocon would do. I disagree completely with above assertion. What a load of baloney. Neocons only started "caring" about the Iraqi people after their WMD-search failed. Did they care about them during "shock and awe"? And again - why Iraq? Where is the "loving neocon concern" for Darfur? Where is this "compassion" for the poor/abused in our own country? These neoconservative values are being applied only when conveniant. The "theocracy" comment is particularly ironic... I'll stop here - I think you get my viewpoint. EDIT: Allright, one more. I don't think you can convince me that this is the definition of a neocon. Sometimes, IMO, it seems to be precisely the opposite.
Hayes - how hard is this to follow? For the last time, I was talking about Basso's fear of the spread of "islamofascism," meaning that WE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM IN POWER. That is why I stated Iraq had a progressive and secular government. The reason I got "pissy" is because you not only put in my mouth that the Iraqis would be better off with Saddam but also said "you just don't want to be connected to Saddam." Because I think our country would be better off if Saddam was still ruling, I'm connected to Saddam? Huh? How is "rolling into Saudi Arabia" a threat? Oh I forgot, we support that other opressive regime. The bottom line is that they DIDN'T have WMD's but we sure did want them to so we could go "liberate the Iraqis." A report, I forget the name, said Iraq wouldn't have the capability to attack us on a grand scale for atleast 10 more years. I pointed out our long history of aiding and abetting him. How is that NOT relevant when pointing out hypocrisy? And here I was thinking the only subject for debate is exit strategy vs. immediate withdrawal. If you're going to continue to defend the decision to enter Iraq after the absolute quagmire it has presented itself to be, then there is nothing more I can say from any angle. Even assuming that we somehow quell the insurgency and are able to leave, our goal of an affable model democracy in the region will go unfulfilled as the Iraqis will undoubtedly ally themselves with Iran. Exactly. It wasn't in our best interests to remove him from power at this time. That doesn't mean I "supported" him. You are being ridiculous. How does opposition to his removal equate to "supporting" him? The GWB analogy was simply to illustrate the meaning of "support" and I think you understand that. Atleast you are admitting that you initially were putting words in my mouth. I'm not talking about "reform" or "pressure to democratize", I'm talking about withdrawal of support. If human rights etc. is such a big issue, then it would be pretty easy to turn our backs on the Saudis. It's not obviously, because it's more advantageous to our interests to keep that alliance. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with us doing that - we obviously have to look out for our nation's best interests. What I'm saying is that it's hogwash to claim that democratization and liberation is the be-all-end all main factor in our foreign policy. That's completely and absolutely FALSE. Saddam was removed among other reasons because he was viewed as a threat to U.S. national security (which he obviously wasn't) and to create a stronghold in the region. Saudi Arabia is just opressive a regime as you claim Saddam was, but the difference is that they are an ally. We're looking out for our special interests - this isn't about mass democratization. And I've explained why democratization does not equate to liberation. There's nothing I can reply to this but "wow." Have the best interests of the Iraqi people at heart? http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm A letter from the Project for the New American Century to Bill Clinton on January 26, 1998 on Iraq. I'm sure you are familiar with the PNAC whose present and former members include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, William J. Bennett, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Ellen Bork, the wife of Robert Bork. Dear Mr. President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Doesn't sound like having the Iraqi people's "best interests at heart." Nor am I saying they should have cared about the Iraqi people. There's nothing wrong with looking out for your own special interests. My problem is with you trying to justify the invasion by saying it was with Iraqi freedom as a big reason. That's just hogwash. Forced democratization is liberating? We democratized ourselves when we revolted from the English. I do not think you can impose democracy upon a sovereign nation and claim to have liberated them, especially when the brothers, husbands, sisters, sons, daughters and wives of the framers of this new fledgling nation are in their graves. Oh really? Then somewhere along the line in the past 1 or 2 years what happened? Is it the 6% of foreign fighters that doesn't view us as liberators? I'm interested to hear this sudden shift in public opinion. I agree it could end up better for the Iraqis in the long run, perhaps 20 years down the line, but I am talking about the reasons the war crowd gave for war. Surely, this is not what they had in mind when they poured billions of dollars into Iraq - to form a theocracy? I gave you my reasons. Basso and many others have declared their fear of "islamofascism" - wouldn't you say a theocratic Iraq alligned with Iran would be moving towards that? I've given you my reasons why this was not a good idea. If the Constitution is ratified and Iraq becomes a theocracy and you continue to claim that the neocons feel justified with the war because "hey after all, we have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart" then I can do nothing but shake my head. It's pretty obvious to me when in his presidential addresses our president primarily justified intervention with the claim of WMD's and didn't change his tune to liberation until after it was found they weren't present. I think that should tell you what the priorities are. I strongly have my doubts regarding the validity of your definition. You're playing the human rights card way too hard. No government ideology centers itself on those things - it's not logical to. You don't go unilaterally attacking a country just to liberate its people unless you have other interests as well. I've seen you say this numerous times in other threads as well. How is it so far fetched that Cheney, Bush etc. have bought into the neocon ideology? As far as you claiming that a basic tenet of their ideology is the "welfare of other peoples?" I seriously cannot believe you are still clinging to this.
I haven't had a chance to read through many of the posts since I last posted but this caught my eye and I had to respond to this. I think Hayes you're the only person I've seen bring up the USS Stark as a justification for the invasion of Iraq considering that happened in the mid-80's while we were tacitly supporting Iraq in the war against Iran. The Reagan admin. and US military forgave the Iraqis and pretty much everyone acknowledged it was a mistake. If this wasn't even an issue in the first Gulf War I don't see how it suddenly becomes applicable now as a justification. The most fallout from the attack on the Stark was the shootdown of an Iranian civillian airliner a few years later by a trigger happy commander of the USS Vincennes.
Thacbbage: Wow. Well said. Definitely better said than my post. Kudos to you. I emailed that post to myself as a good reference.
No, you weren't looking at what I was responding to. thecabbage said Iraq never was a threat. I was merely pointing out the Stark as an instance where not only was Iraq a threat but they attacked the US directly. As for it being an accident, the US administration certainly took that stance but there was plenty of literature suggesting otherwise. But I never said the Stark was justification to intervene now in Iraq. I don't you understand what a neocon is - your usage of the word implies you equate the administration and neoconservatism rather than having an understand that some of the administration is neoconservative and others are not. Not your fault really - poor journalism and blogging probably are more responsible.
Hayes, I've seen you make this comment - that Cheney et al. aren't neoconservative - numerous times on the board. I realize that they were originally isolationists, but I just don't see how this is relevant at all to current neoconservative foreign policy. Is it at all far fetched to assume that they bought into an overwhelming neconservative influence in the administration and now subscribe to the ideology?
Well - considering neoconservatism is not a well defined ideology, more often used by those who oppose "neoconservative" policies than by those who support them, the argument is moot anyway. IMO. It's nitpicking. Neoconservatism has been applied to the Bush administration from day 1. And Hayes is defending the actions of the Bush adminstration on the grounds that "neoconservatives" love liberating people or whatever. It doesn't make sense!
Under that reasoning we're a threat to Canada since a US fighter plane accidently bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Heck we're a threat to ourselves since US soldiers have accidently killed each other on the battle field. I'm sure there's some literature out there claiming that the attack on the Stark was deliberate just like there is plenty of literature that the USS Vincennes actually intended to take down an Iranian civillian plane, but the US military considers it an accident and in a war zone unfortunately accident happens. By citing this as an example of a threat though you are citing it as a reason for invasion otherwise why bring it up because practically every country and every thing is a potential threat but wouldn't be worth mentioning in the context of a discussion whether action needed to be taken.. For instance when I'm walking down the sidewalk my neighbor could lose control of their car and run me over but I'm not about to cite that in regard of whether my neighbor should drive or not.
There was no contradiction there. I think that takes care of that. I think you're getting confused like SC - my bad. I was merely responding to your comment about Iraq never having been a threat. Taking over SA in '91 would have been very bad - aside from likely oil shocks it would put most of the western world and japan under saddams control. He DID have WMDs programs before the first gulf war. Again I think I just made it confusing - sorry about that. I was not contending that these were justifications for the current intervention. It would be nice if you'd stop the namecalling and rolleyes. I have written out plenty of retorts and then erased them because it doesn't add to the debate. Because it's a standard that makes no sense. If the US government took an action that was undesirable, do they continue that action in the future for consistency's sake? No, that's absurd. You WANT the government to make the right choice. Further it fails to recognize the changing of administrations. If that is the proper criteria to evaluate policies then you lockstep the government into just following what we've done before. That doesn't make ANY sense. If they pullout of Iraq because US citizens demand it are you going to say 'oh those hypocrites first they invaded Iraq and now they're pulling out.' The Washington administration allowed slavery - does that mean the Bush administration should support slavery? I guess so - wouldn't want to be a hypocrite! You make so many definitive statements here that we'd best move on. 'Absolute quagmire' 'undoubtably ally themselves with Iran' - unprovable statements that you take as certainty. Can't convince you otherwise so what's the point. Not that an aftereffect of the intervention would change the justification for the war. If you do the right thing and it turns out poorly that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Well, we apparently don't see things the same way. This sentence doesn't even make sense IMO. How can opposition to his removal NOT equate to support? If I say 'let's remove the mayor' and you say 'no, let's leave him in place' I don't know how that doesn't equate to support. And there is a mix of opinion in the administration about what policies should be. A 'realist' in the political science context has a 'national interest' focus. Whenever confronted with a decision that is the criteria used - think Kissinger. A 'neoconservative' sees democratic reform AS our national interest where a 'realist' does not necessarily see it that way. Further your calculus is simply impossible - if we turned our backs (ie isolated ourselves) from every regime that had human rights violations we'd be isolated from more than half the planet. First I think its distressing that you apparently don't read my posts as I never claimed it was the e-a-b-all of foreign policy. Nor do I need to - I am merely challenging your assertion that it has NOTHING to do with the decision. As I said in several posts above: 'The neocon element does not necessarily dominate the administration - Cheney and Rumsfeld are not neocons they are realists.' and 'That doesn't mean its an all-encompassing singular focus, foreign policy is a little more complicated than that.' Your problem is that the reverse is not true. Because its not the end-all-be-all of foreign policy does not mean that its not a consideration at all. Yet that is your claim. You are just seeing what you want to see. I don't deny that the view he was a threat played a role in the intervention - that would be the realist in the administration. You deny that a push for democracy (being the opposite of totalitarianism) played a part - yet that is the neocon view. Neocons are not the same as realists. The administration has both. In this case both agreed taking Saddam out would be good. Ignoring the contribution of one view or the other - or mistaking them for the same view - is a mistake. No, Saudi Arabia is not just as oppressive as Saddam was - and btw where do you get this 'as you claim Saddam was' business. Are you now contending that Saddam WAS NOT oppressive? In addition, neocons HAVE been critical of our relationship with SA. Further, unless we need to act simultaneous against ALL oppressive regimes to avoid hypocrisy (which as we discussed above is a silly notion), then this point is irrelevant. I missed that. I saw where you said that sentence. I don't see where you explained how that's true. Now you're changing your scope. Originally you said it had NOTHING to do with the intervention. Now you're saying it wasn't as big a reason. I never said it was the biggest reason. I don't understand this concept of 'forced democratization.' There was a structural barrier to democractic choice in Iraq - Saddam. We removed that structural barrier and now they have a choice. That's pretty simple. If everyone wanted a person to be the leader, then that leader wouldn't be a dictator - would he? Good. So you're conceeding that you were wrong about how Iraqis perceived the intervention. Why their view has changed is not in the scope of our disagreement. I never claimed the administration properly justified the war. I only dispute your claim that democracy had NOTHING to do with the decision. I agree that would not be the outcome I would choose. Not sure why you'd just 'shake your head.' In the end, and I actually said this before the intervention, if they CHOOSE to live under a theocracy then that is better than living under a dictatorship IMO. He changed his emphasis - that is obvious (we agree on that so its obvious ). He didn't suddenly come up with the claim after WMDs were not found. That claim was there from the very beginning. For you to claim it wasn't is disingenuous at best. Why do you think neocons are called Hard Wilsonians? There is no indication that Cheney has become a neoconservative. Nothing in his background or previous body of work indicates this. He has always been in the realist camp. Cheney was brought in to council Dubya on foreign policy. Is it any coincidence that Dubya's foreign policy was decidely NOT neoconservative before 9/11? Remember the whole 'we're not nation builders, we shouldn't be getting involved in crises overseas' platform? That is wholly consistent with Rice or Cheney's cold war formed 'realist' mentality. As I have indicated in other threads, I believe that 9/11 gave voice to the neoconservatives in the administration in a way that made sense to Bush. The prospect of intervening in Iraq presented a case where BOTH camps - the realist and the neoconservative - agreed it was a good idea. I believe, and this is just my opinion, that I would know better than you why I brought something up. If you think otherwise the GET OUT OF MY HEAD . I was raising the point to challenge the use of the word 'never.' My contention that Saddam in fact had WMD programs and was a threat to rollover SA also were based on events earlier in time, not as justifications for the intervention. I thought that was clear since we haven't found any WMDs in THIS intervention and he wasn't threatening to rollover SA recently. If you disagree then for brevity's sake I will withdraw the reference to the Stark. It's by far the least significant reference.
Wow, just some outstanding posts by thacabbage and rhadamanthus, along with Sishir, in response to you, Hayes. I admire your tenacity, and a refusal to engage in the demagoguery and the "Joe McCarthy" attacks that basso has suddenly become so fond of. Your problem is that, in my opinion, you just don't has a case here, not that I can see. Not using this line of reasoning. And I remembered another attack from a Middle Eastern country on the United States of America. It fits your definition of an apparent "enemy" of our country... are we a little late going to war with Israel?? ...on June 8 the USS Liberty, an American electronic intelligence vessel sailing 13 miles off al-Arish, was attacked by Israeli air and sea forces, nearly sinking the ship and causing heavy casualties. Israel claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity, but whether or not this is true is still heavily debated to this day (see USS Liberty incident). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#War_in_the_air_and_at_sea I remember the incident well during the Six-Day War. We were royally pissed off, and damned near sunk an Israeli ship or two, because they certainly knew, IMO, who they were going after, and if they didn't, they were incredibly stupid. Like a certain dictator in the Middle East who "mistakenly" attacked the Stark. Hey, this is fun. What a pleasure to read some damn fine stuff in here for once, without it being just the "usual suspects," lol. I say that sincerely and Hayes, although I disagree with you, you generally don't sink to the gutter like some I could mention. This is "debate and discussion." Thanks, everyone. I'm a political junkie. I'm getting my "fix." edit: I agree with the "roll-eyes" thing. I don't use them, myself, choosing to put, "insert roll-eyes here," if I just can't stand not showing I'm ticked off. And frequently, I think, the user is just trying to add emphasis to their point, but it comes across as more derogatory than the user may have intended. Just my two cents. I wish we didn't have them. Words work better... skewer someone with words instead of tossing off one of those things. More fun to read. Keep D&D Civil.
I didn't say 'enemy,' I said threat and i've already withdrawn that comparision. Interesting though that you agree. You are saying you agree democracy/rights/welfare of the Iraqis played NO part in the decision to intervene in Iraq? That is what started this disagreement and I find that idea implausible. Nothing wrong with a little argument! EDIT: Hey wait a minute - I just re-read this - whaddya mean 'generally?' I have used them in the past. I just realize how much it pisses me off (aside from the fact that I'm right ) to be dismissed out of hand. I don't think I'll be using them in the future.
First, thanks Deckard for the kudos. Also, thanks to Hayes and thacabbage - this is a good discussion, certainly the best debate I've had with a republican in a while. More importantly, thanks for letting me join in - and putting up with my (usually) less well articulated posts. What? Reread your posts! Explain please. And while your at it, please define neocon from your perspective. Not that I think it matters per say with regard to my comments - the neocon label has been applied to the Bush admin regardless of whether you think it is the correct label. But after your comments I went and read some essays and the wikipedia entry for "neoconservative" - but I want to hear your opinion on the ideology. Ann Coulter is a self-described "neoconservative". Do you agree?
I would like to think we've seen an end to that since it is clear that Basso supported the same goals as Al Qaeda in supporting Bush's re-election. Let's hope the door is closed on that ugly outburst.
The two highlited quotes of mine that you are referring to are: How does that "take care of that?" Since when am I an Iraqi? We, the United States of America, would be better off leaving Saddam in power. Point taken. Sorry. It just rubbed me the wrong way when you began the debate in a condescending manner by referring to my point as a '"classic" and later accusing me of supporting Saddam Hussein. When judging the history of foreign relations, why can you not think of America as one single entity rather than different administrations? It's not like we made a shift from monarchy to democracy. It's not like domestic policy where the two parties VASTLY differ. While you have your differences between the isolationists and interventionists, in the end, pertaining to foreign policy, both parties have the same interests of America at hand ESPECIALLY following the 1940's when the alliance between FDR and Ibn Saud was made to allow American oil companies to begin drilling. Would you not agree that since the latter half of the last century, the foremost American concern in that region has been securing the oil fields so that we would not use up our own resources? I read that around WW2, the rate at which we were using our own resources was so great that they would be completely depleted within 10 to 20 years or some absolutely unebelievable figure like that. What does this have anything to do with this discussion you may ask? Because American foreign policy throughout different chunks of history while it may not have come from the same ideology, was focused on the same interest, no matter what the administration was. Early on, the main interest was survival. In the past 50 years, the Roosevelt Doctrine, Ford Doctrine, Eisenhower Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine, etc al. have all had major emphasis on the security of key oil fields in the Middle East as well as the fear of the spread of communism. In simpler terms, we didn't give a damn what Saddam was doing until he messed with Kuwait and threatened our supplies. That is the relevance. It doesn't matter what administration was in power - securing the oil fields was of utmost concern, from the left leaning FDR all the way up to the Bushes. All recent doctrines have centered on this. That is why it is hypocritical to point to human rights abuses etc. when the only times we ever gave a damn is when we were directly effected. As far as pulling out of Iraq, why would I say that is hypocrisy? That's just realizing your mistake. No possible outcome can justify this invasion when you consider the lives lost, the cost of the war, our current international standing, turning focus away from Bin Laden etc. Our goal was a model democracy. That's clearly not going to happen. Resentment towards the United States is at an all-time high in that region now. The best we can hope for is that the Constitution is ratified, but from an American standpoint the cost of this war (the above factors) is not worth having a new neighbor government to Iran. How does it not make sense? He was no threat to us. If I want him in place and contained, how does that mean I support him? Support is the act of being in favor of one's actions and policies. I don't "support" him, I think it would have been in our best interests to leave him in place for the time being. I'm not following you one bit. How does democratic reform equate to a sympathy for human rights? And I am telling you it is not taken the least bit into consideration. I posted the letter from the PNAC whose members include many notable neoconservatives. If it was a consideration, don't you think they would have atleast made one passing mention of it? This is what they said: Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. We apparently don't have the same definition. I said "claim" because it appeared to me that opression was your biggest justification for this war. You're telling me that we're liberating them when they're fighting us back to the death? I think you can figure this out. How am I changing my scope? Haven't you been claiming all along that human rights was a big reason? Once again, I don't see us "greeted as liberators." It would appear to me that if they were fighting us back then this is a "forced democratization." This isn't exactly Rapunzel letting down her long hair so that the charming Prince can come rescue her from the evil witch. No, I'm not conceding anything, I'm turning your argument against you. I don't know if they favored the intervention at first or not, but if they did, like you claim, it appears to me there has ben quite a sudden shift of public opinion, no? Seems to me people are changing their tune (if they wanted intervention in the first place) after burying the male members of their family. When did I say democracy had nothing to do with the decision. I said an empathy for the plight of the Iraqi people had NOTHING to do with the decision. So you're telling me, as a tax paying American, that at this point in time, that is worth it to you? Losing focus on Bin Laden, losing respect in the international community, thousands of deaths, billions of dollars - you're telling me all this was worth it at this point in time, 2005, if Iraq becomes a theocracy? I seem to recall you posting numerous articles in the past painting Islam in a not so favorable manner. This was all worth it to you if that very religion becomes dominant? Well it's pretty obvious to me that that wasn't the case when the ONLY thing you heard out of his mouth was WMD and how great a threat Iraq was to the international community and then suddenly upon finding the former didn't exist, we became liberators. Your definition of the neoconservative ideology seems more like a definition for the Red Cross. No foreign policy is centered around human rights. So then if we agree, what is your point? How is it at all pertinent to what he is originally classified as. They all bought into the scheme. I could bring up Colin Powell, for example. Unlike Cheney, he even has remorse for this entire operation, yet he still went along and stood infront of the United Nations and told lies to further GWB's agenda. What difference does it make what they were originally classified as? The fact of the matter is that this administration is heavily influenced by neoconservative ideology.
Which one of us is a republican? I don't see a contradiction from those quotes. There are elements in the administration that are neoconservative. There are also elements from the realist camp. The latter dominated before 9/11, the former after. The second quote deals with sanctions:thecabbage claimed a contradiction because there was no outcry about sanctions in relation to Iraq - my response is that the sanctions were implemented long before the current administration (before anyone claimed the 'neocons' were running things). Taking that entry - some of which I disagree with and which seems to be slanted - I'll paste sections that generally outline how I define a neoconservative vs a realist/practitioner of realpolitiks: ....According to Irving Kristol a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." Broadly sympathetic to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goals to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Admiration of the "big stick" interventionist foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt remains a common theme in neoconservative tracts as well ...many younger neocons were more supportive of the idea of changing regimes to make them more compatible and reflective of U.S. values. The belief in the universality of democracy would be a key neoconservative value which would go on to play a larger role in the post-Cold War period. Particularly galvanizing to the movement was George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell's decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power and what neoconservatives viewed as a betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites...[Edit - this is one of the places I disagree with wiki - whether cheney is a neocon or not] As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which sometimes exhibit an isolationist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom. That's a big chop job, I know - but it should provide an outline of how I define neconservatism. Honestly I've never read anything she's written. Her rep is pretty bad so I never wanted to waste the time to look.
If you're talking about the totality of our foreign policy then where did the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo come from? That didn't have any direct effect on us. Intervention in Somalia held no resource booty for the US. I don't think your assertion that we ONLY act for resources is true. Further, when speaking specifically of Iraq there was much dissention from the neoconservative camp about abandoning the Shiites/Kurds after the firsst Gulf War. If all the neocons cared about was resources then that wouldn't be the case. As far as emphasizing human rights where we didn't in the past, why would you say THAT is hypocrisy? That's just realizing your mistake. Your opinion. You're entitled to it. I disagree. But that wasn't my point. My point is the effect of the intervention - good or bad - does not change whether or not the intervention was a justified action. I believe it was - if we fail that won't change the reasons why it was the right thing to do at the time. In your opinion. I'm also an American and I disagree with you. IMO the worst case still has the people of Iraq deciding their own fate. That is worth the intervention. Self determination is the core of our nations belief system. some definitions of 'Support:' To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of Does your advocacy keep Saddam from weakening or failing; to maintain his place; to aid his interests? Yes - one side supports removing him - you support leaving him in place. On two opposite ends of the spectrum you have a totalitarian regime and a democratic regime. The totalitarian regime is infinitely more likely and empirically more responsible for human rights violations than a democratic regime. Some of the rights inherent in a democracy (self determination/voting for example) are core human rights. First it is a mistake to take that letter as a definition of neoconservativism. Second, put the letter in context. It's written to a President seen as deficient on security and that's how its addressed. Third, I never said neoconservatism ISN'T concerned with security - only that a central tenet is the premise that all people should enjoy the same economic and political rights we do. An extremely small portion of the population in Iraq is taking part in the insurgency. I don't take that as proof of anything in relation to the question at hand - 'what does democracy have to do with liberation.' Examine systems - one in which the people have no say; one in which they decide - that is my claim on how democracy = liberation. Nothing you've said indicts that. No, I've been contesting your claim that it wasn't a reason at all. Your 'evidence' is anecdotal at best. My claim: when people move from a totalitarian regime to a democratic one they are liberated. If I say: 'all people should have the rights we have in the US.' 'Iraqis sure are oppressed by Saddam.' 'we betrayed the Shiites and Kurds when we didn't save them from Saddam.' 'we shouldn't allow him to do that if we can stop it.' 'we should remove saddam.' I think one can safely conclude that there WAS empathy for the Iraqi people. Yes, absolutely. Money is not a big concern IMO. Would I save money and let a dictator continue to grind his people to dust? No. Re: focus on bin Laden - no evidence exists that we would have captured bin laden absent going into Iraq. Losing the respect of the international community? Ha! I think the evidence is pretty clear that Russia, Germany, France, and China wanted to save their contracts in Iraq. That doesn't impress me. Thousands of lives? Absolutely the worst part of war. But I believe the Iraqis will suffer less on balance with the intervention that without. As far as Iraq becoming a theocracy - no I don't think that's the best idea. But it is better than a totalitarian regime. Even in Iran there is a rule of law, there is some room for democratic dissent. It is also, however, far from a decided issue despite your assurances that these are certain outcomes. Finally, I think the singularly largest mistake was disbanding the Iraqi army. Had we not done that and instead used them as security forces - I believe the whole situation would be different. I'm sorry but you're just incorrect. The only thing out of his mouth wasn't WMDs. That's just wrong. WMDs were his MAIN emphasis - I agree on that. Maybe its just my wing of neoconservatism . If you keep saying the same thing it doesn't make it true. A central tenet of neoconservatism is the belief that all people should enjoy the economic and political freedoms we have. The point is then that statements which claim there was NO (as in none) concern for the Iraqis themselves would be considered invalid. That was my original dispute with you.
