Deckard is another poster. 'See above' means scroll back up to see his post, where despite disagreeing with my assessment overall - he does acknowledge the link between Al Queda's attacks and containment. EXPOSED! Er, that is the answer you seek. See if you can close the circle. AQ attacked on 9/11 (and others as well) because US bases in Saudi. US bases in Saudi to 'contain' (hence 'containment') Saddam. See how that works? No containment = no 9/11. Or we could have committed even more troops and not gotten Osama. Sure, like North Korea. Let them get the bomb and THEN try and 'take care of it.' That makes sense. However, I will again say that there were many reasons to go into Iraq that (for me) justify the intervention. The inevitability of the WMD threat from Saddam was but one. Not pulling anything out of my 'arse,' andy. You pretty much can't get any more of a direct link than the one between containment and 9/11. You can't DENY the link. If you don't want to deal with it because you can't deny it, or because it doesn't fit into your conception of the situation - I can't help you.
Bin Laden is a madman who would have attacked us in any case. You are welcome to draw your lines to "containment," but many of us see other lines. Personally, I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that Bin Laden planned 9/11 specifically to get us to take out the only secular leader in the ME, Saddam. With a little help from Iranian intelligence, it sure seems like he was able to accomplish that goal. An expert on Iran was on The Daily Show a while back and claimed that he talked to people who reported Bin Laden meeting with Iranian intelligence operatives in early 2001. That sure makes more sense to me than Bin Laden being upset about troops being in a country he was banished from and would never see again.
I don't think there is any doubt that OBL claimed u.s. troops in Suadi Arabia as a major bone of contention. The argument you make is that removing Saddam would have eliminated that bone of contention. I doubt that invading Iraq sooner would have in any way pacified OBL or his followers. It is unrealistic to imagine that would be the case.
Hmmm..... he is a madman, but made and enacted a plan to fool the whole world, and did. Yeah, that makes sense. Cause you know he really liked that whole 'crush the most fundamentalist regime in the world' part of his plan when we came to Afghanistan and took out the Taliban, lol. Better yet, he wasn't ACTUALLY upset with US troops in Saudi Arabia (holy ground), he just made that up at the time because he real target was Saddam Hussein. Brilliant! Stop taking your news from the Comedy Channel, for cryin' out loud. I like Jon Stewart too, but c'mon.
I don't remember advocating an earlier intervention in Iraq. The argument I make is not that eliminating Saddam sooner would have eliminated that problem (although it does appear we would not need bases in SA if not for containment). I am saying you must include the costs of pursuing the Status Quo (then), which was continuing containment for the forseeable future, vs the cost of intervention.
Fair enough. So you are against Islam as practiced in the more fundamentalist areas - such as Saudi, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, etc. Right?
I am personally against it, and wouldn't support it. That is correct. I would not advocate intervening to overthrow it except to give aid to local groups who are inspired to change things on their own already.
Fair enough. So you will post out against these practices when they are defended by Muslims or others, right?
Of course, do remember the one where somebody was defending dictatorships saying that it was ok. It was in reference to oppressive regimes in the middle east. I don't remember the specifics just that I was speaking out against them. Anyway I will say voice my disagreement with those practices. The arguments seem likely to end there, but I don't mind agreeing to disagree.
Sorry, Sishir - I missed this one earlier. Yes, but the point is there is a difference between 'the insurgency is mostly Iraqis' and 'most Iraqis are in the insurgency.' That's ALL i'm saying. Hmmm, think you misunderstood or I was unclear (completely possible). The original comment was made to point out that even with an unconditional surrender, such as in Europe - there was not immediately stability or absence of chaos, or mucho violence - it took a long time. The insurgencies in Greece and Turkey were not AGAINST the Soviet Union - they were SPONSORED by the Soviet Union. But that's not the point anyway. The point is that despite an overwhelming victory and capitulation by the enemy, Europe still took a LONG TIME to stabilize. The opinion that it is going to happen in hypertime or not at all is unrealistic. I don't think being a neoconservative means you cross security off your list. Which framing of the Iraq intervention are you referring to so I can better answer your point.
Hayes Street; I think I follow what you're saying and will even agree that there is a cost for containment that included 9/11 the problem I have with your analysis is that you cut it off there. You seem to be implying that once we remove our bases from Saudi Arabia that terrorism will end. The problem is we've taken our bases out of Saudi Arabia and terrorism has not ended. In fact according to the State Department its gotten worse. The assumption you seem to be making is that the only thing that pisses off OBL, Al Qaeda and radical muslims enough to become terrorists was containing Iraq but seemingly not presuming that occupying Iraq and killing muslims there somehow wouldn't? Further your economic argument seems highly stretched when clearly in terms of money spent the costs of occupying a hostile country the size of CA is clearly far greater than the costs maintaining bases. At the same time while 9/11 was a harsh economic blow the Admin. themselves have said that another 9/11 size attack or even worse is probable. It seems to me that you make a good argument that there are large costs of containment but cut off that analysis at the start of the invasion of Iraq.
I don't get mixed up in political threads. In the beginning I was a HUGE bush supporter, but now I think its evident that he has really ****ed some **** up. If you can't see that you are as blind as those who think hakeem is better than jordan. I'll leave it at that.
Fair enough. Yes I totally agree that expectations that Iraq would be stabilized quickly is unrealistic and one of major complaints regarding invading Iraq was that there seemed to a lack of foresight in the planning regarding stabilizing Iraq. I understand your criticism tht you feel that war opponents holding the Admin to unrealistic standards but I would contend that it was the Admin itself that sold this war under unrealistic standards by arguing that the Iraqis would almost uniformly greet us as liberators, that resistance post Saddam would be extremely light and isolated and that Iraq's economy would be rapidly restored. Also the Admin's own talk of "turning the corner" starts soundling a broken record when seemingly everytime they say that the insurgency comes back with renewed force. So yes I agree expectations on Iraq are unrealistic but speaking for myself I don't feel I'm holding the Admin to my expectations but to their own. Yes I agree security is important to Neo-cons. My point is that there were a lot of reasons we went to Iraq and I think its fair to criticize, or support, the invasion of Iraq for more than one reason. Just because I criticize the Hard Wilsonian idea doesn't mean that I won't criticize invading Iraq because I also believe that the security argument was exagerated.
Cool. Never said that. Never said that's the only thing that pissed him off. What I said was that it was THE thing that led him to 9/11. There is no disputing that. He has since added freeing the rest of the muslim world from western domination, of course, but that doesn't affect my points. Stretched? I barely dented the info on the economics. When you consider that in post after post and thread after thread people are decrying the cost of the war in Iraq while pining for the good old days of containment - I think it needs to be said. Containment was not cheap. Do you dispute the numbers I put up? You claim the costs of occupying Iraq far outweigh the costs of containment - but the numbers don't say that. Nope. I just think there need to be TWO columns to compare before everyone makes their determination of how 'costly' this intervention actually is.
I agree that the Administration is the creator of the unrealistic expectations. I'm just saying that if you recognize its an unrealistic assumption - or go as faras to criticize them for being unrealistic - then it seems silly to then claim the sky is falling because those expectations weren't met. Each of the major justifications for the intervention in Iraq (WMD, Saddam is a genocidal dictator, Saddam is in cahoots with AQ) would fall within the scope of support if you were a neoconservative. Intervention to take Iraq's oil would not. My point is that simple. If you, as a critic of the administration, say 'the administration has been taken over by neocons' and then say 'they invaded Iraq for oil'....you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Either you are misidentifying the administration ideological motivation or you are wrong about the motivation to intervene in Iraq. (I'm not saying YOU as in Sishir)...
Hayes, with all due respect, blaming these costs on Saddam, because Bin Laden was motivated, in large part, by our bases in the Kingdom, is just nuts! You quoted me several times on this, and I don't mind... it is a well known fact that the huge Saudi footprint by the US angered Bin Laden and his followers. Now the reason for invading and occupying Iraq isn't WMD, it isn't a mushroom cloud, it isn't to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East, and it isn't several others I can't think of at the moment, that have been handed out to the press and public by the Administration whenever they felt like trotting out a new reason for their idiotic war... it all happened because our policy of containment of Saddam caused us to put these bases in Saudi Arabia. And the cost of containing Saddam, according to you, now includes the hundreds of billions of dollars, in costs of various kinds, 9/11 placed upon the United States and the rest of the world who were affected by the tragedy. I have to hand it to you, Hayes... even Bush hasn't had the balls to use this as the reason for his voluntary war. Keep D&D Civil!!
Not sure how its nuts. Would we have had 9/11 without bases in SA? No. Would we have had bases in SA without the containment policy? No. I'm not sure what your problem is. That's not a butterfly's wings in China creating a hurricane in the atlantic, that's a direct connection. Further, once you conceed the first part, that 9/11 happened because of containment - I don't have ANY idea how you avoid attaching the cost of 9/11 to containment. THAT, my friend, with all due respect - is nuts. I think you meant the reason for the Iraqi intervention instead of 9/11 here (if I'm wrong let me know and I'll re-address it). Whether or not Bush went to war because of the relationship between the status quo of containment and 9/11 - I cannot say, but it does not affect my conclusions one way or the other. I will pick that point up in a second, because it is possibly part of the Bush equation. However, for now please remember that I said that one must weigh the costs of the status quo then, pursuing containment. You didn't and you should admit it. You talk about a needless war and how Saddam was in 'a box' and creating no danger but you NEVER calculate the cost of containment OR the 'danger' it creates as so terribly manifested in 9/11. That may not, in the end, change your mind about the intervention in Iraq - but your decision would be much closer, and more realistic, if your equation included the cost of containment. Well, I don't see an argument AGAINST my point. I see you paraphrasing and ridiculing. Why is it NOT true that 9/11 resulted from containment (don't bother you've already agreed)? Why then is it not true to attribute that cost to containment? I'll send him a memo. Personally I think this isn't something that could be used for PR, although you HAVE seen statements from the administration about how moving out of SA would be possible once Saddam was taken care of. I think this might be the key to explaining the transition the administration has taken from realism to wilsonianism. I think Bush was very happy to concentrate on the US before 9/11. He was a non-interventionist, for pete's sake. Then all the sudden he's invading multiple countries? What happened? Well, to quote what has tastelessly IMO become some sort of leftist mantra, 9/11 changed everything. Bush realized (this is all my personal speculation so take it for a thinking point) that he/we could not sit back while problems brewed with no solutions in sight. He had the neoconservatives in his administration that provided his simple brain (not saying the ideology is simple or for simpletons) a good answer - you DON'T sit and wait for problems to blow up in your cities. You must proactively address potential crisis point and deal decisively with them. Anti-democratic forces of all faces - fundamentalism, totalitarianism, etc are the main cause of instability in the world and hence should be addressed. So Bush turns and out comes - the Bush Doctrine - big problem makers come to the front - NKorea, Iran, & Iraq. Why, people say, did this come out of the administration? Because 9/11 changed the way the administration viewed our interaction with the world - as it damn well should have after 9/11. We won't sit back and be your punching bag - you want an arms race? We'll win. You want to perpetually be a major problem? We'll address you. So, was the intervention in Iraq a response to 9/11? Obviously. If you don't see the change in the administration pre and post 9/11 then I don't think you're paying attention at all. The administration had many who felt that Saddam should have been cleared out in the first Gulf War and as I said before - the post 9/11 Bush is all about confronting problems and then (hopefully) moving on instead of chasing our tail with these crises.
