In response to the attack on our nation, our people, by the Barbary Pirates, we attacked the Barbary Pirates. In response to the attack on our nation, our people, by Al Qaeda - we invaded and overthrew the government of Iraq, and invaded and overthrew the government of Afghanistan. The successor governments, by and large, DON'T WANT US THERE ANYMORE, and we're JUST NOW getting out of Iraq, and are NOT leaving Afghanistan.
I'll say this; our attack on A'stan & Al Qaeda was IMO fully justified. The Taliban was in charge, and they were harboring AQ. Bush actually called for the Taliban to act against AQ. Possibly -- even likely -- that was only for show since they were closely aligned.
Iraq is the big tough nut in this equation. I am well aware -- painfully -- of the controversies surrounding the existance of WMDs there. Many intelligence services believed Iraq had them, so Bush was not alone in believing they were real. We know Iraq had some, at one point, because Saddam used them on the Kurds.
Here is what I believe:
Saddam had a WMD program that he suspended, dispersing its elements possibly to adjoining countries, in advance of the impending invasion. He believed what would happen would be America would invade, occupy, then leave, and he would still be in charge, at which point he would rebuild the WMD facilities.
Is there evidence of this?
My belief stems from the experience of a F.B.I. agent who debriefed Saddam on a near daily basis after Saddam had been captured. Saddam himself said this to the agent.
And perhaps Saddam lied. IMHO; I don't think so, I think he knew he had nothing to lose. Plus by the time he started talking to the FBI agent (a Iraqi who was an American citizen by naturalization) he & the agent had developed a rapore.
The American involvement in Iraq is the hardest element of this whole venture to defend. My ... "defense" of it is qualified.
If I knew what is known now in 2002-3, would I have supported it?
No.
We don't get to go back and fix our mistakes. Having discovered no WMDs (outside of 500 tons of yellowcake uranium and a few sarin warheads) should we have then retreated?
I think not; to do so might have created a political vacuum and I think that might have allowed some wicked elements to come to power.
Sadly, however, the latest news I have heard from Iraq is something like this may have happened, since we decided to leave an not even leave a force behind as some of the generals wanted. Iraq is turning into a police state like Syria. Protestors are being violently oppressed, and ....well, consider what else happens in those types of tyrannies.
We broke Iraq, and our attempt to fix it was aborted, now it's failing miserably.
That is a horrible situation, but we still have Islamic extremists to deal with, AQ is still a force we need to crush. Had I been in charge I would have done it differently.
Would I have used nukes? Yeah I did say I would. In limited applications I think tactical nukes might have been appropriate. At the beginning of the war we supposedly had Bin Laden & his forces trapped in a valley; limited nuking of that valley might have put an end to OBL right there rather than trying to use Afghanis of dubious loyalty to try to do the job.
Ouch. Where . I mean, not just where we disagree-- which is everywhere .....
Deriding me for sanctimony while exhibiting it yourself in the very same post qualifies as hypocrisy. You take me to task for my idealism in exactly the same way I take you to task for what I see as lack of same, defending your position with the samew zeal and devotion that I defend mine. Plus, frankly, I'm not even sure the charge of sanctimoniousness is a valid one - as it at least implies if not outright states a FEIGNED high-mindedness or devoutness. I might not always succeed in measuring up to my personal principles and ideals. But I ALWAYS try, and I feel that I'm willing to accept correction when I fail. YM, of course, MV.
I see your point here.
Upon reflection what I have done was to try to positively assert my argument in a manner which was intended to leave no room to doubt I was sincere. And, yes, it did come off as sanctimony -- exactly as I had charged you with.
I don't think I lack "idealism," though. It's just that over the years it's toughened up up a bit.
Machiavelli, the Italian political scientist who annoyed the Catholic church, said the following;
"A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good. Therefor it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good."
While Machiavelli has often been derided for his apparant amorality -- or even outright villiany -- in reality he was a far more complex person than just a Italian version of J. R. Ewing. He was interested in good governance, but saw none of it in Italy in his day. What he saw was a factionated Italy, divided into principalities largely controled in underhanded ways by the Spanish, the French, the Germans (talk about countries sticking their noses in others' business.......). Many Italians decried this. Machiavelli's point was not to because that was really just being irritated that human beings didn't play nice. Machiavelli tried to suggest that if Italy was strong and united in itself, it would be able to defeat these exterior influences and ....well, be truly sovereign. But he realized that, as the old bromide suggests, "
nice guys finish last (dead)."I keep coming back to the car analogy because it fits so very well. We're past the point where taking off the cruise control is a suitable answer. Voting for someone like Mitt or Newt is just that - it's not enough. If we don't at least try for more, NOW, it may be too late for ANYTHING to work.
I think Rand Paul would be a LOT better than his father. BUT, he's not running. Would Ron Paul be better than Obama? Yes, but the problem, as I've said, is he
just doesn't have the support.
We may be in a car heading for a cliff. I can't tell if just hitting the brakes will help or not. But I'd rather hit the brakes and pray then kill the engine, which will remove the power from the brake system .....
Either Romney or Gingrich will have some support in kongress. R. Paul won't. That means -- to me-- Gingromney is a better brake than Paulobama. Look at it that way.
And (8sigh1*) no I don't know I'm right.
Our record is hardly perfect but it's pretty damned good overall. Far, far better than many european countries and Asian countries.
"Better than the other guys", as far as I'm concerned, isn't enough. We claim the moral high ground. We'd better be able to hold our heads up high and prove that we DESERVE it. Best of a bad lot doesn't cut it.
There will never be "enough" because no nation run by man can be perfect, just as no human is perfect.
We should do better but we ought not excoriate ourselves because we're not perfect. That just undercuts us in general -- in my opinion.
The political reality is that he (R. Paul)doesn't have enough support in America to be elected over Obama.
Kind of a bold statement when we don't have a Republican selected to run yet, and 10 months to go in which nearly anything can happen.
Well, it may be that, but it's based on what I see in polls. They may be wrong, they may be stilted in favor of some agenda I don't know about, but OTOH I don't have a crystal ball myself. I'm only calling it as I see it.
I think things may change, but I would be surprised if they did so in a manner so dramatic it would allow Ron Paul a realistic chance at the oval office.
How many people get themselves hooked on some illegal drug and wind up stealing $$ in a life of crime to support their habit?The users of illegal drugs hurt others all the time, in case you haven't been paying attention. Hell man, people who use LEGAL drugs (alcohol) hurt people all the time.
Then punish those who commit acts which violate the rights of others, regardless of whether they were stoned, drunk, or sober at the time of the incident. You have my complete, wholehearted support for that.
Drug use itself IS NOT EVIL.
But the War On Some Drugs is.
And I say that as someone who drinks very little, and who has no interest in even trying "recreational" drugs
[/quote] .
I don't agree the drug war is evil but I concede that some of the results certainly do qualify. Drug use itself is ignorant and misguided. The fact that people who become dependent upon drugs and turn to a life of crime to support the habit will mean that society will have very little tolerance for the behaviour. People see druggies stealing and regard drugs as a causative factor, thus the desire to quash the behaviour. It's seen as a simple cause=>effect. Libertarians need to convince the people this is not correct if they wish to bring change.
IMO this will do little to restore the Constitution though.
William Pitt:
"Necessity if the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."H. L. Menncken:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."From thus I glean our root problem (or one of them atleast) is we have a profound lack of respect and faith in the freedoms enshrined in our founding documents, and too much of a blind, instinctive desire for an impossible safety. Until we rectify this situation we're only dealing with symptoms.
Possibly, I could go on, but I've ranted so long there's an encyclodpedia's worth of posts in between yours and mine.....
I trust the tone in this post is far more respectful than earlier posts. Like always we disagree but I think we're beginning to find out we can do it without being disagreeable. Thank you for your efforts in that direct; they were noticed.
