People are STILL confusing "use of force" with "overthrowing Saddam Hussein through all-out invasion"? There is not a contradiction between favoring, say, the occasional airstrike, on the one hand, and opposing Gulf War II. We were talking about (and going through with) airstrikes in 1998, and it never occurred to anyone to invade the place. In failing to realize this fairly simple fact, that article was either dishonest or stupid. Or, more likely, both.
Hmm, then what was that strange Iraq Liberation Act, passed in 1998, and apparently signed by someone named President Clin-ton? That said the U.S. should "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." That was the "occasional airstrike"? Now who's being dishonest?
Apparently you are - unless you haven't read the thing at all. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm (Don't worry about the Quaker website, it was the first place I found that had the document.) It suggests a lot of "efforts" to remove Saddam - none of them referring to all-out invasion. Read Sections 4 and 5, then get back to me.
Maybe you should have read this part We may not have invaded Haiti but we were sure damn ready to,If Cedras had not have stepped aside for Aristade. US forces would have been deployed. We essentially used the same tactics we are using now.Step aside or we kick your rear.
Haiti was (a) literally on our doorstep and (b) easily dealt with, as it turns out. Even if Haiti tried to stand up to the US, it would have taken, what, an afternoon to replace the guy with Aristide? Aristide had popular support in the country. There was a plan to put a new regime in, and an elected leader. I don't see any of that in Iraq. Clinton also didn't try to falsely link Haiti with all kinds of accusations, from having nukes to complicity in a terrorist attack on American soil. Clinton's rationale on Haiti was consistent, whether you agreed with it or not. For the parallel to work at all, Iraq would have to collapse without a fight. In any case - and this should be embarrassingly obvious - but what about all the Republicans who were against intervention in Kosovo, Serbia, and Haiti when Clinton was President? (Let alone the Sudan and Afghanistan.) What changed for THEM, now that they're all hard and throbbing to intervene somewhere?
They pretty much will, I imagine. These are the guys that tried to surrender to CNN reporters and unmanned drones 10 years ago. There was no American national interest in Kosovo, Serbia, and Haiti...as for Sudan and Afghan, I think most people would've been all for it if Clinton had done the job right instead of putting on a show for the cameras. Alex
The party in control of the White House is usually in favor of intervention while the power not in control is against it.
Someday, I hope to pass a law that says, until there's actual proof of linkage between the two, anyone who brings up 9/11 as justification for Iraq gets a jolt in the ass with a cattle prod.
There does not have to any link, but a willingness by the people in power to do their duty to avoid any similar type event. I think it is used as an excuse many times, but if you were in power (your party) would you want to be the one to go down in history as the administration who was caught with their collective pants down? No Clinton jokes please.
Funny, it doesn't say shite about "occasional airstrikes" either, does it? So, I guess for you, it's all a question of degrees, eh? I guess it's fair to say that you'd be in favor of another decade of pin prick airstrikes that allow Saddam to stay in power, rather than trying something that might be effective in removing him? Fascinating.
They were wrong then. Just like any Democrat who supported the call for regime change under Clinton in 1998 - and questions it now - is wrong. Our actions in Sudan and Afghanistan under Clinton were "interventions"? That's a good one.
By my recollection, Bush ran for office with a great disdain for "nation-building" and with an isolationist stance that had was nostalgic, if not realistic. It worked for the 2000 election, but couldn't stand up even in early 2001 when rhetoric had to give way to responsibility of the office (and new improved rhetoric, of course). Let's face it - the whole country's fickle when it comes to military force. Except for Delta Force wannabes, who really wants to fight wars in far away places where the threat to the U.S. is imprecise, indirect and somewhat hypothetical? Al Quaeda is a different story - this is a direct and clear threat. Defining who is AQ and how to combat/counteract them is the issue there.
Wow. You moved the goalposts so fast, they left scorch marks. I'm going to take this as "Uh, you're right, I guess Clinton never signed on to full-scale invasion." OF COURSE it's a question of degrees. We were in favor of regime change in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, weren't we? We were in favor of regime change in South Africa, weren't we? We're in favor of regime change in China and North Korea, aren't we? No one is even suggesting sending in a hundred thousand Marines for those cases, so what makes Iraq so special? At least in 1990, Iraq went to the trouble to invade another country. What have they done now that's so different than the past dozen years? They are not a present-day threat on the order of Al-Qaeda, or even North Korea. They can be kept down with sanctions and "pin-prick," as you choose to call them, airstrikes. Especially when we have other trash that needs taking out. So, Sudan and Afghanistan under Clinton don't count as "interventions," but the NON-invasion of Haiti does? Could you have more of a double standard?
So isn't it hypocritical for the left in the US and Europe to be against the war in Iraq while being for war in these other places. Wasn't Kosovo a preemptive strike? I guess hypocricy on the Left doesn't bother you.
That's just residue from your "occasional airstrikes" remark. You're not right. I never said that he did. But "regime change" was the goal, not just the "occasional airstrike". And Walzer, whom you're defending, was talking about using enough force to take Saddam down, not just keep him contained. Shouldn't you know, as you're the one defending the guy who thought the unilateral "use of force" against Iraq was justified in 1998 but isn't now? I suppose a decade of flaunting UN sanctions and requirements is a drop in the bucket to you, and we should just continue to let it happen. Dan Loney - advocate of a toothless UN. The argument looks different when the danger is posed by weapons of mass destruction, which are developed in secret, and which might be used suddenly, without warning, with catastrophic results. One might well hope for an international regime banning or regulating such weapons; and certainly it makes sense to work for a regime of that sort. But unilateral action is still a legitimate recourse while that work is going on, before it has produced a reliable result. When a state like Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and is known to have used them in the past, the refusal of a U.N. majority to act forcefully isn't a good reason for ruling out the use of force by any member state that can use it effectively. For the U.N. majority isn't holding the ring. It can't guarantee that nothing absolutely awful will happen. They can? I thought the sanctions were inhumane, as they don't do jack to Hussein, and those airstrikes did such a marvelous job of getting the inspectors back in, eh? And, in 1998, Walzer was not talking about keeping Iraq down, as you put it. Thank God we have a bloated federal government that can, I don't know, do a few things at once. You're suggesting we didn't "intervene" in Haiti because there was no "invasion"? Huh?
Not necessarily. It's only hypocritical if the reasoning and principles that people are using to oppose the war in Iraq weren't followed in those other cases. TWUB...I've been meaning to say this for a while, but you sig really bothers me. Sean Penn is a great, great, great actor, from Bad Boys onward he's been phenomenal in everything I've ever seen him in...and I've seen him in a bunch of films. Your sig is completely unfair. semi
> I suppose a decade of flaunting UN sanctions and > requirements is a drop in the bucket to you, and > we should just continue to let it happen. This is not a justification for anything. If the US did not have veto power, I'm sure that America would be guilty of many decades of flaunting UN resolutions (not that it would bother us). > The argument looks different when the danger is > posed by weapons of mass destruction, which > are developed in secret, and which might be used > suddenly, without warning, with catastrophic > results. The danger from chemical and biological weapons in terrorist attacks is vastly overrated. The costs we inflict on ourselves by launching this attack are greater than the cost of having such a terrorist attack in the first place.
Incorrect. I'll take that to mean "I don't know, I can't come up with a good answer, so I'll continue to pretend that every instance of military action is equal in scope, scale and necessity." As opposed to the people who wanted to invade before the inspections are even completed? Bush was dragged kicking and screaming to the UN in the first place. And since the UN is now so important, shouldn't they have the complete report Baghdad submitted, instead of a version with over 8,000 pages edited out? ALL UNILATERAL ACTION IS NOT THE SAME. I AM FORCED TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS IN ORDER TO DRIVE THIS FAIRLY OBVIOUS POINT HOME. Uh, we took out the inspectors in order to resume airstrikes. I realize this bit of history has been smudged over the past few months, but that doesn't make it untrue. Like capture Bin Laden, smash al-Qaeda, rebuild Afghanistan, and rattle the saber against North Korea? Maybe we could, given a Lincoln or an FDR in office. But our current leadership doesn't have the vision or the talent to handle so many tasks at once. You were the one puzzled beyond recovery by Sudan and Afghanistan. When you decide what you mean by "intervene," let me know.