I want to marry Barbara Boxer!

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-01-20 07:36am

I want someone. ANYone, To tell me why in the hell this war in Iraq is goddamned justified. I saw and still see absolutely no reason we should be in Iraq in the first place. Let me run down the argument I've heard for going to war so far.

1. SADDAM HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE'LL USE EM!!!!!!! AGAINST THE US! OH NOES!1!111oneoneone

A) before the war people said there were no WMDs, during the "Major combat operations" No one found WMDs, now we for SURE know there are no WMDs (After it was crammed down the administrations throat by 2 experts, tons of inspectors, and 150,000 american troops, no less.)

2. SADDAM IS A THREAT TO HIS NEIGHBORS!!11!1oneoneone.

B) North Korea is a threat to it's neighbors, too. Am I saying we should invade NK? No. Because that would be stupid.

3. SADDAM IS A GATHERING THREAT!!1!!1oneoneone

C) [commandant Lassard]Maaaaany many, many very very fine[/commandant Lassard] middle eastern countries can be painted as a gathering threat. Why not just invade the entire region? Because that would be stupid.

4. SADDAM PERSECUTES HIS OWN PEOPLESssEs, PRECIOUS!!1!1oneoneonelol

D) Mugabe, KJI...etc, etc, etc. Why not just invade all countries whose leaders oppress the masses? Oh, wait, that would be stupid AND a needless waste of lives.

5. SADDAM IS JUST A BAD MAN! THE WORLD IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT HIM!

E) The same could be said for a couple western leaders I know of. Again, the world is full of bad people. Are we going to chase all bad people in high places into spider holes, arrest them, put them on trial, and God knows what else after that?

6. WE NEEDED TO FREE THE IRAQI PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY!!11 DEMOCRACY MUST PREVAIL!

F) Must it? I know a couple countries chugging along just fine and dandy without a democracy, Spank you very much. China, anyone?

7. IRAQ IS SMALL! IT'S ARMY IMPOTENT! WE CAN KICK THEIR ASSES AND WE SHOULD! Because we can.

G) Was that so hard? Doesn't being honest feel good? Now, go to jail. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 3 trillion dollars in buget deficit.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-01-20 07:52am

Elfdart wrote:Actually, it was Ruth Coniff in 1996.

well then Michael Moore ripped her off

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-20 08:22am

Not really, Clinton was a DLCer (i.e. Republican Lite) since the early 1980s. Calling him a "Republican" was an old joke at least a decade before Coniff said it.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-01-20 08:36am

Elfdart wrote:Not really, Clinton was a DLCer (i.e. Republican Lite) since the early 1980s. Calling him a "Republican" was an old joke at least a decade before Coniff said it.

No, DLC means Democrat with grasp of reality.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2005-01-20 08:58am

Chardok wrote:I want someone. ANYone, To tell me why in the hell this war in Iraq is goddamned justified.

That is an important question. However, the question at this hearing was "Is Condoleezza Rice fit to be Secretary of State?" So while your question deserves to be answered, I felt it was inappropriate for the Senators to grill Dr. Rice on matters of policy decided by the President. They should have focused more on her diplomatic skill (or lack thereof--from what I hear she's not at her best when interacting with bigwigs) and her understanding of global politics.

Maybe they talked more about that when I wasn't listening. I only listened to about 2 hours of the hearings, which (I think) lasted over 10 hours altogether.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-20 09:01am

Jew wrote:I felt it was inappropriate for the Senators to grill Dr. Rice on matters of policy decided by the President. They should have focused more on her diplomatic skill (or lack thereof--from what I hear she's not at her best when interacting with bigwigs) and her understanding of global politics.

Think of it as a practical exam, if you cant justify what you're getting up to to the rest of your government, what the hell do you think the government next door is going to say?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-01-20 09:41am

Jew wrote:<snippage>

Right, I understand that, but it IS a question that deserves to be answered, she pimped this war as much as anyone. More specifically, I was indirectly addressing coyote's stance of right war, wrong leadership. Whereby I see his point, I really do understand where he is coming from.
BUT, using the same logic the case can be made for invading North Korea, etc.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2005-01-20 10:23am

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Jew wrote:I felt it was inappropriate for the Senators to grill Dr. Rice on matters of policy decided by the President. They should have focused more on her diplomatic skill (or lack thereof--from what I hear she's not at her best when interacting with bigwigs) and her understanding of global politics.
Think of it as a practical exam, if you cant justify what you're getting up to to the rest of your government, what the hell do you think the government next door is going to say?

That's a good point. Ability to clearly communicate the intentions and policies of the US is a prerequisite for the job. In fact I think Dr. Rice did quite well--she said a lot of words without actually committing to anything. A remarkable politician.

I still think she would a better Secretary of Defense than Secretary of State. That's because Secretaries of State spend so much time dealing with heads of state and politicians, which is apparently Dr. Rice's least favorite part of her current job as National Security Adviser. The rumors I heard were that she would turn down the chance to be Secretary of State, but clearly those rumors were false. My hunch is that she wants to elected President in 2008. Secretary of State is a good platform to launch a Presidential bid.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-01-20 10:59am

Jew wrote: My hunch is that she wants to elected President in 2008. Secretary of State is a good platform to launch a Presidential bid.

Queue the infinite improbability Drive, cause that's the only way that will happen. Quote me. Hide and watch.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-01-20 11:03am

for the love of god Chardok, please don't use pimp as a verb.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-01-20 11:43am

Elfdart wrote:
Glocksman wrote:Of course this is Barbara Boxer we're talking about here. She's not exactly the brightest bulb in the Senate.
She was bright enough to bust "Dr" Kindasleazy Rice.

Why the quotes?
Do you think she fraudulently obtained her doctorate?

Anyway, it doesn't take much to grill someone over all of the fuckups made both before and during the war. If Boxer can do it, Boxey from Battlestar Galatica could do it.

Even some of the Republicans were asking her tough questions that she just danced around.

And like I asked, where's Boxer's admission that she was misled into voting for the war?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-01-20 12:16pm

Glocksman wrote:And like I asked, where's Boxer's admission that she was misled into voting for the war?

Why on earth does boxer need to do that?! it was the administration represented by Condoleeza Rice that misled her!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-01-20 12:37pm

Chardok wrote:
Glocksman wrote:And like I asked, where's Boxer's admission that she was misled into voting for the war?
Why on earth does boxer need to do that?! it was the administration represented by Condoleeza Rice that misled her!

Actually she doesn't for the simple reason that she voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

My error as I apparently mixed her up with Feinstein, who did vote for the resolution.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-01-20 03:21pm

Elfdart wrote:She was bright enough to bust "Dr" Kindasleazy Rice.

Right, more SOP from elfdart, incredible brazen accusations which have
no basis in reality.

Linka

Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C.

I'd say she qualifie as a Doctor, Elfpenis.

Post by **Coyote** » 2005-01-20 03:44pm

Chardok wrote:
Jew wrote:<snippage>
Right, I understand that, but it IS a question that deserves to be answered, she pimped this war as much as anyone. More specifically, I was indirectly addressing coyote's stance of right war, wrong leadership. Whereby I see his point, I really do understand where he is coming from.
BUT, using the same logic the case can be made for invading North Korea, etc.

It's true that this sets a dangerous precedent-- hell, why not free Tibet and take on China? Or, why not, you know, lead a great crusade to liberate the Cherokee? Oh, wait...nevermind.

Anyhow, I think if we took all the pre-war rhetoric about Iraq and applied it to North Korea, we'd have a more tightly wrapped case. We might have been able to do the same with Iran. But we chose Iraq instead, and I think the answer to 'whither Iraq' is important.

Start with: "was a second front necessary/wise?" and if the answer to that was 'yes', then we have to ask if Iraq as a second front was the best choice.

I've outlined in other threads how I felt about this, that it distracts the Jihadis from Afghanistan (where a fight would be harder for US troops that rely on mechanization); that the Iraq war was a 12-year-long bleed that needed to be wrapped up before moving on to other things; that it was strategically wise to secure a source of oil before moving on to another target; etc...

North Korea would not draw sympathetic Jihadis to its defense, leaving them to go to Afghanistan. Fighting Jihadis in Iran would be like fighting them in Afghanistan, with a troublesome Iraq on one border and a troublesome Afghanistan on th eother.

But in more of a "big picture" frame, the whole Middle East is going in for a shaking up, and it has to start somewhere, and Iraq is a good choice for many reasons. As long as American power stayed over the horizons it was easy to ignore, taunt or attack. Now a large, battle-trained American army is right in the neighborhood and any false move from fanatical Arab countries may bring serious consequences.

The Iraq war is one facet of an overall strategic direction that the US Administration is choosing. The idea that the US intends to remake the Middle East, starting with Afghanistan and following up immediately with Iraq, gives us the question that should be asked.

Is it a good idea to remake the Middle East?
What will be our goal/how will we know when we're done?
Are there any alternatives to dealing with the region that are better?
Now that we're there, what can be done to improve our position?
What can be done to turn the people against the Jihadi movement?
How can we communicate our intents to the locals better-- and get more people on our side in the region, or ta least sympathetic?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-01-20 04:41pm

Coyote wrote:<snippage>

Good points, all, to be sure. But I wonder what is more dangerous, a country for SURE armed with nuclear weapons and clear intent to disseminate them, or jihadis with car bombs? My vote goes to the nuclear armed commie haven. Cold war mentality? Yeah, It is. But, mile-wide mushroom clouds scare me alot more than a half a block's worth of broken windows. I would say, Perhaps....Right war, Wrong leadership, wrong time. I just think our priorities are out of whack.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-20 04:48pm

You can't use a big stick against NK, no matter how bad they are. They have the nuclear option.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-20 04:54pm

Even if the NKs didn't have the nuclear option, a military solution that doesn't leave Seoul a smoking wreck is rather problematic.

Post by **Coyote** » 2005-01-20 05:33pm

And there's all another problem-- in the North Korea scenario, we have neighbors that we care about. In the long run, if the Iraq situation spilled over into worst-possible-case, the people who suffer are Iran, Syria, and other Arab sources of funsamentalism.

Negative repercussions against Jordan and Turkey would be unfortunate, but coldly written off as realpolitik of war. Israel would be strong enough to withstand pretty much anything.

And at this point I don't think we really give a rat's ass about the Saudis.

In Korea, the South Koreans, Chinese and Japanese are insisting on being a part of any settlement or options, and it is their right and in our best interest to court them.

Also notice that a very loud war in Iraq draws African Jihadis away from "the quiet front" in Northern Africa, which is making headway stabilizing the region. In a way, I really do understand why N. Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan really are not three seperate fronts but one big socio-political front with three seperate hotspots. Because we're fighting an ideological viewpoint that ignores borders-- where the triggermen are is simply a matter of details.

It sounds cynical to dismiss it that way (it is certainly not a matter of "details" to the people in the thick of it) but the overall objective is tio beat this ideology out and then there won't be any more triggermen to worry about anywhere. Again-- that's the theory, anyway.

Yeah, Chardok, the timing is questionable but something had to distract the terrorists from Afghanistan soon. The psychological importance of winning Afghanistan is important-- it is the one place that has not been subjugated by an outside power in generations, resisting the British and Soviets recently. It was ther Jihadi's undisputed training and playground, and they have been largely driven out on soil that was 100% theirs.

Even if they have not been "totally" driven out, the public perception is that they have lost the initiative and a lot of the control in that area. Unthinkable!

Car bombs may not be as dangerous as nukes, but terrorists are still the most obvious, immediate real fear-- nukes are scary but remain in the abstract. And the nuclear saber is the only one N Korea has that they can really rattle seriously-- they've spewed rhetoric so much now that no one believes them, really-- and if they play their nuke card, then no one will question US retaliation.

A smart Administration would absorb a North Korean nuclear attack and counterstrike with an obscenely overwhelming conventional attack.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-20 05:36pm

If Dr. Rice is so smart and Boxer so dumb, why did Boxer thrash her so? Surely a Dr. should be able to hold her own against such a "lightweight", shouldn't she? Kindasleazy Rice was busted cold, that's why she got all indignant with the "How dare you!" song and dance. If she had any facts to back up her bullshit, she wouldn't have looked so dishonest and stupid. By the way, I find it amusing that Rice would get so defensive about her credibility. She doesn't have any.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-20 05:42pm

Elfdart wrote:If Dr. Rice is so smart and Boxer so dumb, why did Boxer thrash her so? Surely a Dr. should be able to hold her own against such a "lightweight", shouldn't she? Kindasleazy Rice was busted cold, that's why she got all indignant with the "How dare you!" song and dance. If she had any facts to back up her bullshit, she wouldn't have looked so dishonest and stupid. By the way, I find it amusing that Rice would get so defensive about her credibility. She doesn't have any.

Alright, Elfie, I've had just about enough of these retarded, elitist views of yours. A doctor is not necessarily any smarter than the next member of the population, although their degree does show that they have been much better educated than an average American.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-20 06:18pm

Chardok wrote:
Jew wrote:<snippage>
Right, I understand that, but it IS a question that deserves to be answered, she pimped this war as much as anyone. More specifically, I was indirectly addressing coyote's stance of right war, wrong leadership. Whereby I see his point, I really do understand where he is coming from.
BUT, using the same logic the case can be made for invading North Korea, etc.

I'm right there along side you with, not liking how Bush did this thing. And on the timing? I'm with you as well. It should have been taken care off sometime in the last decade.

If for anyting, we've been dicking with that asshole for a over a decade. At the point where Bush came in, we could have just dropped everything, continued with the bull shit sanctions and the no-fly zones, or whooped his ass once and for all, like we should have done in 91.

Bush has mangled the situation, but the thought in the begining of just wrapping up this cum stain of an affair that has drugged out for over 10 years was a good one.