Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Sasquatch, Feb 12, 2008.
Taking snippets of clips without putting them into full context is pretty cheap and shows nothing. However that is politics
Of couse, if the war would have been fought McCain's way, there would have been greater border security and less influx of foreign terrorists into Iraq.
I agree that McCain was critical in the early going of how the war was being conducted. Currently he and many others have praised the job Gen Petraeus is currently doing in Iraq
Possibly. The problem with war is that no one knows for certain how events will unfold. Of course, McCain never questioned the war's premises or the doctrine of preemption which doesn't speak in his favor as a potential commander in chief.
I assume we're all speaking for ourselves, no?
But, yes, I personally think the Minority Report approach to national defense is deeply flawed logically and morally.
And the history of the Iraq War vindicates that position.
The history starts with the invasion of Kuwait and 13 years of cat and mouse games by Saddam of violating the cease fire agreements
Obviously. I disagree very strongly with your position.
I don't see how the history of the war vindicates that position at all, no. And I don't think the "Minority Report approach" is a very accurate description either.
The fact that proponents of the war can't even acknowledge that the administration's main reason for invading Iraq was to prevent an imminent doomsday attack on the US with biological and chemical weapons suggests that my assertion about preemption is correct.
No, it doesn't suggest that at all. And I think it's rather naive to think that was the main reason for invading Iraq. That may have been what made Iraq a low-hanging fruit, but it isn't the "main reason" the neo-cons in the administration pushed for the war.
It has nothing to do with naiveté. That was the principal case our government made to the citizens of this country and the rest of the world.
Besides, I'm not sure proponents of the war really want to bring up naive logic and thinking.
The naiveté comes in thinking that the principal case our government made for going to war is the main reason our government wanted to go to war.
I suppose instead of naively accepting the government's stated case that we should all just naively trust that their REAL purposes are valid?
Some of us value transparency and citizens' right to be informed of what the government is supposedly doing on their behalf. That is the premise of representative government after all.
If their reasons were so valid, they could have very easily stated them openly at the onset, but they chose not to do so because they correctly anticipated there would be massive resistance to their cooked up little war that has turned out to be rather more troublesome than they expected.
No, but I don't think their real purposes are that hard to discover considering many of the persons responsible for the invasion in the Bush administration wrote papers on the topic for years and years before 9/11.
All of us value transparency (though it is certainly not the premise of representative government). But there are also other concerns that we should value as well.
This isn't necessarily true at all.
The video was somewhat pointless. Taking disjointed sentences, you could have anyone support/disagree with most anything.
While I agree that those weren't the reasons for going to war in Iraq, I wish the naivete of our leaders had not extended so strongly to their prosecution of the war. For guys who had wanted to invade Iraq for a decade before 9/11, they sure didn't show much of a clue.
But in a cold cost\effect consideration, this has been a disaster. A trillion dollar war before it ends. We could have just bribed our way through this for a fracton of the money. It's one of the victories of the 9/11 Jihadis: They have gotten us to beggar ourselves with immense outlays of non-productive money, for the war, for security in thousands of places. They merely have to make threats on the internet, as the little cels of rabid young men spring up like mushrooms to provide just enough pinpricks to keep the fear going. The Jihadis certainly want us overthrown, but they have to do very little to induce us to any number of self inflicted wounds.
Now if McCain had been president then, I am sure the war would have been prosecuted much more competently, though without the Neocon fixation on Iraq, it might not have happened at all. Without a stable political solution inside Iraq, the surge will be for naught. There are no good solutions to this now. And the people who seem to say there are good solutions were also the ones who so poorly handled the thing in the first place. Doesn't make me feel confident. How much more money and lives down the drain so that politicians can save face?
I acknowledge that no problem, by weapon inspectors own findings many things in Iraq were unaccounted for even when inspections did continue right before the war Missile were uncovered that exceeded the range allowed under the cease fire. Intelligent reports from the US and other agencies from other countries felt strongly these weapons were there and even afterward no can say for sure if they were moved or not. Myself I felt very strongly about going into Iraq after the 1st time inspectors where kicked out.
In order to win a war, you need to know what the "end game" is. What is the current "end game?"
well, i call iraq a battle more than a war. iraq was a subset of the overall mission - stop terrorism. that said, your point is still valid.
while we can call iraq a victory cause the purpose was to end the threat - real or perceived, that has been accomplished. the ongoing war on terrorism - that will always be ongoing. as long as someone has desires to hurt others for their own political gain, we'll have terrorists.
At this stage I think the end game is to be able to leave Iraq with them having the capability to defend and police themselves. I expect a small military presence to be there for a while but nothing like the level we see today