Project for the New American Century

[Moonbeam]

conjur: So, you have a problem with the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War?
--------------------
I don't know since that isn't a comprehensible sentence.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
conjur: So, you have a problem with the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War?
--------------------
I don't know since that isn't a comprehensible sentence.

<sigh> I guess that's the mistake I make for assuming a greater intelligence level in you.

I'll make it simpler for you:

So, you have a problem with this part of the article: the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War?

You don't think the rest of the Middle East was under a threat by Saddam? I mean, that was part of the cease-fire agreement. That Saddam must not pose a threat to the peace and security of the region. He was failing in that regard.

 

[Moonbeam]

<sigh> I guess that's the mistake I make for assuming a greater intelligence level in you.
----------------------------
That should read: <sigh> I guess that's the mistake I make for assuming a greater intelligence level in you than I did, or should have etc. If you are going to use the comparative 'greater' the sentence hangs in the air without the two things in comparison, no?

The problem with great intelligence is that it can easily read many things into an unclear statement, so while you may wish to think your meaning was obvious, I, for my part, would hate to be accused of reading in a false interpretation. And besides now we both know for sure what you meant.

As to your question I think the notion that Iraq and the middle east equate to the cold war threat is treacle. Ireael, known for their preemptive tendencies didn't raise a finger and one of their generals, before the war commented that as far as Iraq was concerned, he slept like a baby.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
<sigh> I guess that's the mistake I make for assuming a greater intelligence level in you.
----------------------------
That should read: <sigh> I guess that's the mistake I make for assuming a greater intelligence level in you than I did, or should have etc. If you are going to use the comparative 'greater' the sentence hangs in the air without the two things in comparison, no?

I stand....er...sit corrected

As to your question I think the notion that Iraq and the middle east equate to the cold war threat is treacle. Ireael, known for their preemptive tendencies didn't raise a finger and one of their generals, before the war commented that as far as Iraq was concerned, he slept like a baby.

Well, he rested assured that the U.S./Britain would have things well in hand. Israel didn't take that stance when they took out Saddam's nuclear reactor.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I said before the war regarding that general, the implication, as Bush so often pointed out, was that no decision to go to war had been made. That general slept well back then just fine because Iraq was and has proven in spades, so far, to be a paper tiger, a threat to nobody but its own citizens and not even remotely the danger the USSR was at the height of the Cold War. When I refered to preemptive Israel, I was of course refering to their bombing of the reactor. My point was that if Iraq was a threat, they would have been back.

 

[conjur]

Israel, though, was and isn't the sole target of Saddam's aggressions. In fact, Iran and Kuwait have taken the blunt of his force (other than the Iraqis themselves). Who was to be next? The Kurds and Turkey? Saudi Arabia for hosting U.S. troops and having more oil? Iran again?

Saddam showed no sign of reforming his bad and evil ways ( ) and was proud of his achievements in evading the UN inspectors.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't recall Iran or Kuwait screaming for us to invade, do you? We went in precisely because of the New American Century Doctrine and nothing else. Nobody, none of his neighbors were worried about him. They opposed for the greater part.

 

[conjur]

I recall that all mostly kept quiet. None of them wanted Saddam in charge of Iraq but none wanted to do anything about it. Their thinking, imo, is let Bush do it, take the blame and rile the Arab world against the U.S. more and then they could go back to their despotic perches.

Only after the war began did they issue a formal statement against the war. And that statement didn't really have much in the way of bite either.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't recall Iran or Kuwait screaming for us to invade, do you? We went in precisely because of the New American Century Doctrine and nothing else. Nobody, none of his neighbors were worried about him. They opposed for the greater part.

Kuwait was very much in favor of removing Saddam. As far as the PNAC goes, you're right. For those of us who actually read it, it clearly laid out what the dangers in the ME are/were, how they affected the national security of the US and what should be done about it. It did not say "we must wage war on Iraq" but it clearly said that Saddam would probably have to go, possibly by force. It is nothing more than a plan for dealing with a situation, no different than one you might write to fix welfare, the budget or a host of other problems the goverment might have to deal with.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here is a US biased assessment of those in favor of the US war. Note not a single Arab country participating.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Here is a US biased assessment of those in favor of the US war. Note not a single Arab country participating.

How about supplying the whole quote, moon:

No Arab countries - even Kuwait and Qatar, both staging areas for U.S. troops massing for an invasion of Iraq - are on the State Department's list of coalition forces. "A lot who live in the neighborhood do not want to be identified as Saddam's opponents until they're sure that he's gone," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said last week.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps, Dave, you are right. I vowed to myself that I'd read all 96 pages, if memory serves me, but so far I've lacked the ass strength to sit in a computer chair long enough to accomplish my aim. I notice that many who have read it were quite alarmed by what they saw, not that that proves much. I hope you're right, but one of my favorite plans to deal with welfare was to kill the poor solving the problem at root. It isn't really adequate to say that something is a proposed fix, especially one that is being put into effect, merely by claiming it's only a proposed fix. The plan itself is what needs looking at. My criticism that preemptive war is not a part of American tradition and wrong, remains unchanged.

 

[UltraQuiet]

My criticism that preemptive war is not a part of American tradition and wrong, remains unchanged.

OK but would you have been more or less in favor if we had a security council mandate. It wouldn't have been any less preemptive.


As to the killing of the poor thing. Will the goverment buy my ammo or do I have to supply my own?

 

[Moonbeam]

Now why did you have to go and quote that, conjur. That wasn't fair. I didn't want you to read the whole sentence, just this part:

"No Arab countries - even Kuwait and Qatar, both staging areas for U.S. troops massing for an invasion of Iraq - are on the State Department's list of coalition forces."

Clearly you are too cleaver for me.

But I keep wondering why I mentioned that it was a US biased link. I wonder if it was because of the presence of the Wolfowitz spin.

I always like it when you give somebody an inch and they think they got a mile. Ahahahahaha!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Clearly you are too cleaver for me.

Well...what can I say?

 

[Moonbeam]

DaveSohmer:

OK but would you have been more or less in favor if we had a security council mandate. It wouldn't have been any less preemptive.


As to the killing of the poor thing. Will the government buy my ammo or do I have to supply my own?
----------------------------
Perhaps it would have been no less preemptive in one respect, but in that case I think preemptive no longer applies. Had the UN voted to use force against Iraq, it would have been a world view, the opinion of the people of earth and would have carried an entirely different kind of force. There would be no question of one nation acting imperialistically. It would have the force of the decent opinion of the peoples of the world. I would have welcomed that opinion for the same reason there are still things of potential salvage as it if fact did play out. We face the challenge now of making imperialism look like something else, or the appearance of imperialism look like something else. That will be a completely different and unnecessary task. The question is, why did we go ahead with a war that the world did not want. It could not be more obvious that our motives were fraudulent, no?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DaveSohmer:

OK but would you have been more or less in favor if we had a security council mandate. It wouldn't have been any less preemptive.


As to the killing of the poor thing. Will the government buy my ammo or do I have to supply my own?
----------------------------
Perhaps it would have been no less preemptive in one respect, but in that case I think preemptive no longer applies. Had the UN voted to use force against Iraq, it would have been a world view, the opinion of the people of earth and would have carried an entirely different kind of force. There would be no question of one nation acting imperialistically. It would have the force of the decent opinion of the peoples of the world. I would have welcomed that opinion for the same reason there are still things of potential salvage as it if fact did play out. We face the challenge now of making imperialism look like something else, or the appearance of imperialism look like something else. That will be a completely different and unnecessary task. The question is, why did we go ahead with a war that the world did not want. It could not be more obvious that our motives were fraudulent, no?

So being preemptive is OK as long as it's popular?

It could not be more obvious that our motives were fraudulent, no

No. I still contend that the reason this was done was because those in charge see a real threat to the US. That may be myopic, misguided and ignorant but not fradulent.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well...what can I say?
------------------

Well not too much, I hope, if you understood the sarcasm.

The effect of having my freebee link thrown back in my face was something I won't recover from easily, you know.


This one should make you happy too.

 

[Moonbeam]

DaveSohmer:

So being preemptive is OK as long as it's popular?


Moonbeam Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It could not be more obvious that our motives were fraudulent, no
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No. I still contend that the reason this was done was because those in charge see a real threat to the US. That may be myopic, misguided and ignorant but not fradulent.
----------
-------------
I don't see it so much as a matter of popularity, but of ultimate authority and universal justice as is supposed to be implied by the highest court in the land. There is a certain finality and authority that goes with world opinion in my own opinion. Naturally a judgment from the Federated Planets would be even better. The benefit is that a mistake isn't going to draw the fingers of the world pointing solely at you. The blame and the glory are on the shoulders of all.

I fail to see, at this point, any threat from Iraq. We went to disarm them of WMD because they might use them on us and yet, even after we attacked them and overthrew their leadership, a rather sever thing to do and one one would think they would take rather personally, they did not use any such weapons, as yet, as I mentioned, against us. Where's the threat? Fabricated, I think. None of the neighbors were living in terror. Israel didn't feel threatened or act to preemptively defend itself. No, the evidence clearly points to fraud in my opinion. Threat was just the second to last in a series of excuses that were floated and failed to excite. It walks like fraud and quacks like it to me.

I will, however consider "myopic, misguided and ignorant" as a backup rational.

 

[Corn]

So being preemptive is OK as long as it's popular?

That all depends upon what the definition of "is" is.........

 

[Moonbeam]

Corn is saying that if you have an IQ and can see nuance and subtlety and try to argue with the dense they will ridicule you with platitudes, I guess.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Perhaps it would have been no less preemptive in one respect, but in that case I think preemptive no longer applies. Had the UN voted to use force against Iraq, it would have been a world view, the opinion of the people of earth and would have carried an entirely different kind of force. There would be no question of one nation acting imperialistically. It would have the force of the decent opinion of the peoples of the world. I would have welcomed that opinion for the same reason there are still things of potential salvage as it if fact did play out. We face the challenge now of making imperialism look like something else, or the appearance of imperialism look like something else. That will be a completely different and unnecessary task. The question is, why did we go ahead with a war that the world did not want. It could not be more obvious that our motives were fraudulent, no?

So, the UN can't be wrong or self-interested, only the US can be wrong and self-interested? What happens here to the will of the Iraqi people? Suddenly because the UN takes an interest, the wishes of the Iraqi people no longer matter? This seemed to be one of the major complaints by you Moonbeam, that the US has no right to decide what may be in the benefit of its own interests and the interests of Iraqi people. But its okay with you that with UN blessings, suddenly other people can in fact decide the interests of the Iraqis.

Regardless of how the "world" felt, there would have been disagreement from some nations as to the validity of war. What makes the opinion of the dissenting countries any less valuable or less right than the "world" opinion? The US felt the UN was wrong and chose to pursue its interests, just as those in the UN chose to pursue their interests.

And where is the fraud? It seems to me that the administration was well justified in its desire to bring closure to an ongoing open wound in the Middle East; especially one where a brutal dictator lost a war, was allowed to remain in power due to your highly desirable "world" opinion, and then flaunted its breaking of commitments for 12 years, all while carrying on the systematic oppression of his people. The US undoubtably had an interest in the goings on in Iraq since it was the major force to overcome them in the previous war. These interests were being neglected and the Iraq situation allowed to fester and stagnate by "world" opinion, that benificent group at the UN without a sole competing interest.

I for one was disappointed when "world" opinion held back the forces in '91 and again disappointed by "world" opinion for the last 12 years in regards to Iraq, most especially the ultimate avoidance of responsibility by the UN during the past several months.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice post jjones, and actual argument and appeal to logic. I make on pretence that world opinion is better than individual opinion, only that it carries an authority that defeats refutation. You can't get better consensus than world consensus. The problem I have with our behavior is that we, Bush and his cowboy antics, poisoned the well of international good will and caused our defeat in the UN. I believe also that there was no real need to go to war in Iraq and that contributed to our inability to sell our case. Had we gone to the UN and presented a case that Iraq was killing it's own people under Saddam and that he needed to be removed I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I think we were never honest in our motivations and it bit us in the ass. I share you sense of disappointment. Mine is just much more broad spectrumed I guess.