Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On 4/26/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words permission slip intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Thanks, Dan. Spot on. But Dave, finish connecting the dots! Dan said he use of the words 'permission slip' intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. You said, to paraphrase, the use of the words 'permission slip' brought to mind images that undermined seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Do you view a child bringing home a permission slip as a child engaging in serious consideration of the opinions of his or her parents? Or do you view a child brining home a permission slip as a child getting the *permission* of his or her parents? Stepping in. The frame is the United States is not an unruly child as my opponents suggest. We are Texas tough. This is Texas BS but how our guys in the oil bidness like to talk. Moreover, what the President actually said was, America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. We're talking about removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the security of the United States Do you believe that: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Saddam's military was decimated, using the original definition of the word, compared to Gulf War 1 and even lacked the ability to defend itself from several neighbors to say nothing of the United States. -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Troops were not necessary to defer aggression by Iraq. They might be of use to prop up Bush's buddies when the place explodes in the coming civil war. -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? See both of my responses above -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Actually yes. The US and the UK had the most officials administering the sanctions and they ended up being both bribeable and foolish and caused needless harm to children. Another solution was developing but doesn't fit into this black/white/black discussion. What would have been the scenario if the other members of the Security Council had their continued aggressive inspections resolution approved? -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers after Israel demolished their homes has become conflated here with funding terrorists. Nice going. -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Does the US support for Syria as part of the deal in Gulf War 1 and continuing today despite administration rhetoric - see Canadian citizen flown by U.S. to Syria for torture interrogations, constitute a threat to our security? -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 10:23 PM 4/25/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. As such, I guess that we don't have any common ground to stand on on this issue. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words permission slip intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Dan, It looks like you are missing the point too. Dave's original point was as follows: The president's use of the phrase permission slip in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of hall pass. That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission slip for an activity, the child doesn't seriously consider the opinions of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* To use Dave's formulation (which I don't entirely agree with, but I'm making a point) - The President's use of the phrase permission slip in the State of the Union address was carefully chosen to call up visions... intended to be so repulsive to suggest that the US must get the *permission* of other nations (particularly, China, Russia, and France) before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.Dave very cleverly, however, substitted seriously consider the opinions for getting permission in order to score cheap political points. Seriously consider the opinions sounds fairly unobjectionable, getting the permission of China, Russia, and France before acting sounds much more objectionable to a lot of people - and that is what Bush was railing against - the very significant block of people who argued that the US should not launch Gulf War II without the approval of China, Russia, France, and the other members of the UN Security Council. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission slip for an activity, the child doesn't seriously consider the opinions of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* That's the point! Bush was saying that if the United States sought other nations' participation in the decision to go to war, we would be acting like a child, submitting to other authorities, disallowed to think for ourselves. We can't do that because we're a grown-up country, not a child. International relations cannot be modeled as a set of parents and children, so Bush and Cheney's use of the metaphor was wrong. But it was politically clever because the truth in the metaphor makes the whole statement seem true. Advertisers do this all the time -- say something true that is irrelevant... and say it again and again. The falsehood isn't *in* the metaphor, the falsehood *is* the metaphor because it implies that serious consideration of other nations' wishes would reduce us to the status of a child... which is baloney. It was not reasonable to reduce the whole question of how we cooperate with our *brother and sister* nations to asking permission, since that is a context of submission, not negotiation. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: I think Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. So does John. All your certainty otherwise doesn't make you right, it just means that you're unable to understand other people's points of view. After the years of discussion of this subject on the list, I still do not have a handle on how Iraq was a credible threat to the US. If Afghanistan was only an indirect threat (and only due to their harboring of known terrorists), how was Iraq a direct and imminent threat to the security of the US? North Korea is a direct threat since they have nukes and a delivery system that can reach, at the least, Alaska. But this is not the prime focus of our foreign policy, it is a secondary focus. (Iraq is the prime focus and it is where we direct most of our energy.) We have pretty much taken focus off the hunt for actual terrorists. This really pisses me off. Osama Bin Laden runs free and taunts us occasionally, and while it appears that Al Quaeda plans have been greatly balked, Osama runs free and is not killed in battle or suffering the humiliation of a truely fair and just trial. TIA for any responses to my questions and comments. xponent It Matters Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
After the years of discussion of this subject on the list, I still do not have a handle on how Iraq was a credible threat to the US. If you have not done so, you might want to read the Duelfer report http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/. It shows in detail how it could be both true that the presence of actual WMD's was overestimated, but at the same time the threat that Iraq, specifically Iraq under Saddam, posed to the US. The short summary is that Saddam was working to get sanctions lifted as fast as possible, while at the same time was working on ensuring that he could rebuild his weapon stocks as quickly as possible as soon as they were so he could deter any future actions against him. It was clear that the main lesson he learned after the first gulf war was the need for some trump card in the form of WMD's to hold of the US before he tried to further expand his power in the region. If Afghanistan was only an indirect threat (and only due to their harboring of known terrorists), how was Iraq a direct and imminent threat to the security of the US? It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted which would have put in place a set of events that would have left Iraq mostly immune (or at least cause a much higher cost) to any future US action. So while the actual physical danger was not imminent in a literal sense, the possibility of taking permanent corrective action was in imminent danger of being removed. North Korea is a direct threat since they have nukes and a delivery system that can reach, at the least, Alaska. But this is not the prime focus of our foreign policy, it is a secondary focus. (Iraq is the prime focus and it is where we direct most of our energy.) North Korea, being a direct threat, can not be the same kind of focus that Iraq is. The fact that they have two kinds of very real deterrence, Nukes + conventional shelling range of Soul, means that the US basically has no real military option there in the absence of a clear first first action on the part of North Korea. This is why events move rather slowly here. North Korea does not have much left to threaten with, and neither does the US. Thus it becomes a diplomatic game of trying to get China to take sides and force the issue. We have pretty much taken focus off the hunt for actual terrorists. This really pisses me off. Osama Bin Laden runs free and taunts us occasionally, and while it appears that Al Quaeda plans have been greatly balked, Osama runs free and is not killed in battle or suffering the humiliation of a truely fair and just trial. I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an country that has a large amount of US military presence should put this in perspective. The most affective way to catch a single person is with small teams focused on intelligence gathering, not large scale occupation of a country. There is definitely at least one special task force still out looking for Osama Bin Laden. Beyond using our military to pressure possible countries of hiding (and that number is very large, Al Qaeda has cells in many different places), there is not much our conventional forces in Iraq could do to help. Until I see a clear smoking gun type study that clearly shows how the military has dropped the ball on looking for OBL I will grant them the benefit of the doubt. Finding one terrorist in the world with a group of fanatical followers willing to cover for him is a non-trivial task. Finally I will close with an appeal to Occam's Razor. Many people have written about the supposed brilliance of Karl Rove and the Republican Political Machine. While it is true that Bush won his 4 more years, it was still a close election. This was because of the War in Iraq. While it is true it did not go as well as they hoped, even if it had been perfect, it was still an extremely risky political move to make. It was a move that politically did not have to be made (I could see it as a hail Mary type play, but it was not). Thus the explanation is either that he had some secret motive (daddy envy, paying off the Royals, wants to be seen as a cowboy and Afghanistan was just not enough) or he actually believed that the real answer to the short term threat posed by Al Qaeda was to promote long term change so that after Al Qaeda was dealt with, there would be a reduced chance at another group taking their place. I have no problem when people think Bush is being naive, or that the democratization of the middle east will never happen, or that war is never the answer to anything (though I do think they are wrong). I do have a problem with people who ascribe all kinds of odd conspiracy theories to the war in Iraq, claiming that they can see no justification for it, thus there must be some crazy explanation. One person is seriously trying to come up with a better world, the other is just tossing rocks (not that you, or some on this list, were doing the
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:16:31 -0700, John DeBudge wrote The short summary is that Saddam was working to get sanctions lifted as fast as possible, while at the same time was working on ensuring that he could rebuild his weapon stocks as quickly as possible as soon as they were so he could deter any future actions against him. Would these folks have us believe that sanctions were about to end? That we would permit this? It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted If sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted, how did we manage to start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the capability to keep the sanctions in place even without international cooperation, since we managed to go much, much further than just sanctions. Isn't this a bit ridiculous as an argument for war or imminent danger? We had to take extreme measures because the less-extreme measures that *we* had in place were in danger of ending? If we could go to war without U.N. approval, we sure as heck could keep sanctions in place without U.N. approval. All this argues for is keeping the sanctions going, to prevent the danger from Iraq from *becoming* immiment. Using this rationale for going to war is like saying that I had to shoot a prisoner because he was about to escape, which I knew because I was about to let him escape! This brings a whole new definition to doing nothing about Iraq, since it posits that we would stop doing even what we were already doing! I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an country that has a large amount of US military presence Large amount? Talked to any military people about this? We are and have been vastly under-staffed for the job we're trying to do there. Intitution tells me that's a major reason we're seeing so many troops return with PTSD. We are spread very, very thin over there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words permission slip intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Thanks, Dan. Spot on. But Dave, finish connecting the dots! Dan said he use of the words 'permission slip' intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign.You said, to paraphrase, the use of the words 'permission slip' brought to mind images that undermined seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Do you view a child bringing home a permission slip as a child engaging in serious consideration of the opinions of his or her parents? Or do you view a child brining home a permission slip as a child getting the *permission* of his or her parents? Moreover, what the President actually said was, America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. We're talking about removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the security of the United States Do you believe that: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Thank you for your answers. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 26, 2005, at 7:20 PM, JDG wrote: But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ... same old song and dance I didn't come up with the permission slip metaphor, but hear this: I. Understand. The. Difference. Do you believe that: substantial snippage Thank you for your answers. They weren't questions. They were talking points with question marks. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
JDG wrote: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation. -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 attacks. -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? The lifting of sanctions may have been a possibility before 9/11. Not after. -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account either. No evidence whatsoever. -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Exhaustive searches and a billion dollars and not a trace of WMDs. -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Pre-war inspections and two years of occupation and no evidence of WMDs except some shells Sadam probably lost in the '80s. -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - elements of the Saudi government could do the same. Thank you for your answers. You're certainly welcome. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
