What should we ask of Bush II.2?

When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it?

See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject

Debate - Page 12/12

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Ah, so covering starving Somalians is "lurid" whereas covering US Marines in Iraq is "heroic". Actually, now I´m starting to understand why the Bush administration is so uncooperative about Darfour: starving people killed and raped by mercenaries aren´t "heroic" enough".
|
Yes, covering US Marines in Iraq IS Heroic. As for the starving Somalians, they've been starving to death for years because of their incessant civil wars. It's none of our business. Feel free to send your own country's troops to fight and die in Somalia for nothing so that you can claim you're "being noble".
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "No, wait! Could it be because Darfour doesn´t have anything the US want (like natural resources, for example)?"
|
Ah, yes, I see your supposed ill-"logic" -- apparently, according to you we're "not supposed" and "not allowed" to fight for our national interests, but we're somehow "morally obligated" to militarily intervene in situations where we have absolutely no national interests at stake at all. Is that it? We're "only allowed to" engage in military action if there's "nothing in it for the United States"? Is that your claim? Tell me, Michel, exactly when and how did you somehow get the U.S. military confused with the TV show "Sesame Street"? "Altruism" doesn't qualify as a foreign policy, Michel. The purpose of the military is to fight wars and to protect and defend U.S. national interests.
|
Your hypocrisy is also showing rather nicely. I notice that France has no hesitation about sending its military to the South Pacific to protect and defend what it perceives as its own national interests.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "And how is that different from Iraqis murdering US soldiers? "
|
It's different in a myriad of ways which you prefer not to see or understand, Michel. The clear majority of the Iraqi people clearly support our being there. They clearly recognize and appreciate being Liberated from Sadly Insane Hussein, even though you choose not to see it. The people murdering US soldiers are mostly embittered Sunnis who've been kicked off the gravy train now that their murderous buddy Saddam no longer rules.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "So much for "humanitarian" reasons (you know, that bit about Bush starting the war in Iraq only to liberate Iraq from oppression etc. etc.)..... You´re making my point about Bush´s foreign policy much better than I ever could. Bush, the great humanitarian indeed."
|
You're making my point about the imbecility of foreigners in presuming to "decide" what "cause" is "worth" expending the lives of US soldiers. It's not "your" decision to make. I'm quite willing to allow U.S. troops to fight to overthrow a ruthless dictator, but we shouldn't shed one drop of U.S. blood for a bunch of ragtag Somali trash who should have been left to die. National interests are worth fighting for. So-called "humanitarian" causes are not worth one single U.S. life. As for "humanitarian" reasons, nobody claimed that we initially Liberated Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but if that's how it turned out, so long as U.S. interests are preserved, fine and dandy.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "I´m pretty sure the common Somali didn´t have a lot of choice in the matter, since it´s pretty difficult to not support a warlord if he´ll kill you or let you starve otherwise."
|
And I am pretty sure the common Iraqi didn't have a lot of choice in the matter, since it's pretty difficult to not support a Tyrant if he'll kill you or let you starve otherwise. Saddam Hussein wasn't "elected". He wasn't the "choice" of the Iraqi people. They never had a "choice" in the matter. Now they do -- and the entire reason that they do is because we Liberated them and their country.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "And I ask again: how is the situation there different from Iraq where Iraqis have killed many more american soldiers than in Somalia?"
|
Was Somalia under U.N. sanction for 12+ years for trying to buy, build or steal weapons of mass destruction, Michel? Did Somalia launch unprovoked wars of aggression against its neighbors to satisfy a megalomaniac's dreams of conquest, Michel? Did Somalia send thousands of troops to illegally conquer a small, helpless, defenseless neighbor country and then try to claim that it was "only retaking that which rightfully belonged to it before the 'Crusaders' redrew the boundary lines"? Did Somalia unleash chemical weapons on its own people, Michel?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "How exactly was Saddam Hussein "directly" threatening US interests?"
|
You have got to be kidding. Saddam had previously invaded two countries whose governments were and are U.S. allies (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and launched unprovoked Scud missile attacks that killed civilians in another country that is a U.S. ally (Israel). He gave millions of dollars -- money from Western countries -- to fund terrorist attacks against another Western-oriented country, Israel. He sought to dominate and control the Middle East oil supply, something that would surely have had horrendous consequences for U.S. national interests, not to mention the U.S. economy. And lastly, Saddam Hussein was in material breach of U.N. resolutions that required him to give a full and complete accounting of Iraq's clandestine WMD programs.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "You´re pretty quick to judge people, especially when they don´t conform to what you perceive as 'US national interest'."
|
I am quick to recognize and understand that a nightmarish, basketcase Somalian "nation" ruled at gunpoint by warlords and militias was not worth one drop of American blood spent trying to "fix" Somalia. Somalia was not "fixable" and was not worth expending even one single U.S.life to try to "fix". Apparently France agreed at the time, since the French government declined to send any of "their own" troops or risk any French lives on behalf of Somalia. Incidentally, I haven't noticed the French government sending any troops or foreign aid to the Indonesian victims of the tsunami six months ago. Why is that, Michel?
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "In essence, people that don´t dance to Bush´s tune and don´t worship the US can literally die for all you care."
|
In essence, people who are busily engaged in killing themselves and each other in a "Clockwork Orange"-type warlord country are somehow "entitled" to U.S.assistance, even at the cost of young American lives, for all you care. Incidentally, Michel, Bush wasn't the President of the U.S. when those U.S. troops died for nothing in Somalia -- Clinton was. And also incidentally, Michel, if you want America's assistance, you should be willing to accept America's conditions that go with that assistance. If you want to "get", then you need to "give". If you have a problem with that, I suggest that you go ask the French government for assistance.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "There are words for that kind of attitude: selfishness, righteousness, egocentrism and shortsightedness."
|
There are words for your kind of attitude: arrogant, conceited, sanctimonious, presumptuous, egotistical. Typically French, in other words.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "The trouble with you and the Bush administration is that, while you love to preach the Bible at all hours of the day, you have absolutely no idea of basic christian values, otherwise you wouldn´t be posting such provocative nonsense."
|
Part of the trouble with you, dear Michel, is that you arrogantly presume to "know" what the "trouble" is with me, with my government, with the Iraqi people (the ones who seem to annoy you by actually openly wanting democracy) and with the rest of the world.
|
The real trouble with you, though, Michel, is that you just can't resist your inner urge to try to put false words in my mouth and create fantasy "straw man" arguments which I never said in the first place, so that you can then turn around and try to make yourself look good by demolishing those fantasy arguments of your own invention.
|
Now, Michel, would you be good enough to please show me and the board where I ever "preached the Bible", at any hour of the day, much less "at all hours of the day"? Show me the post, please.
|
Also, Michel, would you be good enough to please show me where I ever claimed any "extensive knowledge" of "basic Christian values"? Or, for that matter, where I ever even claimed to be "Christian"? Take your time, Michel... I'll wait very patiently.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "If anybody has to get on his knees to beg for forgiveness, it´s Bush, to the american people, the europeans and indeed the complete international community."
|
In your fondest, wettest dreams, perhaps.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian: I am sure you will find reasons to disparage the testimony mentioned below. Nonetheless, the correctional facility at Guantanamo Bay is serving its purpose: obtaining useful information from captured Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists.
|
U.S. SAID TO GET GITMO INFO ON AL-QAIDA
|
WASHINGTON -- Some terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who have been silent for several years are now providing information about al-Qaida, a U.S. general said Wednesday.
|
"In some cases, detainees under our control for as long as two years, who had resisted talking to us and refused to communicate any relevant information, have over the last six months elected to begin to talk with us about where they were and what their activities were," Brig. Gen. Jay Hood told the House Armed Services Committee.
|
He is commander of the joint task force overseeing operations at Guantanamo.
|
The Pentagon often say that useful information in the fight against terrorism continues to be gleaned from the 520 detainees held at the prison on the U.S. military base even though most of those held have not been on the battlefield in several years.
|
Hood said information from detainees at Guantanamo has helped the U.S. locate and identify terrorist networks as well as understand how terror cells communicate, finance and train recruits.

alfredo bremont, FRANCE

this Iraqi adventure is rather odd, do the bearded tali-bans were ever to fly over the ocean reach NYC and place a hand made bomb. or the same for the falujans or anyone from Kabul. terrorism is quite a misconception today and it looks more as if it is a way to promote war, and impose democracy, the problem here is that it is total chaos all over the place and the terrorist that never were there are now ready to act. moreover the USA had friends now it has the entirety of the planet cooperating with the terrorist which have become anti imperialist fighter's. the up-wards internal pressure the American nation has now days and add it to the down-wards pressure and you got a disintegrated empire on the making.
Al-Queda does not need to destroy America, the same Americans are doing it themselves, reason why terrorist do not exist. Americans are committing suicide, what it is the use of terrorism-when a nation is doing its best to disappear.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Yes, covering US Marines in Iraq IS Heroic.
Sure is. Especially when the reporter doing the covering has to watch out not to get shot by the "friendly population" alongside with the Marines.
> As for the starving Somalians, they've been starving to death for years because of their incessant civil wars. It's none of our business. Feel free to send your own country's troops to fight and die in Somalia for nothing so that you can claim you're "being noble".
So if Somalia is none of your business, why is Iraq? Oh, wait, yes, I forgot: american national interest, of course.
> Ah, yes, I see your supposed ill-"logic" -- apparently, according to you we're "not supposed" and "not allowed" to fight for our national interests, but we're somehow "morally obligated" to militarily intervene in situations where we have absolutely no national interests at stake at all. Is that it? We're "only allowed to" engage in military action if there's "nothing in it for the United States"? Is that your claim? Tell me, Michel, exactly when and how did you somehow get the U.S. military confused with the TV show "Sesame Street"?
Don´t know, you tell me. Maybe because some of the american political leadership tends to act like "Sesame Street"?
> "Altruism" doesn't qualify as a foreign policy, Michel. The purpose of the military is to fight wars and to protect and defend U.S. national interests.
Yup, I got that bit alright. Any US national interest. Even if there´s just the slightest possibility of american interest being involved, and regardless the cost to anybody including the US.
>Your hypocrisy is also showing rather nicely. I notice that France has no hesitation about sending its military to the South Pacific to protect and defend what it perceives as its own national interests.
South Pacific? You mean french sovereign territory like New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna or Tahiti? We´re not allowed to have an army there (well, "army" is saying a bit much; actually it´s more like a few ships, a few transport planes and helos and a bigger detachment of gendarmes)? Hmm, perhaps we should talk about US military presence on Hawaii then ;-).
> It's different in a myriad of ways which you prefer not to see or understand, Michel. The clear majority of the Iraqi people clearly support our being there. They clearly recognize and appreciate being Liberated from Sadly Insane Hussein, even though you choose not to see it. The people murdering US soldiers are mostly embittered Sunnis who've been kicked off the gravy train > now that their murderous buddy Saddam no longer rules.
Right. I forgot. Everything´s fine in Iraq. Carry on.
> You're making my point about the imbecility of foreigners in presuming to "decide" what "cause" is "worth" expending the lives of US soldiers. It's not "your" decision to make. I'm quite willing to allow U.S. troops to fight to overthrow a ruthless dictator, but we shouldn't shed one drop of U.S. blood for a bunch of ragtag Somali trash who should have been left to die. National interests are worth fighting for. So-called "humanitarian" causes are not worth one single U.S. life. As for "humanitarian" reasons, nobody claimed that we initially Liberated Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but if that's how it turned out, so long as U.S. interests are preserved, fine and dandy.
Wow, you´re a downright cynic, aren´t you? Nobody presumed to tell the US to invade anybody. Just don´t put on this act of being the "great liberator", "beacon of democracy, humanity and freedom" etc. etc. You´re not doing it for humanity, you´re doing it out of self-interest. You said it yourself.
> And I am pretty sure the common Iraqi didn't have a lot of choice in the matter, since it's pretty difficult to not support a Tyrant if he'll kill you or let you starve otherwise. Saddam Hussein wasn't "elected". He wasn't the "choice" of the Iraqi people. They never had a "choice" in the matter. Now they do -- and the entire reason that they do is because we Liberated them and their country.
Oh, here we go again, the same old discussion as before. We´re turning round in circles here, Phil.
> Was Somalia under U.N. sanction for 12+ years for trying to buy, build or steal weapons of mass destruction, Michel? Did Somalia launch unprovoked wars of aggression against its neighbors to satisfy a megalomaniac's dreams of conquest, Michel? Did Somalia send thousands of troops to illegally conquer a small, helpless, defenseless neighbor country and then try to claim that it was "only retaking that which rightfully belonged to it before the 'Crusaders' redrew the boundary lines"? Did Somalia unleash chemical weapons on its own people, Michel?
No. So what´s your point?
> Apparently France agreed at the time, since the French government declined to send any of "their own" troops or risk any French lives on behalf of Somalia.
They didn´t decline. They just weren´t asked. Actually, the french had a half-brigade of the foreign legion in Djibouti at the time, so it wouldn´t have been a problem to send them in. But the americans insisted on moving in Delta Force and Ranger Teams before that.
> Incidentally, I haven't noticed the French government sending any troops or foreign aid to the Indonesian victims of the tsunami six months ago. Why is that, Michel?
Perhaps because you didn´t look closely enough? 68 Mill EUR mobilized by the french government for Tsunami relief, and that was just what the government did in the first weeks. Add to that another twenty million by diverse french cities and other communal organisms and you get an amount of nearly 80 million EUR in aid relief by the french state alone. All that is not counting public donations which were huge as well, and of course it´s all in excess of EU payments, of which France payed a large part too. Also, we did send troops there: operation Beryx had a helo carrier (Jeanne d´Arc with eleven transport helos) and two frigates (Georges Leygues and Dupleix) down there helping with aerial transports, medical emergencies, setting up hospitals etc.
> Also, Michel, would you be good enough to please show >me where I ever claimed any "extensive knowledge" of >"basic Christian values"? Or, for that matter, where I ever even claimed to be "Christian"? Take your time, Michel... I'll wait very patiently.
Sure, if you insist: I admit you didn´t claim, and indeed didn´t display, extensive knowledge of basic christian values :-).

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> To Michel Bastian: I am sure you will find reasons to disparage the testimony mentioned below. Nonetheless, the correctional facility at Guantanamo Bay is serving its purpose: obtaining useful information from captured Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists.
Actually, it´s pretty easy to disparage this article: the information is two years old, Phil. You can´t be serious. And of course, all this still doesn´t resolve the moral quagmire the US military is in in Guantanamo.

Shane Borgess, USA

I took a moment to peruse the boards here in the hope of finding a cogent discussion on Iraq. It's a complex issue, and foreign policy is a chess match that many times have consequences years after a decision is made. Sadly, there is more political passion than thought on display here, and any time I hear Noam Chomsky brought up as a source, I know I've hit rock bottom.
There are reasonable arguments for and against the actions America has taken in it's War On Terror. Anyone who posted screeds regurgitating the leftist mantras like Bush - is - Hitler, it's all about oil, it's all about the Jews, it's the military industrial complex, it's America's thirst for blood, it's all about revenge - you waste your time and mine for the space you take up. Please turn off your computer and seek counseling, your hatred coupled with willful ignorance is a dangerous mix.
America's response to 9/11 is a reflection of our history and the values we hold dear. It would have been a natural human reaction after watching people burned alive or jumping out of burning buildings to demand bloody vengence on those even remotely responsible for the murder of near 3000 Americans, but while we wept and clenched our fist, there were no muslims pulled into the streets and beaten, no midnight jet fighters strafing middle eastern countries, no threats. It took us months to engage the Taliban in Afganistan, and over a year after 9/11 to land on the shores of Iraq. These weren't the actions of a fevered government - we thought before we fought, and it's no fault of ours if our allies in Europe abandoned us. Our societies just view terror and how to face it differently.
Early on in this discussion I read one post that tried to explain why Europe was so reticent about engaging Saddam Hussein, or terrorism in general. He said that Europe has seen war, it is ugly and deadly and seems senseless, there must be a better way to resolve our differences. Remnants of the destruction still litter his country, it reminds him that war is costly and the scars may never heal. It was a moving plea. America can see the same destruction and think very differently, and here is why.
For much of America's history we were alone, we revolted to be free from the paternalism of the mother country, fought, bribed and bought our way over rough terrain and indian civilizations to stretch the American constitution from the east coast to the West coast. The small wars that dotted the next century were squabbles over land and pride, most Americans were content to live peacefully and by themselves. Our founders reminded us of the quagmire that was Europe, and admonished us never to get involved in their affairs lest we be dragged into continuous war and political intrigue. We followed that advice for as long as we could. Our founders also taught us a healthy distrust of government power, and taught us that some rights were not granted by governments but by God, and these rights could never be taken away - we call them the bill of rights, and sum them up nicely as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see, our founders were overwhelmingly religious, and that meant a recognition that man, made in God's image, had certain inalienable rights - no man or government could take these away. No matter how seductive the argument, man cannot take from another what is granted by God. From these foundations we have matured into the most open society on Earth, taking on the challenges that come with having races and religions from all over the world coexisting in one united country.
When Europe stumbled into WWI, America resisted the invitation but soon found itself engaged in those tangled affairs. When world war broke out again in Europe, our politicians competed with each other over how isolationist they would be. ' Let Europe solve it's own problems, they created them!' we said. My grandfather once told me that he did not support saving Europe because he felt that they had lost the ability to recognize evil when it challenged them. But quickly France was over run and soon Britain teetered on the edge of collapse, and covertly we began to smuggle aid, because our leaders knew that while our citizens feared the price of war, the designs of Germany and Japan were outright slavery and genocide. Japan attacked us, Germany joined them in their declaration of war and we turned our full attention to fighting them. Together as allies we defeated them both. Russia became the new threat, but Europe curled up in her cave to lick her wounds, and England ousted the man that they had trusted their lives to for the delusion of peace. The years that followed, where communism spread it's misery and murder, Europe demured. Time and again when faced with a chance to recognize what was evil, Europe vacillated. Sure, it may have been that they never recovered from WWII - but more likely it was that for all that happened, they learned the wrong lessons from that disastrous period. Any encroachment on individual freedom is a step closer to tyranny. Europe thought that war in itself was the evil - the real lesson lay in the wake of destruction from appeasing that which should have been confronted. America can not - will not make that mistake.
I bring all this up because America did not just view 9/11 as an isolated incident, or the actions of a marginilized, radical faction of religious zealots. What defines Islamic Terrorism today is it's unabashed goal of the murder of innocents. I do not mean collateral casualties - I mean the targeting of the most defenseless among us. We have watched these terrorists for fifty years, watched them murder olympians and hijack planes, strangle hostages and blow up marketplaces, seen them relagate women to mere servants and average men to mere chattle. Whether sanctioned by religion or just the traditions of a civilization that still functions as it did in the 11th century - what the Middle East offers today is not freedom, it has no notion of individual freedom ( much less the freedom to dissent ). What it's terrorists demand today is not peace, but submission. As individuals all people deserve dignity and respect, but a culture of death has taken root in the Islamic world today, and the destruction and misery that it leaves in it's wake bodes ill for the future for all of us. Afganistan was a strike at the heart of Al Qaeda - Iraq was a strike at the heart of an idea - that jihad is the way God blesses those who kill in his name. Those that fight us there rarely Iraqi's - they are mercenaries from every neighboring country and more.
Europe insists that we can bargain with these killers. They insist that the Killers may have a point, and if America or the West in general just apologizes and desists from provacative behavior, all will calm down and peace will reign. I believe Europe is as wrong today as it was when it dismissed the threat of Nazi Germany in the 1930's. Europe can afford to be wrong, America has come to it's rescue before and probably will again, and appeasement can even be profitable if your opposition has another they can focus their ire on - but the actions we take today will shape the choices we have tomorrow. In a world becoming increasingly more dangerous, the days of withstanding an attack to live another day to bargain slip by with the ease of a nuclear scientist moving from one country to another. We must face this danger now, with unremitting force, in it's environment, all the way to victory for all the terrorists to see. To lose this battle is to sacrifice all that freedom means to us. To win is to spread that freedom to every dark corner on the middle east.
It's a heavy responsibility to be a superpower. Is it not incumbant upon us to make this world a better place if we can do so?

Mike, London

Phil Karasick wrote:
Michel Bastian wrote: "The trouble with you and the Bush administration is that, while you love to preach the Bible at all hours of the day, you have absolutely no idea of basic christian values, otherwise you wouldn´t be posting such provocative nonsense."
|
The real trouble with you, though, Michel, is that you just can't resist your inner urge to try to put false words in my mouth and create fantasy "straw man" arguments which I never said in the first place, so that you can then turn around and try to make yourself look good by demolishing those fantasy arguments of your own invention.
|
Also, Michel, would you be good enough to please show me where I ever claimed any "extensive knowledge" of "basic Christian values"? Or, for that matter, where I ever even claimed to be "Christian"? Take your time, Michel... I'll wait very patiently.
|
OK Phil: speech marks (“) should be used for quotations- I think you are confusing them with inverted commas (‘). I think Michel didn’t actually mention "extensive knowledge" of "basic Christian values", so we can disregard that part of your request as that would be putting false words in his mouth, wouldn’t it? It’s an inner urge you really ought to resist. As for the rest: I recently had a drawn out argument with you vaguely regarding Christianity on the Values page of this forum in which you stated “In my view, morality does derive from religion and from basic religious values” and you pretty much busted a vessel when I mentioned that many of the Nazis were Christians, and began to accuse me of hating Christianity etc. posting an article from a fundamentalist Christian website. So it’s pretty obvious you are a Christian. I also notice the way you have attempted to side-step the crux of Michel’s point by not mentioning the religiosity of the Bush Administration (not that I’d accuse you of creating ‘straw man’ arguments which you can turn around by ignoring the meat of an argument and instead focusing on petty details, of course).
|
You also wrote to Michel:
“There are words for your kind of attitude: arrogant, conceited, sanctimonious, presumptuous, egotistical. Typically French, in other words.”
|
I wouldn’t want to say you are displaying a complete lack of a sense of irony: a typically American trait. That would just be a racist stereotype.

Mike, London

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Alfredo Bremont in France wrote: "This Iraqi adventure is rather odd, do the bearded tali-bans were ever to fly over the ocean reach NYC and place a hand made bomb."
|
Yes, they did. That's exactly what happened on 9/11. A bunch of bearded Taliban sympathizers from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan flew over here. They shaved off their beards before they got here so that they could blend in without being detected. And then they hijacked airplanes and turned them into homemade bombs and crashed them into the World Trade Center.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian in France wrote: "Sure is. (Heroic). Especially when the reporter doing the covering has to watch out not to get shot by the "friendly population" alongside with the Marines."
|
That's part of the risk of being a combat journalist, Michel. It's part of the job. It goes with the territory. And real combat journalists understand and accept that fact. If they didn't, they'd stay home and cover the conflict from the safety of their armchairs.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "So if Somalia is none of your business, why is Iraq? Oh, wait, yes, I forgot: american national interest, of course."
|
Yes, that's exactly right. We stand up for our national interests, Michel. We fight for our national interests. We will protect and defend those national interests. And that's exactly how it should be. We were not going to and are not going to allow our national interests to be threatened by a tyrant who had ambitions to control the Persian Gulf oilfields, upon which most of the industrialized world depends for its energy needs. Nor were we or are we going to tolerate the continued rule of a tyrant who spent 12 years defying U.N. Security Council resolution, who funded terrorism, and who clearly had ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Yup, I got that bit alright. Any US national interest. Even if there´s just the slightest possibility of american interest being involved, and regardless the cost to anybody including the US."
|
Good, it's refreshing to see that you finally 'get' what the purpose of the military is. It's not a social services agency. It exists to fight wars and defend U.S. national interests. And I make utterly no apologies for that whatsoever. If people around the world have a problem with that fact, that's unfortunate but it's "their, Individual" problem. We will not sacrifice our national interests merely because someone in some far-off country "wants" us to.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Right. I forgot. Everything´s fine in Iraq. Carry on."
|
Thanks, we will do exactly that.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

text: Michel Bastian wrote: "Actually, it´s pretty easy to disparage this article: the information is two years old, Phil. You can´t be serious. And of course, all this still doesn´t resolve the moral quagmire the US military is in in Guantanamo."
|
Actually, the usefulness of Guantanamo Bay's terrorist correctional facility have not been "discredited" at all. Of course I am perfectly serious; if the information being obtained now from the Al-Qaeda inmates at Git'mo, is information that has never before been divulged by them or revealed by anyone else, then obviously it is not "two years old", it's brand-new. And it's useful. An enormous amount of priceless information has been gleaned from inmates at Git'mo on subjects such as how Al-Qaeda recruits, organizes, trains, finances and equips its cells; how al-Qaeda communicates with its members, and much more.
|
"You, individually" might see the US military as being in a "moral quagmire" in Guantanamo Bay. I, on the other hand, do not. I'm perfectly happy with what is going on at Git'mo. And I'm happier still that the inmates at Git'mo are staying exactly where they are, where they have less chance of committing further terrorist attacks.
|
Apparently, a U.S. Federal Court is in agreement with the Bush Administration as well. (See below).
|
|
FEDERAL COURT RULES AGAINST EX-BIN LADEN DRIVER.
|
PANEL BACKS ADMINISTRATION ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS FOR TERROR SUSPECTS.
|
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court put the Bush administration‚s military commissions for terrorist suspects back on track Friday, saying a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison who once was Osama bin Laden‚s driver can stand trial.
|
A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case was halted by a federal judge on grounds that commission procedures were unlawful.
|
„Congress authorized the military commission that will try Hamdan,‰ said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
|
The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaida and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges said.
|
U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled last year that Hamdan could not be tried by a military commission until a competent tribunal determined that he was not a prisoner of war.
|
„We believe the military commission is such a tribunal,‰ said the appeals court.
|
President Bush created the military commissions after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, opening a legal channel for alleged al-Qaida terrorists and their associates to be tried for war crimes.
|
Hamdan‚s lawyers said Bush violated the separation of powers in the Constitution when he established military commissions.
|
The court disagreed, saying Bush relied on Congress‚s joint resolution authorizing the use of force after the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as two congressionally enacted laws.
|
„We think it no answer to say, as Hamdan does, that this case is different because Congress did not formally declare war,‰ said the decision by appeals court judge A. Raymond Randolph.
|
Congress authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force in the war on terrorism.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "I recently had a drawn out argument with you vaguely regarding Christianity on the Values page of this forum in which you stated 'In my view, morality does derive from religion and from basic religious values', and you pretty much busted a vessel when I mentioned that many of the Nazis were Christians, and began to accuse me of hating Christianity etc."
|
I think you've already demonstrated in great detail that you do, in fact hate Christianity, Mike. I think it's pretty apparent.
|
Like many outright Marxists and admirers of Marx, you appear to have a built-in bias against, if not outright hatred of, religion in general and Christianity in particular. I think your comments amply demonstrate that.
|
I think your whole train of thought has been one long, disingenuous and rather crude attempt to "indict" Christianity as a religion and claim that Christianity was somehow "guilty of atrocities". I think you've devoted a great deal of time and words to trying to somehow "prove" that Christianity as a religion was somehow "culpable" or "guilty" of the actions committed by the Nazis. You're attempting to 'smear' an entire religion because of the actions of a few twisted, perverted individuals. But the 'religion' isn't 'responsible' for the actions of people who commit crimes in its name.
|
I think your entire, misguided train of thought basically amounts to "Nazis committed atrocities, Nazis were Christians, therefore Christians committed atrocities, therefore Christianity is guilty of committing atrocities against Mankind".
|
You just don't want to 'get' it, do you, Mike? The Germans could have "claimed" all they wanted that they were Christians, but their "claiming" to be Christians, did not actually "make" them Christians. They weren't Christians, Mike. It is by their Actions, not their words, that they are Judged. And their actions amply demonstrated that they did not behave as Christians claim to behave. Therefore, they weren't really Christians. They were just Murderers who did what they'd always planned to do, what they'd always wanted to do, and claimed their actions were "entirely in keeping with" Christianity.
|
Do you 'get' it now, Mike?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "...and you pretty much busted a vessel when I mentioned that many of the Nazis were Christians.."
|
That's because 'many of the Nazis' weren't actually 'Christians', except in name only. They could refer to themselves as Christians or anything else they wanted, but the Proof is in the Actions, not in what they call themselves.
|
The reason I may seem to have "busted a vessel" is because you have been pretty much revealing your anti-religious bias and trying to blame an entire religion (Christianity) for the actions of a deranged homicidal maniac like Hitler.
|
It's been widely reported that Hitler was a vegetarian who shunned red meat. If I were to follow your absurd philosophy to its logical conclusion, I would now be blaming vegetarianism for the Holocaust, because the principal architect of the Holocaust, Hitler himself, was a vegetarian.
|
Mike in London wrote: "...and began to accuse me of hating Christianity etc. posting an article from a fundamentalist Christian website."
|
I think it's pretty apparent that you do hate Christianity. I posted the article that I did because I found it to be informative, not because it was froma fundamentalist Christian website. I also posted several other articles that corroborated the testimony of the first article, namely that Christian churches in Germany and the USSR were subjected to horrific persecution under Hitler and Stalin, respectively. I notice that you made no mention of those websites or articles, preferring to seize on my having posted "one" article from "one" Christian website. This bolsters my contention that it is You whose idea of "research" is to seize on any "evidence" that supports your flimsy world view and directly ignore the mountains of evidence that contradict you.
|
Mike in London wrote: "So it's pretty obvious you are a Christian."
|
On the contrary, it's pretty obvious that you leap to conclusions, rather than bothering to do any actual research or even ask questions. I'm Jewish, not Christian.
|
Had you read my previous post to Michel, in which I mentioned my relative being murdered in Israel by an Arab terrorist attack, you might have paused for a moment before proceeding to dismiss me as being "Christian". (Then again, maybe you would have just charged ahead with your assumption).

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike Linsley in UK wrote: "Ah, the joyous spread of democracy and freedom we've been lucky enough to witness recently - afganistan, certainly the Taliban were an oppresive regime that committed atrocities on a grand scale, as was Saddams regime, but what has the fight on terror really accomplished?"
|
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they indeed were an oppressive regime that committed atrocities on a grand scale. They're not ruling Afghanistan any more. They're not committing atrocities on a grand scale anymore. They're not hanging hundreds of people in soccer fields or town squares or from lamp posts. I'd say that's a pretty significant accomplishment. I think the Afghan people would agree.
|
Mike Linsley wrote: "To replace the Taliban with the poppy growing heroin producing war lords - how does that really fit in with any preconcived ideas of liberty for all?"
|
The people in Afghanistan have chosen their first government democratically in a traditional Afghan loya jirga. The people in Afghanistan are not being slaughtered en masse by the Taliban. The remnants of the Taliban do not 'rule' Afghanistan anymore. When they try to re-enter Afghanistan, they have to contend with a new, well-trained and very determined Afghan National Army. And they have to spend their time running from US and Coalition aircraft. People in Afghanistan are better off now. And they know it.
|
Mike Linsley in UK wrote: " from a loosely formed net of fighters you now have battled hardened soldiers who know the terrain they fight on."
|
They've known the terrain they fight on for almost two decades (HELLOOOOOO). They fought on the same territory against the Soviets in the 1970s-1980s.
|
Mike Linsley in UK wrote: "i believe the american view is that torture can be defined as "pain equalling organ failure", on top of it happily propping up corrupt regimes such as Ubekistan simply because of a handy geographical location, the vanishing of people to countries and states that will happily torture people all creates the current anger and hostility to the american people.
|
Very few detainees have ever suffered from "organ failure", and on the few occasions where interrogation was done overzealously the people doing the interrogating were reprimanded and the practices stopped. Incidentally we are not "propping up" Uzbekistan, they can do just fine without us and don't "need" us to "prop them up". They have a national interest in fighting terrorism as do we, and they have been warmly supportive, as should we in return. If terrorists were gleefully of the belief that they could torture and murder our serviceman (as they have already done) but that we in turn would treat them with the utmost dignity and respect, then they are in for a very rude awakening. The terrorists are not afraid of being held in captivity by the US, but they are very much afraid of being "exported" back to countries that have long experience dealing with Islamic fanatics and which don't bother to pretend that interrogations are done with polite questions over tea.
|
The so-called 'anger and hostility to the American people' largely results in my view from our having the cojones to actually dare to elect whom the majority of Americans want as our President instead of the candidates whom the rest of the world 'wants" us to elect.
|
Mike Linsley in UK wrote: "What we can, and should demand is the right to live and let live, not be told we live in a state of constant fear - fear is the opposite of love and surely one thing the bible does preach is love - not much love comes from the barrel of a gun, or from the bomb doors of a plane..."
|
The nearly 3,000 people who were incinerated on 9/11 wanted nothing more than to live and let live, too but their lives were cut short my mass murderers. Not much love comes from a hijacked airplane being used as a homicide/suicide bomb by fanatics who want to meet Allah in an office building at 500 m.p.h. \
|
Mike Linsley in UK wrote: "oh yeah i work for evangelical christians and watch the hypocrisy and double standards on a daily basis...."
|
I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work for evangelical Christians. Ever hear of something called QUITTING AND GOING AND GETTING ANOTHER JOB?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "I also notice the way you have attempted to side-step the crux of Michel's point by not mentioning the religiosity of the Bush Administration."
|
(1) I'm not aware of any "point" Michel was making that I supposedly "side-stepped" in any way; and
|
(2) I don't see what there is to mention concerning the Bush Administration's alleged "religiosity". The Bush Administration has members who are deeply religious. This is both understandable and acceptable, as the broader American nation has a great many people who are deeply religious. Thus to some extent the Bush Administration accurately reflects and represents the deep religiousity of the American people.
|
It is no secret as well that many of President Bush's avid supporters are themselves Americans of deep religious faith. A U.S. Presidential Administration has a responsibility and obligations to its supporters who helped to elect it, as well as to the rest of the American people.
|
Americans have always been a deeply and profoundly religious people, and will continue to be so into the future. We are neither ashamed nor embarassed by public displays and acknowledgements of religious faith.
To many millions of Americans, the fact of an American President publicly expressing and affirming his religious faith and beliefs is not only NOT "troubling"... it is a moral requirement. Many Americans would be deeply troubled by, uneasy about and suspicious of any American President who did NOT appear to have any religious faith. If Europeans find that to be "troubling" or "unsettling"... that's simply too bad.
|
Many Europeans appear to have a basic misunderstanding of what is meant in America by "separation of church and state". In point of fact, it means that American Government and the American President Shall Not be subordinate to or take "orders" or direction from any religious deity or institution, nor shall the American Government establish any "official" or "state" religion or favor any one religion over any other.
|
The Founding Fathers of America were themselves religious believing men, and this faith manifested itself in documents they created, documents which became their legacy and framework governing America's establishment.
|
As an example of this: What the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution DOES guarantee is Freedom OF Religion. What it absolutely DOES NOT guarantee is "freedom FROM religion".

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Just don´t put on this act of being the "great liberator", "beacon of democracy, humanity and freedom" etc. etc. You´re not doing it for humanity, you´re doing it out of self-interest. You said it yourself."
|
We DID Liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. We ARE a Beacon of Hope, Democracy & Freedom in the world. Iraq is on its way to becoming a democracy, thanks to us. Regardless of whether that was our original intention or not, that is the result. And I am proud of that result.
|
I'm reasonably certain your world-view would only recognize any Iraqi desire for freedom & democracy if the Iraqi people had somehow, miraculously "Magicked" Saddam Hussein away with some kind of Blessed 'People Power' Unarmed Revolution. And I'm reasonably certain at this point that if the Iraqi people had indeed risen up against Saddam (as they did in 1991), and if the Iraqi peoples' attempt to overthrow Saddam were crushed under tank treads (as it was in 1991), you would then announce that "this meant that the Iraqi people 'actually love and want Saddam' " and that "we shouldn't interfere, if they really want to get rid of him they'll swim through oceans of their own blood and ignore his tanks / attack helicopters / secret police and depose him".
|
(I noticed that you never did answer my question earlier about whether you understood the difference between "happily endorsing life under a Dictator" and "reluctantly resigning themselves to life under a Dictator because to Rebel would be to commit Mass Suicide").
|
Fortunately, the decision of whether toLiberate Iraq was not yours to make. I am satisfied with my President's policies.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Good, it's refreshing to see that you finally 'get' what the purpose of the military is. It's not a social services agency. It exists to fight wars and defend U.S. national interests. And I make utterly no apologies for that whatsoever. If people around the world have a problem with that fact, that's unfortunate but it's "their, Individual" problem. We will not sacrifice our national interests merely because someone in some far-off country "wants" us to.
You still don´t get the point, do you? There is no american national interest in Iraq. There never was. No WMD, no Scud missiles he could send against Israel (which I´m sure will be thrilled to hear it´s more or less considered an american protectorate), no terrorists, nothing. The "ties" to american national interest you´re trying to construe to support your completely flawed argument are just so much smoke and hot air, and it´s so glaringly obvious I ´m astounded an intelligent person like you apparently fail to notice. Actually what you´re trying to do is justify your president´s enormous blunder so you don´t have to admit you´ve been wrong all along. Might dent your ego, apparently. Heck, Phil, even your own population doesn´t believe in Iraq anymore (cf. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-26-poll-us-not-winning-iraq_x.htm ), so instead of putting enormous energies into denying the obvious, you (and, more relevantly, the Bush administration) should concentrate more on finding a solution that does not involve sowing more chaos than you already have.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Actually, the usefulness of Guantanamo Bay's terrorist correctional facility have not been "discredited" at all. Of course I am perfectly serious; if the information being obtained now from the Al-Qaeda inmates at Git'mo, is information that has never before been divulged by them or revealed by anyone else, then obviously it is not "two years old", it's brand-new. And it's useful. An enormous amount of priceless information has been gleaned from inmates at Git'mo on subjects such as how Al-Qaeda recruits, organizes, trains, finances and equips its cells; how al-Qaeda communicates with its members, and much more.
And you don´t think that this information might be a tad outdated after two years? That´s not optimistic, that´s just plain naive.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> (replying to Mike in London) I think you've already demonstrated in great detail that you do, in fact hate Christianity, Mike. I think it's pretty apparent.
He did? When and how? "Interpreting" other people´s posts again, are you, Phil?
> (replying to Mike in London) In point of fact, it means that American Government and the American President Shall Not be subordinate to or take "orders" or direction from any religious deity or institution, nor shall the American Government establish any "official" or "state" religion or favor any one religion over any other.
Indeed Phil. So finally you do understand what it´s all about. And that´s exactly what´s wrong with the Bush administration: justifying important decisions like the Iraq war with his faith and "moral obligations" to cover up the fact that he does not have any moral or religious justification for it, be it christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist or .
> (replying to Mike in London) ) I'm not aware of any "point" Michel was making that I supposedly "side-stepped" in any way...
You´re not? Well, that´s true actually. You haven´t sidestepped arguments, you just changed subjects completely in some instances (see your legendary "out of the blue" Polanski argument).
> I'm reasonably certain your world-view would only recognize any Iraqi desire for freedom & democracy if the Iraqi people had somehow, miraculously "Magicked" Saddam Hussein away with some kind of Blessed 'People Power' Unarmed Revolution. And I'm reasonably certain at this point that if the Iraqi people had indeed risen up against Saddam (as they did in 1991), and if the Iraqi peoples' attempt to overthrow Saddam were crushed under tank treads (as it was in 1991), you would then announce that "this meant that the Iraqi people 'actually love and want Saddam' " and that "we shouldn't interfere, if they really want to get rid of him they'll swim through oceans of their own blood and ignore his tanks / attack helicopters / secret police and depose him".
Yup, you´re "reasonably certain", like Bush was "reasonably certain" that there were WMD in Iraq. In fact, this is where you´re really sidestepping an issue. The issue is: why did the Bush administration invade Iraq and not other countries ruled by murderous dictators? The issue is not: how would the Iraqi people have managed to get rid of Saddam?> (I noticed that you never did answer my question earlier about whether you understood the difference between "happily endorsing life under a Dictator" and "reluctantly resigning themselves to life under a Dictator because to Rebel would be to commit Mass Suicide").
Might be because I just overread it in the miles of posts you put us through. I´m not argueing that the Iraqis were happy with Saddam, and you´re probably right in saying it would have been difficult for them to depose him. So how does that justify the war, and more importantly, how does it justify the Bush administration being completely clueless as to how to clean up the mess they´ve created?

Mike, London

Phil wrote:
"I think you've devoted a great deal of time and words to trying to somehow "prove" that Christianity as a religion was somehow "culpable" or "guilty" of the actions committed by the Nazis. You're attempting to 'smear' an entire religion because of the actions of a few twisted, perverted individuals. But the 'religion' isn't 'responsible' for the actions of people who commit crimes in its name."
|
Er, no. I‚ll cut and paste what I actually wrote:
|
"Exactly at what point did I say Christianity was responsible for the holocaust? I merely pointed to the fact that Christianity was the dominant religion of the Nazis. Christianity has been the dominant religion of plenty of very good people too: the point being whether you are a Christian or not has no bearing on your moral worth."
|
Interestingly, the idea that those who commit atrocities are not true adherents of the religion, and therefore not a part of that religion is what a lot of Muslims have been saying (which I think is probably fair enough- they don't want this stuff done in their name), yet I don't see you applying the same logic to them as you do to Christians. If a Muslim commits an atrocity it is an aberration from the vast majority of Muslims who do not, so in the same way we can't berate Christians for what Christian Nazis did, we cannot berate Muslims for what Muslim Jihadis did.
|
Just to reiterate yet again: I have no problem with people believing in Christianity, only the idea that because they do they possess greater moral worth than those who don't. Certain Muslims also have this idea: hence the Jihad- they feel non-fundamentalist Muslims are less worthy of existence than fundamentalist Muslims- that's what the Jihadis are all about.
My example about the Nazis was just that: an example. You've got to get your head round the idea that when you group people together under a WORD such as Christian, Muslim, European, American, all you are doing is ascribing one very general common trait to them- you are not describing them. You are not saying they are all the same because one aspect of them is common. Therefore, the term 'Christian' encompasses many people: good, bad, black, white etc. It is a matter of basic, provable philosophic logic:
The statement "some Nazis are Christians" or even "all Nazis are Christians" at no point entails or leads to the statement "all Christians are Nazis". Logic.
I could put it into a syllogistic equation if you'd prefer.
|
Can we put this matter to bed now?

Mike, London

Phil:
About me calling you a Christian- I must apologise. I got the impression from reading other posts shortly after I wrote that that you were probably Jewish, but it was too late to retract.
Either way, you are obviously deeply sympathetic with the Christian world view.
|
As regards what you said about the separation of Church and State, you wrote:
"Many Europeans appear to have a basic misunderstanding of what is meant in America by "separation of church and state". In point of fact, it means that American Government and the American President Shall Not be subordinate to or take "orders" or direction from any religious deity or institution, nor shall the American Government establish any "official" or "state" religion or favor any one religion over any other."
|
The primary motivation for the Protestant founding fathers installing that clause was the Protestant belief holds that God does not speak directly through an appointed Earthly individual (specifically, the Pope). Bush stated (quote) "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn‚t do my job" (reported in several American newspapers, July 16 2004). There's nothing wrong with a religious American president, but one publicly claiming to be a mouth-piece of God is unconstitutional.
|
And by the way I'm not a Marxist, and to use the words you used to me: "it's pretty obvious that you leap to conclusions, rather than bothering to do any actual research or even ask questions". Touche?

Magda, Spain

Susan and Cindy
Please,let the bible be whatever you wish it to be as a text not as the word of any God. We know enough history to put it in its place. We do not need God or any kind of revelation to have evolved decency, altruism and morality. God comes from our not acceptance of being so ignorant and so evil sometimes. Mostly when do not have a decent human life, when our basic needs of food, clothing and opportunity to learn are not covered. Everything human comes from having been able to evolve a mind, not a soul. And,again, please, do not tell me God created it, because if that were the case...how is it that it took so long to become what it is? So coming back to where I started, faith, religion and so forth,are always there when there is a vacuum for thought, ideas and hope, not just for you and your followers, but for all humanity. And humanity comes in all forms and sizes, including some you wont like...Are you then going to shoot them? And following your line of thought, shouldn't !
them also shoot you if they don't like you? That is the spiral you are suggesting,and if that were the case,why or for what should we have evolved language? I just wish you could stop and think for a moment as the christian you proclaim to be.

Charles Warren, USA

I am always deeply amused when Europeans complain about American "self interest".
What they mean, of course, is the refusal of America to take orders from a European committee. And the belief of European elites (due to their boundless moral and intellectual superiority) that they are entitled to some sort of say in the employment of AMERICAN military strength has nothing to do with THEIR self interest of course. It is entirely the generous goodness of the EU and the duty of America to do the EU's bidding instead of its own "self interest". Of course this has nothing to do with our old friend geopolitical balance of power self interest on Europe's part, only exercised with pieces of paper instead of military alliances (because a military alliance would require the guts and courage to fight and suffer and sacrifice for what you believe in instead of whining and posturing on behalf of the "rest of the world"). European elites whine about American "self interest" in a very self-interested and self-serving sort of way.
As civilizations rot and die, they produce a sort of cultural archetype. The refined parasite. Devoid of courage and energy and self-reliance. Only good at whining and posturing and with a grossly overblown sense of entitlement superiority. The European who insists that America abandon "self interest" and place itself at the disposal of Europe's self interest is a refined parasite, a sponger, a moocher. The more we deal with such Europeans, the more pleasant we find the contrast of dealing with productive, self-reliant, nationalistic Asians.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "And you don´t think that this information might be a tad outdated after two years? That´s not optimistic, that´s just plain naive."
|
On the contrary. Interrogations of detainees at Git'mo and in other places are continuing to reveal and obtain information, some of which was previously unknown.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "You still don´t get the point, do you?"
|
Well, in point of fact, it's not "THE" point, only "Your" point. And yes, I do see what you are saying. I just don't agree.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "There is no american national interest in Iraq. There never was. No WMD, no Scud missiles he could send against Israel (which I´m sure will be thrilled to hear it´s more or less considered an american protectorate), no terrorists, nothing. The "ties" to american national interest you´re trying to construe to support your completely flawed argument are just so much smoke and hot air, and it´s so glaringly obvious I ´m astounded an intelligent person like you apparently fail to notice."
|
And, once again, I find that statement to be remarkably naive and non-factual.
|
To begin with, we import considerable quantities of oil from Iraq, as well as from the entire Persian Gulf region. That fact alone, that in itself, means that what happens in Iraq is of enormous national interest to us and carries enormous implications for America in terms of our economic security. To claim that we have "no national interests at stake" in a country that supplies a considerable amount of what is the lifeblood of virtually any and all developed and industrialized societies, is sheer lunacy. We very definitely have a national interest in Iraq.
|
Furthermore, the entire Persian Gulf region as a whole supplies most of the oil that the entire industrialized world depends on for its economic livelihood -- in fact, for its very survival. Therefore, it is not "merely" "Our" natiional interests that are stake in Iraq and in the region, but actually those of the entire industrialized world. Anything that affects or disrupts that oil supply has enormous implications for the entire world supply. Recall, for a moment, the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and its consequences... it plunged Western ecomomies around the world into a recession that took years to recover from and which cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
|
Incidentally, I have only talked so far about the economic impact on our national security interests. I haven't even yet begun to discuss the non-economic impact on our national security interests, which I shall now address.
|
Regardless of how you or others choose to view Israel, Israel is far, far more than an "American protectorate". It was never an "American satellite", never in its entire history. It was, still is, and fully intends to remain, an independent and viable democratic nation. It's the only democracy in a region seething with tyrants, despots and wild-eyed insane fanatics. It's not exactly a secret that Saddam tried in 1991 to deflect and distract pressure exerted on him to withdraw from Kuwait, by launching unprovoked attacks on Israel. Iraq with its huge army was a serious threat to Israel, as well as to other nations in the region.
|
It's simple enough and accurate enough simply to say that American economic and foreign-policy goals are served and protected by removing or rendering ineffectual any threat to our national and international security interests in that region of the world. But beyond that, our national interests -- and everyone else's, for that matter - are advanced by bringing to a soft and quiet end the Middle East conflict that has raged unimpeded for 50+ years. And the solution to that conflict does not lie in endlessly pressuring the only democratic nation in that region - Israel - to endlessly make concession after concession to its enemies.
|
Rather, the solution to that conflict is to introduce and implant the concepts of democracy -- free and fair elections, peaceful transition of power, democratic rights and freedoms combined with respect for traditional values - into the Middle East. For far too long, that region of the world has been a stinking cesspool of ruthless oligarchies, fanatical theocracies, and corrupt kleptocracies. These assorted despotic regimes absolutely must - MUST - give way. They must pass away. They must be replaced with new and actual governments that agree to allow freedom for their own people within their boundaries, and respect for the existence of other nations outside those boundaries. The Middle East must literally be re-made, from the ground up. And Iraq is the first and best step forward in making this happen. It is time to drain that fetid swamp of feudal hatredknown as the Middle East. That is what we are doing in Iraq. And it's working, slowly but steadily.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "The primary motivation for the Protestant founding fathers installing that clause was the Protestant belief holds that God does not speak directly through an appointed Earthly individual (specifically, the Pope)."
|
No, that's not correct at all. To begin with, the founding fathers of America were not necessarily entirely or wholely Protestant. There were many variations of religion in the American Colonies at the time of American independence. There were Quakers, Calvinists, Lutherans,and doubtless others. There were also Catholics and some Jews as well.
|
The primary motivation of the American Founding Fathers in installing that clause into the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, was to ensure that no future American nation would ever have the 'right' or the 'power' to declare any one religious faith -- any faith - to be the "official"or "state-sanctioned" religion, as Britain had done vis-a-vis the Church of England. Some of the earliest immigrants to America were those who were persecuted in England itself for their faith. The Founding Fathers were determined to ensure that ("officially", at least, with regard to government power), this would never happen in America. That's why freedom of religion -- ANY religion -- was one of the first and highest freedoms provided for when America's founding documents were written. It had nothing whatsoever to do with how one perceived themselves as "receiving guidance from God".
|
Mike in London wrote: "Bush stated (quote) "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn∫t do my job" (reported in several American newspapers, July 16 2004). There's nothing wrong with a religious American president, but one publicly claiming to be a mouth-piece of God is unconstitutional."
|
Many people, intentionally or othersise, both in America and elsewhere, have a tendency to misinterpret Bush's statement(s). This is one such example. What Bush meant, what his intended meaning was, was that he condults God through prayer, as do many Americans, and asks for God's divine guidance to help him make the best decisions that he can. If he could not trust in God and have faith that he was governing in the way that he felt God would most likely approve, then he would not be able to make the decisions that need to be made in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Yup, you´re "reasonably certain", like Bush was "reasonably certain" that there were WMD in Iraq."
|
Yes, and a significant number of people around the world (including people in Europe) were likewise reasonably convinced that Saddam's regime did indeed possess WMDs. It was a reasonable and logical supposition, given that Saddam's regime had been caught red-handed many, many times in the act of violating U.N. sanctions and clandestinely pursuing banned weapons research programs.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "The issue is: why did the Bush administration invade Iraq and not other countries ruled by murderous dictators?"
|
For a number of reasons, any and all of which could be considered to be perfectly reasonable and valid.
|
To begin with, obviously Iraq possesses oil, which is certainly and without question something that affects our national interests. Iraq has no other significant industry besides oil, and Saddam's regime was clearly making billions of dollars by flouting the rules of the U.N. "Oil For Palaces" program and skimming funds, funds which obviously sustained his regime and paid for the clandestine weapons programs he had been caught running, and which he has openly acknowledged he would have resumed work on, had the U.N. sanctions been lifted.
|
Unlike most other countries ruled by murderous dictators, Iraq was the subject of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, resolutions which it had clearly violated at one time or another. After 12 years of Saddam continually clandestinely violating the U.N. resolutions and the U.N. trying to catch him at it, Enough was ENOUGH. It was time to put an end to this maddening cat-and-mouse game.
|
Finally, it was, and is, time for democracy to be implanted in that savage and fetid swamp known as the Middle East. This bastian of murderous dictatorships has to be drained and redeveloped from the ground up, once and for all. Iraq has a relatively educated populace, a once-broad middle class, and an openness to new ideas; logically, it's an excellent choice for the first Arab country in the area to dethrone a dictator and to transition to peaceful civilian rule. And while democracy may be a fragile reed to implant in the Middle East even WITHOUT Saddam still being in power, it surely would have been impossible to introduce democracy into the Middle East in general or Iraq in particular WITH Saddam in power.

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Page 11/12