Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You said nothing in there at all about how you figure Israelis attacks are "mindless" and every bit as "terrorist" as Islamofascist terrorist attacks.

UM, just read about Isreal's treatment of Palistinians. I already said I don't feel like explaining it to you. E

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is the Bill Clinton way of doing things. People like Bush and Reagan think more about their legacies.

Wow. You don't know anything about what happened to the deficit under Clinton and under Bush II, do you? Nice legacy, huge debt to China.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I need to explain that again? Because they want to look good, some now but most in the long run.

I disagree with that. I think it is all for short-term gain. What long-term are you talking about? History? That's not going to keep them in power now, which is what they are concerned about.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

NeoCON... as in "CONservative". The people who share the views of the people who are conservative on pretty much everything. I agree with those people on foreign policy, except I am more extreme.

1. No, they are not conservative in the traditional sense, more in the fascist sense. 2. That is pretty fucking scary. So who do you think we should invade next? Do you think China will keep loaning us money? Should we start drafting to make up for the declining enlistment?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why the far left associates itself so much with the Democratic party is a big puzzle to me. They were all gung ho John Kerry in 2004 because they hate Bush because they hated the war. Uh, John Kerry voted for the war. Duh! He is also an admitted Vietnman war criminal. So bizarre.

Like I said, they're wishy-washy, they go with the flow--now the Democrats have decided to take the people who are against the war, because every one has already forgotten that in the beginning they were for it. I'm surprised that you think anyone could be a war criminal in Vietnam; weren't you in favor of containment?

I think Kerry and Bush were in league to keep Bush in power.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

UM, just read about Isreal's treatment of Palistinians. I already said I don't feel like explaining it to you. E

That's a very convenient response.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Wow. You don't know anything about what happened to the deficit under Clinton and under Bush II, do you? Nice legacy, huge debt to China.

I didn't say they are always successful with it. However, I did say that Clinton was the type of politician who was much more concerned about immediate power and not so much about legacy. You are still not reading my posts very carefully.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I disagree with that. I think it is all for short-term gain. What long-term are you talking about? History? That's not going to keep them in power now, which is what they are concerned about.

Nobody in office right now wants a major terrorist attack to happen on the U.S. and to go down in history as somebody who could have prevented it but didn't. Legacy does matter to politicians, some more than others. If Bush were concerned much more about immediate popularity than legacy, we would be out of Iraq already.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

1. No, they are not conservative in the traditional sense, more in the fascist sense. 2. That is pretty fucking scary. So who do you think we should invade next? Do you think China will keep loaning us money? Should we start drafting to make up for the declining enlistment?

1. They are conservative in the sense that the people who are conservative in the traditional sense on pretty much everything are their supporters. 2. I have already covered this. Do you remember what I said about bringing the world together to liberate the world?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm surprised that you think anyone could be a war criminal in Vietnam; weren't you in favor of containment?

So because I thing the war was necessary, that means I support war crimes? I don't get get your reasoning there.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I think Kerry and Bush were in league to keep Bush in power.

From Universal Mind
So because I thing the war was necessary, that means I support war crimes?

I don't think anyone is arguing that, but I think those who initiate wars must be responsible for them.

If it is a choice to initiate war, then every crime that is committed as a result is part of that initial decision. As the Nuremburg trials concluded, an aggressive war is the greatest evil because it contains within it all of the evil of its parts. We are left to interpret a workable definition of 'aggressive.'

The motives of those who initiated the war determine their liability as war criminals, but even nobly-purposed leaders must accept responsibility for not conducting wars to the best of their ability (limiting civilian casualties, not breaking international or constitutional law, etc). The "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" justification can only be stretched so far. When those who ostensibly have noble motives do not attempt to limit needless destruction, their motives become suspect.

Those who decide to initiate wars have the dual responsibility of justifying the action and carrying it out without tolerance for anything more than the minimum in civilian casualties, even if that is a severe constraint. When those who initiate wars shirk the responsibilities they have accepted, it is easy to cross the thin line between moral bankruptcy and criminality without realizing it.

North Vietnam initiated war and take over against South Vietnam. We just helped South Vietnam fight back. Similarly, the Hussein regime initiated war and take over against Kuwait. We defended Kuwait. The current war in Iraq is a continuation of that war because the Hussein regime did not meet the counterterrorism requrirements of the ceasefire.

The goal of the Vietnam war was quite clear and isn't very controversial. What made the war such a foreign policy disaster was that the implementation was poor. When it should have been clear that a military victory would require millions of innocent deaths, if it was possible at all, the war continued unabated, with little change in strategy. The political necessity of preserving a non-existent military victory took precedence over the lives of innocent people. In that sense, those who managed the war were irresponsible.

Do you have any theories as to why Bush Sr. and Clinton decided not to invade Iraq?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The goal of the Vietnam war was quite clear and isn't very controversial. What made the war such a foreign policy disaster was that the implementation was poor.

I totally agree.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

When it should have been clear that a military victory would require millions of innocent deaths, if it was possible at all, the war continued unabated, with little change in strategy. The political necessity of preserving a non-existent military victory took precedence over the lives of innocent people. In that sense, those who managed the war were irresponsible.

I don't think it required millions of deaths. That is just how it was fought. I don't think civilians should have ever been targetted, but they were. The idea was one of calculated war strategy, but it was a failure. I think the Vietnam War taught us a lot of major lessons on how to handle situations like that.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Do you have any theories as to why Bush Sr. and Clinton decided not to invade Iraq?

The costs would be so high, as they presently are. War is very serious stuff. Cheney showed in an interview back then that they understood exactly what would happen. Cheney fully saw the picture that would happen. It was enough then to make them refrain. But 9/11 illustrated the seriousness and urgency of dealing with our terrorism threats, and that created the difference in the cost/benefit analysis.

By the way, for those who think the current war is completely about Haliburton revenue, you must think Dick Cheney is the most patient person who has ever lived and a fool for giving away the arguments against the decision he would be part of twelve years later.

From Universal Mind
The costs would be so high, as they presently are. War is very serious stuff. Cheney showed in an interview back then that they understood exactly what would happen. Cheney fully saw the picture that would happen. It was enough then to make them refrain. But 9/11 illustrated the seriousness and urgency of dealing with our terrorism threats, and that created the difference in the cost/benefit analysis.

If they knew what the difficulties were going to be, they did a very poor job of preparing for them, and an even worse job of informing the public. I have never heard anyone from the administration claim that a coherent post-war plan was ready to be implemented when Saddam was deposed. Rather, the plan formulated by the State Dept. was rejected, and no alternative was provided. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said that the insurgency wouldn't last more than a few months, and Cheney himself said long ago that the insurgency was in its last throes.

There are three scenarios that come to mind to explain this:

1) The proponents of the war had a post-war plan, but implemented it poorly and were too incompetent to accurately judge the situation.

2) The proponents of the war had a post-war plan, but implemented it poorly and lied about its effectiveness to cover themselves.

3) The proponents of the war had no post-war plan, and initiated war while fantasizing that nothing was necessary beyond deposing Saddam.

Are there any scenarios I'm missing? What explains the degree to which the military and the administration were unprepared to deal with conditions in Iraq? This article is a little old, but relevant nonetheless:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...778139,00.html

General Shinseki testified before congress that the war would need far more troops for a longer period than the administration was suggesting. He was subsequently pressured to retire early.

What evidence is there that a realistic post-war plan was available?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

1. They are conservative in the sense that the people who are conservative in the traditional sense on pretty much everything are their supporters.

There a lot of real conservatives who hate what Bush and co. are doing. It may destroy the Republican party (wouldn't that be a shame--not.)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

2. I have already covered this. Do you remember what I said about bringing the world together to liberate the world?

Well, I remember what you said, I just don't remember the world agreeing with you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So because I thing the war was necessary, that means I support war crimes? I don't get get your reasoning there.

What R.D. 735 said; thank you!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

By the way, for those who think the current war is completely about Haliburton revenue, you must think Dick Cheney is the most patient person who has ever lived and a fool for giving away the arguments against the decision he would be part of twelve years later.

Oh, he's much more patient than even that; he's been working since the Nixon administration to increase the power of the presidency.