It’s our actions that have fueled terrorism
Objecting to U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, letter writer Mike Smith wrote, “The terrorists declared war on us!” and “If funding is cut ... the terrorists will appear in numbers on Main Street USA, taking up where they left off in Baghdad” (“Pullout talk only encourages ‘maniacs,’” May 18).
Smith’s connection between Iraqi insurgents and terrorist attacks on the U.S. are the epitome of the ignorance plaguing the Bush administration and the American political right. Warmongers like Smith are quick to use these scare tactics, but seem to forget that we declared war on Iraq, not the other way around, and it was our invasion of Iraq that created or brought the terrorists there.
Had we not invaded, we would not be fighting Iraqi terrorists in Baghdad or Main Street USA.
The same mindless rhetoric will undoubtedly be used to justify an attack on and/or occupation of Iran. Once we topple the Iranian regime, insurgents will emerge on the streets of Tehran to engage U.S. forces and Smith will argue that if we don’t fight them in Tehran, we will find them on Main Street USA. The reality is that our own military adventures create these insurgents and terrorists.
A long-term stop to terrorist attacks against Americans will require a critical look at our own international behavior.
Michal Kucera, Indian Hills
Ah yes, typical liberal spew of blame US. What total BS to state the "we create terrorists." If you love them so much and have such empathy for them, why the don't you just get the hell out of this country?
Posted by on May 31, 2007 04:32 AMThank you Michal. In other words - "chickens coming home to roost", or what Rosie on the View argued about, or what Ron Paul said in the Republican debate,etc.
Cause and effect. We support dictators and other evil goverments (Suharto, Sukarno, Marcos, Shah of Iran, House of Saud, Israel, etc) and the oppressed people in those countries have the courage and guts to fight back.
We are the country that proclaims Self-determimation of people rather than enslavement. It would be good if we lived-up to our proud words.
Posted by Dave on May 31, 2007 04:45 AMYou are so right, Michael. Funny how something as commonsensical as what you wrote brings deranged people out from hiding.
You commenter, writing at 4:32 a.m. -- why are you so in a hurry to ship dissenters away? Doesn't your America have room for all of us? Or do we all have to mindlessly endorse the criminal policies of our politicians?
Michael: Which countries teach their children from the time they are old enough to be indoctrinated to hate anyone from the western civilized countries? Do you think the answer would have anything to do with the creation of terrorists?
Posted by Don Evansd on May 31, 2007 06:52 AMIran is the country that funds terroist organizations like Hamas and Hezabollah. They have killed hundreds of American directly in Lebannon. They needed there but kick for a long time.
Posted by Corey on May 31, 2007 07:02 AMMay 31, 2007 04:32 AM and Don,
You may as well not waste your time with Michal. All they want to do is throw out quick bumper sticker comments and be gone. They probably don’t want to hang around to read any rebuttals. Much of the time people like this will say something like, “Iraq was not involved in terrorism,” but they don’t have the patience nor the intellectual honesty, much less the respect or your opinion to hear any lengthy explanation about how much Iraq really was involved in terrorism. They will hold their hands over their ears, close their eyes, stomp their feet and yell. “I’m not hearing you! I’m not hearing you! I’m not hearing you!
If you hate this country so much use one of your rights and leave. Go live in one of these so called countries that you love like Iran or North Korea maybe Gaza I hear they love people like you maybe go ask Chevas Mr Dictator for life for a new home. Maybe just strap a bomb and be a hero Dumb A-- . Maybe its time to start talking about kicking people like you out and treating you like what you are a TRAITOR.
Posted by Joseph V. Seifert Jr on May 31, 2007 07:28 AMAmericans can't have it both ways. Either it is right to interfere with the internal affairs of countries like Sudan, Bosnia, and Iraq where tyrants attempt genocide or it isn't. Either it is right to keep nuclear and biological weapons out of the hands of madmen or it isn't. Either it is right to preemptively attack people before they attack us or others, or we should accept the fact that sometimes we will sit by and wait until people are murdered.
Politicians around the world typically come in 2 varieties. Bad and worse. We have to have the courage to support the bad ones.
The UN is useless. The behavior of UN occupational forces is terrible. The level of corruption in the UN makes it stupid to trust them with large sums of money. And the commitment of many UN countries to civil rights is absent. And their batting record is zero. So we can't hand off the decision to them.
So either we make judgments and act or we don't.
And whatever we do, someone will wait until it's over and, with 20/20 hindsight, tell us that we could have done something better. And they will probably be right.
And whenever we act, or fail to act, somebody will figure out a way to make a profit on it
President Clinton, a man whom I detest, used the best judgment of the best people he could find and ended up bombing a baby food factory. He was the president and he acted. Calling him names for that action is wrong. He was representing all of us. He made a mistake. Innocent people died.
Should he have waited until other innocent people died?
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on May 31, 2007 07:46 AMHere we go again, Fear runs rampant in conservative circles. Those guys would be nothing without it, they know it, and they know war is good business. How much more than $500 billion ( besides the war departments HUGE portion of your tax dollar) are you willing to spend? And lives of our military?
Learn from the USSRs' mistakes . The Afghanistan "War". broke them. Reagan took credit , but was nothing but a puppet for the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about 50 years ago.
The right wingnuts sure get ugly, don't they Joseph.
Posted by ollie on May 31, 2007 08:00 AMYaakov,
Clinton lobbed missiles at bin Laden AFTER he had attacked the U.S. Bush invaded Iraq just because he wanted to.
And your statements about the corruption and incompetence of the U.N. Compared to what? The competence and honesty of the Bush administration and Halliburton?
I'm listening Pat, tell me how Iraq was involved with terrorism.
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 08:10 AMAhhhh,the diversity crowd-they're still trapped in the '60s paradigm of Left vs.Right.Wrong paradigm,guys. What we are dealing with is not the political Red vs. Red-White-and-Blue fight we (well,our parents actually) came to know and love back in the good old 20th Century.We're really facing an enemy whose worldview is straight from the 12th Century and to whom the slightest hint of respecting diversity is the vilest of heresy.Islam says most clearly that non-Islamic equals non-human, and that makes the present conflict a religious war-the very concept of which we as Judeo/Christian Westerners abandoned so long ago that we can't relate to it at all.
Posted by Jimminy on May 31, 2007 08:26 AMYou'll be waiting for a while, Hank. Wasn't it Dick cheney himself that said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
And if we're really going after the terrorists, why don't we invade saudi arabia? Hmmmm....couldnt be because the saudi royal family is bestest friends with the bush family, could it?
Posted by Tbone on May 31, 2007 08:26 AMIf America is so evil and awful, why does EVERYONE from around the globe want to LIVE here? Why do they listen to our music? Watch our movies? Dress like we do?
What is it about this country that makes it so hated and desired at the SAME TIME?
Posted by truthy on May 31, 2007 08:26 AMPat said:
"but they don’t have the patience nor the intellectual honesty, much less the respect or your opinion to hear any lengthy explanation about how much Iraq really was involved in terrorism."
Tell us Pat. I'm listening.
Posted by Charles B on May 31, 2007 08:46 AM" hate anyone from the western civilized countries". Are we, and England the only two western civilized countries? Or only the only two who have intruded deeply into the middle east? I for one consider the scandinavian countries eminently western and civilized and none of them have been attacked.It's probably asking too much that a wingnut actually read a book and attempt to comprehend it, but on the off chance one might wish to try I'd heartily recommend Chalmers Johnson's Blowback and Robert Dreyfuss' Devil's Game: How the US helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam.Funny how the wingnuts first reaction is to start playing some version of the blame game and immediately all the talk from the frightwingers about accountability
and accepting responsibility for ones actions disappears in smoke.
Truthy asked:
"If America is so evil and awful, why does EVERYONE from around the globe want to LIVE here? Why do they listen to our music? Watch our movies? Dress like we do?"
It's worth noting that all the traits you claim the world emulates about us are products of the "Hollywood elite" and "bleeding heart" artists that I'm sure in another context you would be blaming for our ills.
It's our hegemonic militarism and the rank hypocrisy of our current political leadership that the world disdains.
What's wrong with criticizing our great country in order to make it even better?
Posted by Charles B on May 31, 2007 09:03 AMWhen you can't find something wrong, there's something really wrong. It's not a bad thing to look at yourself and see things you don't like and want to change. It's called being a responsible adult. It's when you get this idea of "our country/administration does not make mistakes or do anything wrong", that you are more dangerous than the people who hate you.
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 09:26 AMHey, Joseph V. Seifert, you sound a lot more like the anti-American zealots than the letter writer. Maybe you should take your narrow mind, your inability to allow other people to have their opinions, your shallow attempts to control people, your cheesy elitism, and get out of our free country. I'm sure there are small 4th rate countries looking for egotistical, hypocritical, small-penised, crackpots like you. But you sure don't sound American.
Posted by shaupeen on May 31, 2007 09:43 AM"Hey, Joseph V. Seifert, you sound a lot more like the anti-American zealots than the letter writer. Maybe you should take your narrow mind, your inability to allow other people to have their opinions, your shallow attempts to control people, your cheesy elitism, and get out of our free country. I'm sure there are small 4th rate countries looking for egotistical, hypocritical, small-penised, crackpots like you. But you sure don't sound American."
Could this post be a clearer sign of someone with little person syndrome? Posts like this and numerous others on the RMN boards bring to mind the line at the end of "Billy Madison", "Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."
Posted by Responsible on May 31, 2007 10:05 AM10:05
When you show us the courtesy of using a name, we'll show you the courtesy of giving a sh*t what you have to say...
Posted by Charles B on May 31, 2007 10:10 AMdocjay,"Bush invaded Iraq just because he wanted to"
Statements like these are why it's impossible to have a rational discussion about the situation in Iraq with Bushhaters.
Try looking up the 17 UN Resolutions Saddam was in violation of and let me know if you learn anything doc, ok? Maybe then we can take it as slow as you'd like on the additional reasons that led to our invasion of Iraq (and why congress approved it).
So the US should be the enforcer of the UN? When the UN fails to act, it is our responsibilty to act for them? Why were these 17 UN violations never brought up when the case for war was brought up? Were we too concerned about the WMD's?
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 10:40 AMMichal is a pathetic "blame-America first" nut. Obviously he can't explain all the many lethal attacks that killed many Americans on our soil and abroad years before Desert Storm. Let's start with the 1993 bombing of the WTC, Michal. I beleive that the WTC was located in lower-Manhattan (that's also in the USA) at the time. Got any clues on that one, Michal?
This is a great illustration why liberals, democrats and socialists can't be trusted with the defense of the USA.
Posted by Hank on May 31, 2007 11:00 AM[He is a different Hank, but not an imposter; he has used it consistently as a screen name. So he has a prior claim and you will not be permitted to use it. Please choose one of your many screen aliases, announce what it will be so we can update our ID logs, and use it consistently thereafter. -- HM]
The Hank at 11:00 is an imposter.
Well, Hank at 11:00AM, do you remember that Desert Storm is also referred to (in the US) as the FIRST Gulf War, which ended in 1991? Hmm, if my math serves me right, that's BEFORE 1993. So the 1st WTC bombing had WHAT to with Desert Storm?
Nevermind. It is obvious that you will never let anything like facts get in the way of your chickenhawk delusions.
Posted by Paulie on May 31, 2007 11:08 AM"Why were these 17 UN violations never brought up when the case for war was brought up?"
How can you possibly make that statement and keep a straight face? It was the crux of the discussions and the lack of action by the UN that led to congress approving our invasion.
After 9/11 you don't just sit on your hands hoping the guy whose blocking the inspections (Saddam) will play nice, do you? If he had nothing to hide, why would he block the inspections he previously agreed to?
Posted by KW on May 31, 2007 11:16 AMHey, Paulie is in here! Cool! Now we get to some real restraint. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Its romper room time!
Posted by truthy on May 31, 2007 11:50 AMAfter 9/11 you don't just sit on your hands hoping the guy whose blocking the inspections (Saddam) will play nice, do you? If he had nothing to hide, why would he block the inspections he previously agreed to?
Noooo...."after 9/11" you should go after the countries that harbored the people who planned and executed the WTC attacks, such as Afghanistan, and actually follow-through with the job and not fight it half-assed, like this administration did and continues to do. Iraq was an unnecessary elective battle and given the drain on our military and stale-mate outcome, will be viewed as a profound strategic blunder in the war on terror, however history decides to define that term.
The insinuation of an Iraq-9/11was and continues to be fraudulent.
Posted by on May 31, 2007 11:55 AMLaying in wait for me, truthy? You are starting to sound suspiciously like a stalker to me. Just remember, that when you extend this disturbing tendency to the real world, it becomes a crime.
Posted by Paulie on May 31, 2007 12:01 PMKW:
You are repeating Bush's lie about Saddam Hussein not allowing in the inspectors. The UN inspectors were ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ when Bush launched his invasion. They were correctly reporting that they could find no evidence of WMDs EVEN IN THE PLACES SUGGESTED BY THE US. If Bush wanted the truth, all he had to do was allow the inspectors to finish their job. But he was determined to have his war.
It is amazing how many times you hear 9/11 or the uss cole or the first wtc attack come up every time someone questions this war. And no where it has ever been proven iraq had anything to do with it. But king George has used it to put fear and bulls--t in the minds of the american people. And if you dare question him your unpatriotic and hate america and love the musims and should go live with them. You people scare me. This is our jobs as good americans to question our leaders when things don't look right. When we don't is when we are open to a dictator. And that's what we got now. You Bush lovers will jump off a cliff if he told you it is the right thing to do. 9/11 did not give Bush a open ticket to attack any country that may have connections to it. Let emotions run wild is not the right thing to do. God I'm glad Bush wasn't in office during the Cuban missile crisis. We would all be dead. And all you Bushites would be cheering nuke nuke all the way. So Michal you have every right to voice your feelings with out being run out of the country because this america. It's Bush and his little followers that says you with us or against us. And that is damn anti-america.
Posted by larrymc on May 31, 2007 12:15 PMHow can I make that statement? By the fact that it was never mentioned for starters. In the build up to the war, there was never any statements made that the reason for going to war was because of these violations. It was WMD's remember? The reasons for this war have changed almost as many times as.....well, I don't think anybody is keeping track anymore. Saddam allowed inspectors in and look around as much as they wanted, he didn't block anything. But again you make some connection between Iraq and 9/11. After 9/11 the corrective action that should've been taken was attack Afganistan, which was a very half-assed attempt, then to other countries that ACTUALLY harbored terrorists. What is your reasoning for not attacking Saudi Arabia KW?
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 12:18 PM11:55
In regards to the comments by kw was not saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11 but that 9/11 showed that we were not invincible.
Sadam had signed an agreement and didn't keep it. the UN was too busy and averted their eyes due to all that oil for food.
Sadam was spreading rumors around the ME about having all these WMD...we knew he had some and when he wouldn't allow the inspectors in-Well..what would you think.?when 9/11 happened it showed that we were vulnerable and could be hit in our borders..
GWB never said that 9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq-go read his speech. what he did say is that we are in a war against those who wish to harm us and they are called terrorists. saddam was a terrorist-he struck terror in the hearts of his people and performed acts of terror against his own citizenry.
The US goverment has come out with a plan or what to do about a nuclear attack. If that happens (which they say it will) then all you conspiracy therory nuts will have new fodder to chew on and blame GWB for not protecting us enough. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
i am just so sick of all of you who refuse to see the forest for trees. get over your hatred of GWB and start recognizing that no matter which party is in office-they have to do things that not everyone is with. i am not war-monger- I wish that we weren't there but that doesn't mean i will tear my country down and give the terrorists validity
Never mind the problem minded reply to my remarks. I want some one to explain.
1. How America is the problem?
2. How its wrong to love America?
3. Why are you people so afraid to use your whole name if your support freedom?
Its funny The remarks that are Anti-American are the same RED book Communist bull that was spouted in the 60's and 70's from dumb know nothing collage grads. Military complex, WAR monger, Right wing and why do they always talk about body parts having a LITTLE problem with the girls? I get tired of hearing how everything is our fault. They are poor , they are Hungry, They live in slums know what get off your A-- and do something about it. And for your information MR. Little they would hate us even if you where in charge.
Posted by Joseph V. Seifert Jr on May 31, 2007 12:38 PMThe wingnuttery is all a twitter about how many UN resolutions Saddam Hussein failed to comply with but they never bring up the UN resolutions that Israel has blown off. Specifically UN Resolution 232. It looks like a dicey double standard to insist that war is necessary in one non-compliance situation but not the other. How sad that the fools HAVE to believe that the Iraqi government was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. What delusional fantasies.
Posted by Wes on May 31, 2007 12:41 PMThe hardest thing to realize is that there is an entire religion made up of millions of people that want us, the infidel dead. Think about that. Raised from birth to hate the USA. Islamonazis doing anything they can to kill us.
Posted by GSC on May 31, 2007 12:48 PMOK, truthy, you just explained to me exactly why I should never care at all about whatever nonsense-du-jour you spout off. I don't give the slightest crap what your political affiliation is. If I made it look that way, so the f**k what? I really don't care about how you want to make your pathetic little self look "smart" today, either. You are nothing but a complete and total idiot, who needs a good ass-stomping. Maybe that would get that smug bullshit knocked out of your pinhead.
And finally, I don't care what you want to put with and what you don't, and if it's from me or not. You are completely worthless, and I will never even look at your bullshit posts ever again.
P.S. Nice way to insinuate that I don't love the U.S. If I didn't, I would be spouting off conservative propaganda every chance I get. No, in fact I DO love the U.S., and I do appreciate your right to spout off whatever idiocy is rattling around your atrophied brain. However, as I have been exercising my right to belittle you up to now, from here on out I am going to exercise my right to ignore your stupid ass.
Posted by Paulie on May 31, 2007 12:53 PMGSC, do you think, even for a minute, that there is a reason they hate us? Do you think there is an iota of a slim chance that something that we did in the past is the cause of them hating us now? Or are you part of the "America has never done anything wrong" crowd?
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 01:01 PMdocjay,
"You are repeating Bush's lie about Saddam Hussein not allowing in the inspectors."
Not true. And Saddam was warned we would invade if he continued to block the inspections. This Bush lied stuff is getting kinda old, isn't it?
Hank,
"How can I make that statement? By the fact that it was never mentioned for starters. In the build up to the war, there was never any statements made that the reason for going to war was because of these violations."
You really need to review pretty much ANY media outlets reporting prior to the invasion. Allowing the inspections was one of the agreements Saddam entered into after we kicked him out of Kuwait. Everyone else knew this, where were you?
Wes,
"The wingnuttery is all a twitter about how many UN resolutions Saddam Hussein failed to comply with but they never bring up the UN resolutions that Israel has blown off."
For starters, Israel wasn't appearing to be a possible threat to us immediately after 9/11.
More importantly, you need to review the resolutions side by side and look at the reasons they were entered into in the first place. Comparing the resolutions for Israel vs. Saddam will show you the difference.
Posted by KW on May 31, 2007 01:04 PMWhere are ANY of these statements?
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 01:09 PMI am not sure where to begin... Oh yes, why Islam and the terrorists hate the United States.
History of Islam 101:
The "Encyclopedia of Islamic Law" defines Sharia as the "straight way", directly created by Allah's wisdom. This wisdom is eternal and comprises spiritual powers without error. All prophets have contributed to it. Muhammad, as the last in their succession, was elected to transmit the text of the Koran, Allah's uncreated word. The following believers have studied the entirety of Koran and prophetic practice (sunna), which regulate the "Islamic way". They finally comprehended that the Sharia envelops all matters of human life and belief, of daily rites, of social contracts, of administrational functions, of political power and leadership etc. The universality of this law and its divine roots penetrate each individual's mind in order to build a general, cohesive umma, Allah's community, as the best possible form of human organization. The highest authorities of Islam, the Azhar sheiks and Medina imams, refer to these basics.
Their concept demands that each human being and every thought and action are the constant result of a perpetual creator. In this context, every effort to gain an autonomous position is regarded as human arrogance and aversion from Allah. Real Islam means boundless submission of the believer's thinking and actions without any reservation whatsoever. Therefore, every thought and all knowledge has to be in interaction with the "Islamic way" ? that is, a product and servant of the Sharia exclusively. No Muslim who has been educated in this fashion can think in a different manner. The concept of a human being in Islam is not that of an independently acting individual. Islam and its law books understand people as heaps of substance that think and act according to Allah's incessant decisions. - from 'Allah's Law (Sharia) in the West' by Dr. Hans-Peter Raddatz of the European Orient Institute
World History 101 - Ottoman Empire invades Austria in 1683, losses and suffers first major loss with the Treaty of 1699
The superiority of the trade and armed ships of the West take over areas of the Middle East, "harnessing economic power," changing the landscape of how business is done (no longer by force but through trade and credit).
World History 120:
The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers to form the Triple Alliance with the signing of the August 1914 Turco-German Alliance. Turkey formally entered World War I on October 28, 1914, with the bombing of Russian Black Sea ports. The Triple Entente, or Allied Powers, declared war on the Ottoman Empire on November 4.
As the Allied forces were victorious in WWI, the dissolution brought the creation of the modern Arab world and Republic of Turkey. The League of Nations granted France mandates over Syria and Lebanon and granted the United Kingdom mandates over Iraq and Palestine (which comprised two autonomous regions: Palestine and Transjordan). Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became parts of what are today Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
World History -Iran and the rise of the Shah:
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was put in power during World War II in 1941 by British and Soviet forces. They had invaded Iran and deposed his father, Reza Shah, who they suspected of planning to ally Iran with the Axis powers.[86] Reza Shah, a military man, was known for his determination to secularizing Iran and his hostility to the clerical class (ulema).
World History and the rise of the Ba'thists:
The Arab Ba’th (Resurrection, Renaissance) Party was founded in Damascus in 1944 by Michel Aflaq and Salh ad-Din Bitar. In the early 50s it fused with Akram Hawrani’s so-called Socialist Party (and added “Socialist” to the Ba’th Party’s name). Ideologically vague, the gist of the Ba’thist programme was for Arab unity and renewal. Its real base was Syria; at the time of the 1958 revolution in Iraq it was tiny. In Syria, it had some radical incarnations, which broke with its traditional leadership (Aflaq was to settle in Iraq after 1968); in Iraq, the party was only ever a brutally chauvinistic, right-wing nationalist grouping. They were the embittered enemies of Qassim, not least because of his support from the Communists. In 1959 they made an attempt on Qassim’s life—one of the conspirators being a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, one of their first acts was to finish that job, by murdering the president of the Republic. A further Ba’thist coup in 1968 would consolidate their rule
Middle East History - Rise of the Taliban:
The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.
So, as you can see, the history of the region is such that by the West, simply being the West, it is in violation of the Sharia, and as such makes "normalized relations" impossible with the West, so long as the Sharia is followed.
It is that lack of understanding history and the region, how it was formed and under what pretense, that makes any argument about the US "making the terrorists hate us" irrational.
As far as attacks in the West, check out this link that has a map as well as a list of the most deadly attacks. It is fascinating:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/globalterrorism1.html
Please show me something that had anybody say "we are going to go to war with Iraq because they did not comply with these resolutions". Even just paraphrasing would fine.
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 01:11 PMFor starters, Israel wasn't appearing to be a possible threat to us immediately after 9/11.
No, but if the intelligence was selectively screened and leaked in the same way as it was with Iraq, Israel could have been made to "appear" as a possible threat immediately after 9/11.
There was nothing Iraq did to "appear" any different on 9/12 than they did on 9/10...the manipulation of appearances was all done on our side, and the public bought right into it.
Posted by on May 31, 2007 01:12 PMPaulie,
Were you threating me me with physical violence just now? Hummmmm.
Posted by truthy on May 31, 2007 01:17 PMHank:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
If you actually took the time to READ the authorization to use force, you wouldn't have to ask such an ignorant question.
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 01:17 PMDon't flatter yourself, truthy (I know that it must be terribly difficult, but you need to try). Karma is going to have a field day with you, pal. I just hope that I'm there to watch it all.
Posted by Paulie on May 31, 2007 01:21 PM"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" Is this what you were talking about Dan2? I already knew about the AUTHORIZATION to use force. It still says nothing about the REASON for force. I really hope somebody else uses that link and reads into this. I guess I can make whatever excuses I want as long as I begin every single paragraph with "whereas". Seriously, do you have to excuse yourself to the point of explaining the discrepancies before you even make the statement?
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 01:42 PMHank,
As this is the Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, it is the UNITED STATES CONGRESS that is answering your question.
Since you either didn't take the time to continue to read the joint authorization, or wanted to manipulate data to serve your purpose, here is the "direct language from the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;"
"Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; "
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 01:49 PMDon Evansd,KW,Pat JVSjr,Yaakov,Jimminy,Truthy,GCS-
Excellent points with empty or no rebuttals ,as usual, from the blame America first left.
10:05- Bingo
Charles B. 10:10 - Is shaupeens 9:43 post an example of the courtesies you dems embrace?
Wes 12:41- Talk about delusional fantasies- No one here said Iraq was directly responsible for 911.
But hey, why should that matter,I'll just say it anyway.
I am not sure where to begin... Oh yes, why Islam and the terrorists hate the United States.
This is a slippery and conveniently self-serving paraphrase of the original letter's point. Terrorism is a tactic, used by humans for centuries, against dominant political powers. Terrorists need not hate, just as conventional generals/soldiers don't, and religous affiliation/motivation is secondary to the very profane, secular lust for power common to all humans.
The letter's question asked if America's actions fuel terrorism. Reinterpreting a pretty straight-forward question by injecting 'hate' and 'Islam' muddies the water unnecessarily. To the extent that America has not shied from projecting its power into regions that contain the natural resources our economy requires, it would be a surprise if the tactic of terrorism -wasn't- used against us. To get those resources, America either needs to directly or indirectly dominate and suppress some minority population. England did this to the colonies, and surpirse, the colonists engaged in terrorism (from the British perspective) with the Boston Tea Party.
There are consequences to America's actions, no different than an individual's...why the resistance to such a simple truth?
Painting Islam as some uniquely terroristic religion is a diversion to the ugly implications that come from sitting at the top of the global food chain. To consume the resources we do, in the quantities we do, is going to have an adverse effect on somebody/somewhere. Given the coincidence of religion and resources, it just so happens that Islam is now being used to manipulate economically vulnerable citizens to vent their fury upon symbols of power through terrorism.
Hank, you weren't being serious about using "whereas" were you? You do understand that using "whereas" is a means to provide the reasons for authorization right? You are purposefully being obtuse to try and make your point, are you not? Because I can't imagine that you are seriously stating, and not in jest, that you do not comprehend the language in a Congressional decree. Because if that is truly the case, than any argument that you attempt on this subject matter becomes an uninformed, biased opinion based on nothing but your personal feelings, which you are wholly entitled to, but not anything based on research, fact, or historical data and therefore should be viewed as such. Uninformed partisan opinion only.
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 01:58 PMKW you are my hero. You really cut through the crap.
It doesn't help that we have so many so called American patriots saying terrible things against their own country and in a time of war the enemy really loves that. Of course America is the only country that has "ever" done anything wrong. No other countries have to be accountable for what they have ever done wrong when so called American's blame America for every wrong that has ever happened. Nobody and no country is perfect so stop trying to blame America for everything.
Posted by troll on May 31, 2007 02:02 PM"compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687" Which is now clear to everybody but you that Iraq did NOT pose a threat to the US or any other country. Saddam allowed weapons inspectors to go anywhere they wanted and they found nothing. Did they use some special invisible paint that is only visible to those who truly believe? So since KW is too shifty to answer it, I'll ask you Dan2. Why did you not want any action taken against Saudi Arabia?
Posted by [not] [This is the real Hank, but RMN doesn't like it] on May 31, 2007 02:06 PMJDM:
Do you realize how many countries have leaders in this world that terrorises it own people. North Korea, China, Soviet Union, Samalia, etc.,ect.,ect.,. Man do we have alot of countries to invade. Last time I checked most of these have nu-cular programs. I think GWB was also the one in a debate that said we can't be the worlds police force. But then again he also said when a President sends troops into harms way he should also have an exit plan. This man has no plan.
I sure was being serious about the whereas. I understand the usefulness of phrases like whereas, but when your using that to cloud your intentions, whereas trying to get only your point across, whereas somebody isn't looking at my side and it makes me angry, whereas people who accept others points of view make me happy, whereas walks through the park do also, whereas there's too much litter in the parks nowadays, whereas people don't have enough recepticles to throw things away, whereas there needs to be more money into parks and recreation.
That is how that link reads. So because I don't get my information from the whitehouse, I am an uninformed partisan? It's disgusting how none of you feel it neccessary to hold your idols to expectations or responsibilities.
Posted by [not] [This is the real Hank, but RMN doesn't like it] on May 31, 2007 02:17 PMAnonymous 1:55,
"I am not sure where to begin... Oh yes, why Islam and the terrorists hate the United States.
This is a slippery and conveniently self-serving paraphrase of the original letter's point"
-True, but I was addressing the implication from the original letter, especially the statement: "...but seem to forget that we declared war on Iraq, not the other way around, and it was our invasion of Iraq that created or brought the terrorists there."
As you stated, "Painting Islam as some uniquely terroristic religion" is not something I did, but something you read from my history lesson. The definition of Shiria in the Islamic religion does a pretty good job providing cause for disdain for the West. That is all I am stating. The cause and effect of terrorism, in some instances, is inherent in it's roots, not necessarily in the literal cause and effect actions of others (i.e. the US policy in the Middle East and the terrorist response).
While the US policy and actions in Iraq may play a small role in the increase in terrorism, the fact remains that most of the terror attacks are Shia to Sunni and the inverse. That is not deniable and as such is a catalyst for the call for withdraw from this "civil war," is it not?
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 02:22 PMYou said it perfectly Dan2!!! "the fact remains that most of the terror attacks are Shia to Sunni and the inverse." So why are we in the middle of it?
Posted by [not] [This is the real Hank, but RMN doesn't like it] on May 31, 2007 02:26 PMReal Hank (I like the moniker),
The answer to your Saudi Arabia question; there are no Security Council resolutions against Saudi Arabia since 1951, they have normalized relations with the United States, and even have extradition treaties with the United States. The Saudi government has also complied with requests made by the United States for assistance, and we have a military installation in Saudi Arabia that we used as staging ground against Iraq, both in 1991 and today. I can't answer the question any better without more specific direction, but would be happy to try if you are looking for more specifics.
As for weapons of mass destruction (if you don't like the US government reports) here is a link to British Intelligence regarding WMD's in Iraq:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf
From Mr. Blix's report to the UN Security Council:
"Chemical weapons
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared."
"There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq."
So you see, there were many issues still to be resolved, and as such, the US Congress, using the reasoning in it's authorizing the President to use US military forces, felt that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. I was not the only one that believed Iraq still possessed WMD's, and I don't even have access to intelligence reports and briefings like Congress has.
Finally, the October 2, 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq posting to the White House site, is but one quick link. You can actually read the transcript and the voting record in the Senates archives, but the link from the White House is easier to navigate. If you would like the Senate link (as well as the House version link within the Senate link), it is here for you:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
I understand that the link may be daunting and uses wording we don't all use in the "real world", but just as you demonstrated in your post, "whereas" is used to delineate reasons, or if you prefer causes. Your assumption that I am partisan because I research and understand history and the Constitution is ignorant and arrogant. Who would my idol be? You don't know me from Adam, yet you presume to know my politics (you should be able to, I have posted many times I am libertarian and research all sides of a policy), yet become offended when you ignore evidence. You are the gentleman that asked for "...something that had anybody say "we are going to go to war with Iraq because they did not comply with these resolutions". Even just paraphrasing would fine." and I was happy to provide it to you, yet because you do not like the format, you are arguing with me about it? That doesn't make any rational sense at all. I was merely providing you the link and answering the question you asked. I hold my Government responsible for it's actions, but, based on the evidence at the time, the necessity for stability in the Middle East, the investment made by the United States in toppling a dictator and establishing a democratic State, I am in agreement that the Congress and President acted accordingly in Iraq. I think there is still a lot of work to be done, and I truly hope that a better plan is developed for solving this issue, and not keeping status quo, or leaving Iraq to rot in turmoil. I am happy with the involvement of Iran in discussions with Iraq, and hope that a diplomatic solution may be found on that front.
I am not a partisan. I look at the issue, not the party, and as such, will keep an open and informed mind, and not fall for dogma and rhetoric from either side of the political spectrum. That is why I don't play the "what if" and "why don't we then" game, as there is no evidence and research matter from which to base my opinion. Did that answer your question Real Hank?
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 02:57 PMreal hank,
That statement is in direct contrast to the original letter writers contention that actions of the United States has lead to increased terror attacks. While that may indeed have some plausibility, it is in no way the "main cause" unless we consider the liberation of a peoples from a dictatorship, adverse actions.
I ask you Real Hank, do you feel that the United States was right in stepping into the civil war in Bosnia? How about Somalia? Do you think we should become involved in the civil war in Darfur? What about the Easter Accord in Northern Ireland? Was that none of our business as well? Or do you feel that no matter what the United States should never go to war (which is an opinion I can respect, disagree with, but respect)?
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 03:03 PMNo, it really doesn't. So why does having a base in the country and treaties give a pass to the fact that the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were from there? Actually you were the one who made the assumption that I was partisan, so the spin you try to put on things didn't work this time. I have no problem of the format it was in, I have the problem with the fact that had absolutely no information as to why, it only provided information as to the authority to use force. This may rock your world but authority doesn't mean reason. I may give you the authority to shovel my driveway in July, but that doesn't give you reason to. You obviously don't realize that you are playing the what if game if your still trying to point out how much of a "threat" Iraq was.
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 03:10 PMNo I don't think the US was right to step in, any of the conflicts you say. I think the US absolutely should go to war when called upon. We have the ability to be the most ruthless, dominating force on the planet, but we also have the responsibility not to. But I don't need to walk around flexing my arms or talking a bunch of tough talk to show how manly I am. There's a huge difference in helping people from a bloodthirsty dictator, and going off a hunch of how much of a threat is there to us.
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 03:16 PMOk, one last time with this. You don't invade a country because 9 men of that origin committed a heinous act. If you committed a crime, should we punish your whole family and send them to jail, or should we look at the individuals? Make sense!
As far as the authority argument. Substitute the word "whereas" with "because" and that gives you the REASON. To use your analogy, if you said to me, "whereas 11 inches of snow fell on my driveway, and whereas my back is injured and I am not able to shovel, and whereas you have offered your services to shovel my driveway, I am authorizing you to shovel my driveway." Again, if we change the words from "whereas" to "because" ("BECAUSE 11 inches of snow fell on my driveway, and BECAUSE my back is injured and I am not able to shovel, and BECAUSE you have offered your service to shovel my driveway, I am authorizing you to shovel my driveway"). Even if it was in July...
My apologies on making the assumption you are partisan (are you?). But do me a favor. Read the Declaration of Independence again, and tell me that there are no reasons given in the Declaration (if you put "whereas" in front of every stanza starting with "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." and ending with "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." you will see the similarity in the Joint resolution).
I don't know if I can actually explain it any more clearly. If you are seriously choosing not to understand this, I don't know that I will be able to make it any clearer.
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 03:24 PMHank,
I respect your opinion. You and I differ on that front, as I do feel we have an obligation as the sole superpower to step into conflicts as most internal conflicts tend to historically develop into world theater threats (Hitler's Germany, Hirohito's Japan, the Shah and Ayatollah of Iran, the Russian Revolution and the formation of Communism). But those are philosophical differences and I genuinely respect your difference from mine.
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 03:31 PMThat statement is in direct contrast to the original letter writers contention that actions of the United States has lead to increased terror attacks. While that may indeed have some plausibility, it is in no way the "main cause" unless we consider the liberation of a peoples from a dictatorship, adverse actions.
Maybe I'm missing a prior post this refers to, but this statement appears to mix up two separate points, posing a false choice.
Yes - the United States liberated people from a dictator, and in isolation that is not an adverse action (and momentarily overlooking that the fact that United States once supported this dictator and others around the world ) most people would agree this is in fact a good thing.
But Hussein's dictatorship was the prophylactic to the religious civil war that is happening now, which employs 'terrorism' as the tactic of choice. America's removal of Hussein, without replacing him with an equivalent or a magical cure for centuries of religious conflict -was- the main cause of the civil war that followed.
So...Yes, again. This is basic but-for causation...had it not been for America's actions, there would be fewer acts of terror in the world. The Sunni/Shia historic tension would still be there, as a wound spring for some potential future conflict, but it wouldn't be occuring now.
And while we can be somewhat thankful that the majority of those global terrorist acts are in Iraq, we should be deeply troubled that the chaos resulting from America's mismanagement provides a unique testing ground for new, makeshift terror devices using everyday items, such as chlorine truck bombs.
The same but-for causation applies: had America not inadvertently converted Iraq from a stable dicatorship where only state-sanctioned violence was permitted, to the current failed state where nearly any group is able to free-lance as a 'terrorist' with little if any check by the relatively small number of U.S. troops, these terrorism innovations would remain on the white-board and not have a chance to be perfected in urban settings.
So I'm still not convinced that the letter writer is wrong by stating that the increase in terrorist acts is attributable to America's actions. The Sunni/Shia time-bomb in Iraq is not something that America discovered in the past couple of years...this was well known, and exploited by our government in the past...so pointing the finger at some inherent character and history of Islam as causing the current spike in terrorism in Iraq too easily absolves America for its tactical and moral error in executing this particular battle.
Posted by on May 31, 2007 03:47 PMSo instead of invading a country that had 9 men commit a crime against us, you invade a country that had 0 men commit a crime against us. That really makes sense. So if you were to read a couple page long explanation, and every single paragraph started with "because", you wouldn't find that a little fishy? Your so trusting. Part of the problem is that you see the US as the "sole superpower". You are inviting people to take a stand against you. You could say that we cannot get along in the world without the rest of the world, but you want to tout this "we are the best and our way is the best way". Yes it is important to step in and help people who genuinely need our help. I'm not going to say that Iraqi's didn't need our help, but what I will say is that they didn't need our bombs dropping on them day and night. The thing to remember abour Hirohito and Japan, was that after they attacked us, they "woke a sleeping giant". They realized this and wouldn't do it again. It is my belief that American forces could absolutely crush any opposing forces in Iraq in a matter of weeks, but doing that would mean there was an actual threat and would therefore give authorization to use ALL means, including nuclear weapons. But there wasn't a threat so the path to war had to be walked on eggshells as to not stir up too much trouble.
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 03:51 PMAnonymous,
I think we are essentially saying the same thing? We both are agreeing that the literal reading of the letter has plausibility in stating that because of US actions in Iraq, terror attacks have increased. But the root element of the letter, at least my perception of it, is that terror attacks AGAINST the United States are a direct result of our policies world-wide, and were at the root of the initial terror attacks against the United States. I may have read into that (more than likely on the responding letters to the original), and if so, my bad. But we were able to have a good discussion regarding this particular topic as well, even if we did hijack the original intent, right?
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 04:02 PMHank,
I know you get it and are trying to get my goat, I feel. No worries. It is hard to write that you were wrong. The 23 reasons to use military force in Iraq, as outlined in the resolution is a JOINT Resolution with the backing of 77% of the Senate and 76% of the House has nothing to do with trust, but is the work of the government.
The United States IS the sole Superpower. That is not disputed. Regardless of if you want to accept it or not, it is. This is not my opinion or statement, but backed up by most political scientists and world historians.
Nothing is fishy about having 23 reasons. That is the way resolutions are written. It could have easily have said, "Because of the following 23 reasons, the Congress of the United States jointly authorizes the President to use the United States military as he sees fit in Iraq." Would that have made you feel better? At least the wording?
The internal conflict within Japan and it's desire to attack China to restore honor to Japan having lost control of the Korean Peninsula during the first and second Sino - Japanese Wars, and the internal conflict within Japan that brought Hirohito to power was my point, not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that facilitated the entry of the United States into World War II.
We philosophically disagree on the necessity of war and that is fine. I will not argue or try to persuade you to my opinion on that matter. But you must readily admit, your contentions are incorrect with the causes stated for military conflict with Iraq, as well as the allusion of guilt within the Saudi government.
Posted by Dan2 on May 31, 2007 04:18 PMI can't do it Dan2. Since it was widely accepted by everybody in the government that Iraq had WMD's and that we must go get them and destroy the weapons, only to find out that the REAL reason was to overthrow Saddam and free the Iraqi's, only to find out the REAL REAL reason was to bring democracy to the middle east, only to find out the REALLY REAL reason was because of the 17, NO WAIT!! 23 now sanctions he didn't follow. It's just really too bad that these resolutions were worded so incredibly poorly. It would help if you actually knew what "whereas" meant. Being used as a comparable word. As in "peanuts are not slippery, WHEREAS mayo is". Not "peanuts are not slippery BECAUSE mayo is". I don't want you to agree with me or have me persuade you into thinking the way I do. I understand that there needs to be more than one voice out there, I just wish some of your fans could understand the same.
Posted by [not Hank] on May 31, 2007 04:39 PMHank-
Look up the word 'whereas' before you say someone else doesn't know what the definition is.
While you are correct in it being used as a comparable word; that isn't the only usage.
The first definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:
"1. it being fact that; inasmuch as."
Or, in more simple terms, 'because'.
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2007 05:00 PMThis is getting tedious, When the WTC was attacked in '93, Bill Clinton used the justice system to track down, try, and convict the perpetrators. He didn't use it as an excuse to start a profit-driven war and destroy our Constitution to make himself Emperor...Only GW Bush and Company has done that.
GW Bush should be shot for treason.
OK call me the "fringe element" BRING IT ON!
dmz,
You said:
"When the WTC was attacked in '93, Bill Clinton used the justice system to track down, try, and convict the perpetrators."
That's exactly the problem with the Democrats and the reason why we had a 9/11.
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 06:42 PMJohn II,
"That's exactly the problem with the Democrats and the reason why we had a 9/11."
And you would have tracked down and punished everyone but the perpetrators like your boy Bush. We get it.
Posted by Charles B on May 31, 2007 07:20 PMCharles B.,
Mr. Bush tracked down and either captured or killed the architects of 9/11. OBL was the financier of 9/11 and his day will come. Mr. Clinton prosecuted a blind sheik and never pursued the real architect (the same guy who planned the attack on the WTC).
Posted by John II on May 31, 2007 08:28 PMJohn II,
"OBL was the financier of 9/11 and his day will come. "
Right! Just as soon as someone besides your hopelessly incompetent hero George Bush is President.
Posted by Charles B on May 31, 2007 09:36 PMI've heard and read the party line before, most notably between 1965 and 1972. It''s old news. The solution are in the history books.
Posted by 593Boat on June 3, 2007 07:49 PM