Bush Poses Interesting Question!

[Loukuss]

If they are tapping somebody and they talk about buying a little bit of marijuana or bouncing a check, we do not really hold it against them.

Unfortunately that is not true.

 

[Verv]

[/font][/size]

I had thought that Bush/Ashcroft/etc had done away with the need for a warrant. One of the threats of the Patriot Act - or so I thought - was that no warrant would be necessary to search a house. I also thought that the wiretaps would not require a warrant.
Ringo

Isn't that what the Attorney General is doing? Signing off on it and giving them, for all intensive purposes, a warrant?

Unfortunately that is not true.

Do you have some examples?

 

[Ringo84]

I thought this was a great post except for the "shining beacon of democracy" part. Everyone knows the US aint no democracy.
Everything else was spot on, sir.

Thank you.
Ringo

 

[ScottishJohn]

Why was it beyond his reach? No-Fly Zones enforced by the United States which allowed the independence of the people in the zone.

Which is why the Kurds could speak out, which is the point - you said they couldn't and used that as an example of a reason the war was justified. I was in full support of the no fly zone. I would have preferred a proper UN mandate, but it did no harm, and also a lot of good.

However, was Kurdistan as good as it is now? Not by any means -- now there is actually investment in the future. You would be kidding yourself if you were to pretend that Kurdistan would have an American University now, or would have the amount of investment pouring into it.

It did have a lot of investment. 13% of the Iraqi oil revenue, to the tune of over $8 billion.

It would exist as its semi-autonomous militia zone dependent on the presence of American jets to enforce a no-fly zone.

It also had its own government prior to the invasion.

It is not easy and it was never going to be easy -- under Hussein there was no progress and right now, surprise! we are fighting for progress. However, you somehow kid yourself with pure skepticism that one day the people cannot be reasoned with and peace cannot be achieved.

I don't think I ever said or suggested that peace cannot be achieved. It will not be achieved if we continue to follow our current course. There was peace before we invaded, albeit the peace of a tyrant. I was against the invasion. I felt it was hasty and ill planned, and I feel vindicted in that belief. I firmly believe could have had peace much sooner if we had acted differently. For instance. You and I agree on the need for security. Yet in the aftermath of the invasion the US administration ignored advice from the pentagon on the number of troops they would need, failed to guard iraqi arms dumps, created a power vacuum by abolishing the army and standing down the police, and allowed the militias to fill it, as well as throwing money around without asking for receipts.

Peace will be achieved and there will be democracy, but there is a big if: if we fight and if we establish security.

We need more Soldiers for the occupation and we need the complete power of the American military raining upon them.

Talks of withdrawal and deadlines are the least counterproductive thing we can have being that they imply an end to our fight in the near future, a mere signal to the militias that they ought to wait us out as now al-Sadr is doing!

I agree that we need far more troops. One of the comparisons I often make is between the number of UK troops in Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles and the number of coalition troops in Iraq now. We are something like 4 1/2 times short of what we had per head in Northern Ireland - which was a country where we had the loyal support of at least 60% of the country, as opposed to the disdain of 90% of the country. However, raining down military might is not what they need to do. They need to police, to close down militia activities, to restore law and order, allow rebuilding, offer the government effective arms and legs.

None of it is the issue of Pres. Bush and at the time, the dire issues faced in Afghanistan were quite odd!

The Soviets would not exactly allow Americans to occupy their former colonial failure. We only had training facilities and no real boots on the ground.

Now, John, if you are so wise, can you tell me what we should have done?

You are proposing essentially what you are against: American occupation of a country to establish a secure government.
So you are against it in 2007 Iraq but for it in 1989 Afghanistan?

If it was possible, I think occupation and establishment of a proper democracy in Afghanistan would have been a delightful fate in 1989. However, getting the agreement of neighbors and doing so in the immediate underbelly of the Soviet Union would have been difficult.

I'm not talking about any occupation. The US funded resistance in Afghanistan extensively during the cold war. When the Soviets withdrew their interest ended. The people they had both used as pawns were left to starve and fight amongst themselves in the ruins of their country. The arms we provided continued to kill, the private armies we trained continued to strut around. We should have provided humanitarian aid. We could have involved other countries. We could have sent experts to help them rebuild. We didn't. We abandoned them to chaos and from that chaos, as is so often the case, strong leaders emerged, and the people chose strength and security over chaos and freedom.

But I would like to welcome you aboard to the an occupation that can work:

In Iraq, we have a chance to not leave a nation fractured as Afghanistan, left to theocratic tribal henchmen. But you know what it takes?

Military presence and bloodshed; bonds forged by unlimited fiscal and military support to the region; no withdrawals due to lack of troop numbers and needs elsewhere; increased security zones; a clampdown. It requires time for the schools to be secured, the power sources to be secured, the infrastructure and government to be secured.

4 years is not enough for a broken country.

Four years has been long enough for us to have done better than we have done. We should have had 400,000 plus in from the get go.

Military decision making was faulty but now more progress is being made under Gen. Petraeus' plan.

What kind of progress?

The meal was not burnt being that the outcome is going to be what it wa sintended to be.

I can't see the evidence to support that. We intended there to be inter necine warfare, inneffective government? No real rebuilding?

No timeline was given for the war because frankly we did not know what one could have been, no one can predict that being the number of variables.

There were variables which were predicted, and which were also ignored.

I respect this part and though our debate may seem a little virulent at times, at least we have the mutual respect and integrity to depend on.

It is really a good thing what we are doing -- if we were Iraqis, we would be the sort of Iraqis that really are fighting for some concrete change with differing opinions.

We are showing that this is not an issue where nationality or ethnicity come into play, but conceptions of justice.

We come from differing ideological groups, similar to two Iraqis from differing religious groups, but if we can talk it out and agree to not use violence as a recourse we can achieve something.

Curious, who would you trust?

Mainly people who are not driven substantially by their egos, people who do not assure me one thing one minute, and then try and pretend they didn't when it turns out to be a fabrication the next; very few politicians.

I have more faith in Gordon Brown for the future than I had in Blair, but I would prefer Menzies Campbell to any of them. Unfortunately that puts me in a minority.

I understand these situations but I view them in the context of the time they were in, political goals which were absolutely necessary due to proxy wars that were being fought.

I can't square using other people as pawns to protect myself. What is it about American lives which justifies the sacrifice of thousands of Iraqi and Iranian lives? If we are talking about right and wrong, then in my moral framework there is no time when that is right.

And Reagan sold weapons to both sides.

If we put the actions into the context of 2007 they are criminal just as many actions come off out of context.

I don't think it makes any difference in the situations I have mentioned. I understand the historical context.

We could not live as sheep in a den of wolves.

I'd rather be a dead sheep with a clean conscience than just another wolf.

I agree -- the Philippines should be a model of how to fight terrorism to some degree. That is why a lot of the nation buildign we are doing there is vital to our successes.

First of all, I'm not sure I have heard much of anything that the US have done in the Phillipines.
Secondly, if they are making headway there through a policy less influenced by brute force and ignorance, that makes me more angry. If the US know how to combat terrorism effectively, then why are they failing to apply that knowledge elsewhere?

 

[ScottishJohn]

in favor of their own controversial, enrichment plan[/I]? At one point they actually made a crucial mistake by admitting they need to enrich Uranium.. Being that in the production of the power, it is not necessary!

Thought I would address this. Iran have two reactors in their Nuclear power plant. One was 85% finished, the other about 50% finished when the shah was removed from power. Both require enriched uranium. When they reactivated their Nuclear power programme, they chose not to put their security of supply in another country's hands again. This is because under the shah they signed agreements and invested in a company called Eurodif, and paid Germany, the US and other countries to provide them with a nuclear programme and a supply of uranium. After the shah was ousted, the services paid for were not given, and the money paid was not returned. Billions of dollars.

Fool me once...

 

[Kalevalatar]

I completely forgot :

#17 Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, torture. You shall know them by their fruits.

1. Iraq

Well, there can be a discussion concerning this being that the way of fighting their civil war involves terror. I tis outright war, so give us a break on that one.

Your national security experts says that terrorist are coming to Iraq to learn techniques to take back their own countries and who knows where else; that al-Qaeda related groups are using Iraq as rallying point. Thus President Bush war-of-choice in Iraq that he cannot seem to be able to end has increased the danger of international terrorism. I'm sorry, but where is the break, I ask.

What of the notion that other nations moderated themselves because of Bush? The idea has spread around significantly that Libya abandoned all ideas of a nuclear campaign, Syria was afraid to push issues further in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia had municipal elections and even Myanmar made changes.

Libya I'll hand to Mr. Blair, hands down, not to President Bush! Syria... I'm not sure what you mean by "afraid of pushing issues further". Syria is still there, firing on Israeli planes; Hezbollah is still alive and well in Lebanon, and the casus belli, those captured Israeli soldiers, where are they now? What did that war achieve and how did President Bush help achieve it? I also fail to see President Bush's particular, supposedly important role in Myanmar, but I'll admit my own ignorance here.

On the refugee issue -- many refugees from Afghanistan were repatriated quickly.

The 4.2 million post-US-invasion & occupation fresh new Iraqi refugees rejoice.

Once the time comes for them to go back to what's left for their homes, it's again the UN that will help to repatriate them, as the UN is trying to do in Afghanistan. Finland has troops in Afghanistan doing just this kind of (FIN)CIMIC, building houses, schools and such. 36 nations are doing just that. Why should we hand it all to President Bush?

2. Iran

How are we supposed to respond to them stubbornly sticking it out with their nuclear reactor and even refusing to be given a light water reactor in favor of their own controversial, enrichment plan?

How about going back one step and looking at where did you go wrong in the first place?

I'm not purporting to have solutions to the many foreign policy messes created by your president; the purpose of my list as per the OP is to point out the steps where I think President Bush headed for the wrong direction and in doing so did his part to make this world of ours a more dangerous place. And Iran is one of those misteps.

Post-911, Iran, no friend of either Saddam (so much of then "axis of evil", history 101, White House? Anyone?) or the Taleban, signaled its willingness to actually "be with the US" and not against the US. It did not take long for President Bush to conveniently forget that Iran was also there to condemn the September 2001 attacks, Iran was there in Afghanistan alongside with the Northern Alliance; instead, the US president went ahead and once again put his feet in it by naming Iran as part of the "axis of evil." There goes the momentum and goodwill.

Fact is that the USAian initiated regime chances both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, as well as the ensuing high oil profits, are the very reasons why Iran's influence in the region has increased and why Iran suddenly feels emboldened. It might have been better policy to keep Iran "with you" instead of turning it against you with one ill-chosen sound bite, seeing as it is in Iran's interest, too, to see a stable regime both in Kabul as well as in Baghdad. Two failed states in their neighbor is not it. After all, Iran bears a big burden by taking in and providing for the Iraqi and Afghan refugees.

So far, Iran's nuclear program -- unlike those of, say, Pakistan and Israel -- is under the eye of the IAEA. Iran has a right to nuclear power; it is not up to the President of the United States of America to decide who gets to benefit from it and who gets left behind. I fear that, given President Bush track record of turning things from bad to worse, Bush may well make Iran walk out of the NPT. If trouble is what Bush is looking for, he sure knows how to get it.

3. Afghanistan

Do you think that we ever did not have troops and intelligence focused on Afghanistan?

Would you say the war in Iraq has been beneficial for Afghanistan?

4. Pakistan

Well, the local dictator is intending to have elections soon and is probably going to accept Bhutto as a Prime Minister soon in a power sharing plan. So much for dictatorship.

And Saddam was such a promising, progressive-minded man too.

Pakistan with their rogue nuclear program is the premier wholesale market for nuclear secrets.

5. China

- We already do have a policy -- trade, and lots of it. A fair policy at that. What more is needed?

I fail to see what trade has to do with it. Finland also trades with China, a lot. Since the US is not a centrally planned economy, Bush can hardly credit his "policy" that individual companies trade with China. Did they not do this pre-Bush? Will they stop trading after Bush?

China has clearly upped the stakes during the Bush administration. Is it a coincidence? Could be. Then again, seeing the world's most powerful country getting bogged down in a third-world country of 25 million must have opened a few new doors for China. I'm not sure that has made the world a better place, seeing as all these big powers are competing for the same resources.

6. Russia

You wawnt a comprehensive policy for China but not much to say about Russia flexing its muscles? They were depriving east europe of energy and really being quite jerks. Perhaps they need a message.

Perhaps. Perhaps that message should come from those whom it concerns? If I recall, Russia refused to sell energy to the energy-hungry US and decided to sell it to the Europeans instead, so what is there for the US? The majority in those Central European countries oppose the USAian missile defense systems in their countries. I.e. Thank you, Mr. Bush, but no thank you.

So, the current policy of antagonizing the former ally in Moscow is sound and perfectly justifiable policy because...?

The choice-of-occupation-gone-bad in Iraq has emboldened Russia as well. Again, thanks to the high oil revenues due to the chaos in Iraq, the Putin administration is swimming in money and able to do things they could not afford to do before. Like using energy as a weapon.

You reap what you sow.That's President Bush's problem. He doesn't appear to understand this.


7. Saudi Arabia

You sort of want it both ways -- you want us to be endlessly flexible and to never respond to Iranian saber rattling but you want us to cold shoulder the Saudis?

You have misunderstood me. I'm not advocating a policy of responding by not responding at all. It's all about how you response. President Bush has a talent in coming up with the absolutely worst responses. Every time.

8. Israel-Palestine

Palestine as a democracy is funny.

So let's forget Palestinian democracy because Palestine as a democracy is "funny?"

Is keeping 10 million stateless people stateless and hopeless for the rest of their lives, and their children's and grandchildren's lives, a better solution to the desperate situation?

Israelis are suffering. Palestinians are suffering. One of the, excuse me, idiotic reasons President Bush gave for why he needed to have this carnage in Iraq and why he needed to have it ASAP, was that once Hussein was gone, the Israeli-Palestinian problem would solve itself, the logic being that Hussein was really behind it all, being such a monster and all.

Well, Hussein is gone.

So that's it?

9. Lebanon

What exactly?

How about the rushed US delivery of cluster bombs to Israel amid the Israeli bombing of the Lebanese non-Hezbollah civilians and UN troops?

90% of the Israeli cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when there was already a resolution is sight and nothing to gain except further suffering of ordinary civilians. In other words, it was just pure malice. Now those same nasty bombs still keep killing and maiming the Lebanese people, Lebanese who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, mind you.

The United States was the only nation that could have stopped the unnecessary carnage. The United States sold out.

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

A sound political decision from the Bush administration, indeed, to rush the delivery of those bombs, knowing full well how and where those bombs would be used and against whom. Otherwise they might have missed the sales and the $$$.

Winning hearts and minds?

10. South America

He sounds a lot like a future dictator.

President Chavez?

Geography 101. South America = much more than Venezuela.

I wasn't thinking Chavez at all. He is quite like Bush, a walking, talking PR-catastrophe who never misses a chance to put his feet in it.

What I don't understand is what is so unacceptable in the other socialist-led South American sovereign, democratic nations that the United States under President Bush feels it needs to go back to the Reagan-era policy of meddling with the matters of these nations. This is a whole new century. The cold war is over. Colonialism is dead and buried and should not be resurrected.

11. Nuclear non-proliferation

When did we flirt with using nukes? I am also unaware of new nukes. Weaponizing space... any of that.

WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike

A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised "nuclear operations" doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks.

A new doctrine of a pre-emptive nuclear first-strike is the most significant change of nuclear policy ever!

If the "intelligence" concerning this "WMD threat" is on a par with the Iraqi-style wishful thinking in order to have the choice-of-war of the President of the United States of America, President Bush has really and truly made the world a scary place.

As to the new nukes, come on . Maybe a cup of coffee...? [K-tar pokes Jmver to wake him up]

[/friendly teasing]

I find it hard to believe you haven't heard of the new-generation nuclear bunker-busters.

12. Post-911 world-wide sympathy, goodwill, and coming together

Make the world better? While the Arab world celebrated the attack?

Is that all you remember?

Don't you at least mean some in the Arab world? Some in the United States of America also celebrated the attacks. Something about God and revenge and that. In the wave of world-wide sympathy, when even governments such as Iran's (!) send condolences and condemned the attacks (if I recall, the mayor of Tehran personally contacted Mr. Giuliani in a show of sympathy), except for Hussein, you won't find an Arab government who did not express outrage over the mindless terrorist attacks. They held candlelight vigils in Iran! Perhaps your choice of news outlet chose not to show this side of the story or perhaps you only remember the disturbing images. That the Iranians "were Americans too" does not seem to mean much to the "let's nuke Iran" crowd, though. Ditto with Katrina. Even poor nations that could not have afforded to send anything still offered help the rich United States of America. Lest you forget.

It's incredible and kind of sad, too, how it always seems to take a huge catastrophe to unite the world, at least for a day: 911, Katrina, the Tsunami, Iranian earthquake etc.

/Space limit. Move to next post, please.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Continues...

Really... There is no unique opportunity to somehow unite the world.

I disagree. Bet you didn't see that one coming. The coming together after the September 2001 attacks was that moment. It was President Bush's defining moment. The world could have been better off as a result of President Bush's LEADERSHIP. If he truly wanted to change the Middle East in a fundamental way, this would have been his opportunity. He should have given up his obsession in Iraq and tapped into the world-wide goodwill instead. But no, for him it was all about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and going it alone.

Perhaps Chavez will give us that opportunity with his Latin American Army.

Chavez has nothing to do with President Bush's inability to be the great man and the great leader and rise to the unique moment.

President Bush squandered all that goodwill and momentum that was handed over to him on a silver plate, with no real effort on his part: all he had to do was be the President of the United States, a nation that had just been hit with severe terrorist attacks.

President Bush eroded the US world-wide image unlike any other POTUS before him with his illegal, unnecessary, poorly planned choice-of-invasion & occupation of Iraq, with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, torture renditions, and a vice president actively lobbying for torture.

Somehow President Bush managed to alienate even the US's longtime European allies.

Don't look at Chavez. President Bush did all this all by himself.

Then that shows where our new friends are:

I'll steal ScottishJohn's words here. True friends are those who are not afraid to tell you when you are doing things that harm you, when you are headed for the wrong direction. Yes-yes "friends" that fawn upon the king and tell him only what he wants to hear are nothing but paid lackeys and court fools.

 

[Suomipoika]

Mihinä sä oot oikein käyny koulus, kun nuo jutut tuloo ku apteekin hyllyltä?

 

[TheReasoner]

Continues...



I disagree. Bet you didn't see that one coming. The coming together after the September 2001 attacks was that moment. It was President Bush's defining moment. The world could have been better off as a result of President Bush's LEADERSHIP. If he truly wanted to change the Middle East in a fundamental way, this would have been his opportunity. He should have given up his obsession in Iraq and tapped into the world-wide goodwill instead. But no, for him it was all about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and going it alone.



Chavez has nothing to do with President Bush's inability to be the great man and the great leader and rise to the unique moment.

President Bush squandered all that goodwill and momentum that was handed over to him on a silver plate, with no real effort on his part: all he had to do was be the President of the United States, a nation that had just been hit with severe terrorist attacks.

President Bush eroded the US world-wide image unlike any other POTUS before him with his illegal, unnecessary, poorly planned choice-of-invasion & occupation of Iraq, with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, torture renditions, and a vice president actively lobbying for torture.

Somehow President Bush managed to alienate even the US's longtime European allies.

Don't look at Chavez. President Bush did all this all by himself.




I'll steal ScottishJohn's words here. True friends are those who are not afraid to tell you when you are doing things that harm you, when you are headed for the wrong direction. Yes-yes "friends" that fawn upon the king and tell him only what he wants to hear are nothing but paid lackeys and court fools.

Great post!
A must read!

 

[KomissarSteve]

I disagree. Bet you didn't see that one coming. The coming together after the September 2001 attacks was that moment. It was President Bush's defining moment. The world could have been better off as a result of President Bush's LEADERSHIP. If he truly wanted to change the Middle East in a fundamental way, this would have been his opportunity. He should have given up his obsession in Iraq and tapped into the world-wide goodwill instead. But no, for him it was all about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and going it alone.

Agreed - and to think, all it would have taken was some tact and diplomatic wrangling! What do Russia, France, and Germany have in common with us as far as top priorities go? Perhaps a few things, but nothing quite so prominently and cohesively as the destruction of militant Islam!

And rather than seize that opportunity, show some humility, and place the U.S. on a course that would lead (instead of acting unilaterally) the world on a course that would eliminate religious and ideological extremism as powerful institutions, thus ushering in an unprecedented era of peace and stability...the Bush Administration squandered it. And now look at what we have to show for it.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I can't square using other people as pawns to protect myself. What is it about American lives which justifies the sacrifice of thousands of Iraqi and Iranian lives? If we are talking about right and wrong, then in my moral framework there is no time when that is right.

And Reagan sold weapons to both sides.

I'd rather be a dead sheep with a clean conscience than just another wolf.