6 Things I Am Tired of Debating

Yesterday I went down my laundry list of ways in which Bush & Co. have completely, totally, and utterly done everything wrong in regards to the war.

Either you support Bush, OR you support the Troops.

Scapegoat is one word.

They all said no.

Thanks for telling us, it's what I and many others also thought (and still think).

They all said no.

Thanks for telling us, it's what I and many others also thought (and still think).

I was flipping thru the guide on tv the other day, and after having seen American Gladiators scroll by for the umpteenth time I finally decided to see if they were reruns or if it had been reincarnated. It was the same old show. Thank goodness it wasn't reincarnated, but I don't know who decided it should be shown again.

8. Operating systems by [Apple|Microsoft|other] are inherently better for any given person than a competing system.

It'd be better all around if everyone just agreed that the OS that you're most comfortable using is the one that's best for you.

If only that were true, there would never be any need for upgrades whatsoever. Unfortunately, my Masters certificate in Win95-98 from Brainbench.com does me absolutely no good now that MS stopped supporting those and pretty much forced me into WinXP. *grin*

But yeah, I get your point and didn't miss it. :)

You think Islamic terrorism is the only problem? Militant Sikhs blew up an Air India plane out of Montreal; 1985 isn't ancient history.

Oklahoma City, 1995, lest we forget about the homegrown US terrorist.

The Tamil Tigers are the bloodiest terrorist active today.

The Columbian FARC, the Nepalese Maoist, the Peruvian Maoist, the Moscow theater siege and the Beslan School massacre, the London holiday bombs of the IRS, the Sarin attacks in Tokyo, Atlanta's Olympic Centennial Park bombing, yadda yadda yadda...

I guess my point is that terrorism is a tactic, not a movement.

I don't wish to detract from the blog's points about motivation for terrorism. They're all legitimate.
But this line of comments has more than a few fundamental problems with logic.

First, as Spooky points out, Terrorism is not synonymous with Islam. There is plenty of Terrorism practiced in the world, it isn't all practiced by Muslims. Ask an Irishman about the past 50 years, for instance.

Second, "They" don't hate "Us" - if by "us" you mean America. Although you wouldn't know it from public discourse or news media, Terrorists aren't attacking America on a daily basis.

In 5 1/2 years now since Sept. 2001, how many plots have we (even allegedly) stopped? If Terrorists were playing the U.S.A. in a soccer match, the scorecard would read something like: 3 shots on goal, 2 saves. (and that's generously counting the "shoe bomber" and the chuckleheads in Britain who didn't even have passports as "shots on goal").

Meanwhile, there's DAILY terrorism going on in a lot of places (Sudan, for instance, or Israel). People hate. It's a fact of life. But can we stop being so self-obsessive and recognize that *we* are not disproportionately *under fire*? We've spent years now on a wild goose chase, mistakenly committing our forces to the *wrong* fight (as Iraq turned out not to have been a threat after all), and in that time - when one would assume we were more vulnerable - neither Osama, nor anyone else, has managed to do harm inside the borders of the U.S. of A. Why are we still "terrified" of terrorists? Either they're all dead, they aren't angry anymore, or they're completely impotent - whichever it is, it's time to relax a little.

And finally... The argument above, that "Theo van Gogh was murdered in Holland for being a critic of Islam!" is irrelevant. People get assassinated for political reasons - think MLK, Malcolm X, Jesus.... It isn't terrorism. At least not the kind being discussed.

So, it's true. Neutral countries (like Canada, Holland, Switzerland..) have fewer enemies. It would be nice if we learned something from that fact. But given that we won't, and can't - due to our desire to retain global dominance in the face of increasingly inferior education, aging infrastructure, and multiple economic disadvantages we "NEED" to exercise imperial tendencies - let's at least learn to minimize our enemies by following the rules we established ourselves, that good guys should follow. If we can't be neutral, can we at least remain honorable?

Spooky, while some people (certainly not me, especially so close to tax time) might consider the IRS a terrorist organization, they have never been implicated in any bombings in London. You might mean the IRA.

D'oh!

Hey it made me smile :)

The military was not in charge of America's foreign policy the last time I checked.

tell that to bush.. he fires every general that disagrees with him
LOL no seriously the people that are telling him this isnt going to work are those that WERE educated at westpoint and i say we should listen to them and not some c student that has failed at everything he has tried and avoided the military.

The best way to punish authors who write stories you don't like on Newsvine is:
a) Don't comment and don't vote
b) Comment about how you don't like the story

Because I like irony ;)

How does linking to your own opinion on a subject make a difference?
Say what you have to say and don't waste our time linking to your own blog.
Your opinion is just that opinion.

chindi, plenty of other users link to their own articles in the comments to make their point and it is completely acceptable, I have no idea why you would call some one out on something like this it makes absolutely no sense.

chindi this is a perfect example of why some users believe you are the banned user named Testuo, this type of comment is the exact type of thing he would say, that and you first comment came a day or two after he was banned, that didn't help.

chindi this is a perfect example of why some users believe you are the banned user named Testuo

No, I was accused of being some one named Robert and someone called RSF.

I bring it up because of the fact his posts link to his own blog which he tries to ass off as fact instead of opinion.
If he came out and said, "this is what I think" I would not have a problem with it.
I have a problem when he claims its as fact.

Thank you Guido.
I have been accused of being 3 different people here because some of the Republicans don't like what I post.
How is that not a violation of the CofH?

Guido I'm not smearing Chindi by any means I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

I am not cowering behind the COH I asking that you follow it.

ajs:

chindi this is a perfect example of why some users believe you are the banned user named Testuo, this type of comment is the exact type of thing he would say

This is an accusation of me using another ID.
Whats funny is that Nikita is getting blasted on another board for doing this same thing: are all those people Testuo, RSF or Robert?

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/10/657139-kerry-gingrich-debate-global-warming?last=1176244915#last_1

chindi I am not accusing you of being another user, I was just stating the reason why some people have done this, I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I said.

You haven't but Bhodi1 has,and it sounded like you were defending him.

I was defending an attack on Bohdi that was a direct violation of the COH,

ajs, thanks, appreciated.

whoops, wrong thread.
is there any way of having it collapsed or deleted to save me some embarrassment?

Coulter's genius

is there any way of having it collapsed or deleted to save me some embarrassment?

*

No one should never collapse the greatest oxymoron of the year

So when is a good time?

I don't know. Cole's plan doesn't say either. I'm not especially fond of or opposed to timetables, but I do think actually rebuilding is more important. The choices are not between leaving and fighting. If you're still arguing over this fruitlessly, perhaps it is because you haven't though enough about rebuilding as an option.

Soviet Union was not the only nation responsible for the creation of Israel.

There are a whole lot of complications, but the Soviet Union took the lead in 1947. It was the Czechs who armed Israel, and that had to be with Soviet blessings. If not for that, the Jewish Yishuv would have been exterminated. Of course, the entire Security Council voted for partition, but it was the Soviet Union that argued for it.

I am not saying [blah], I am saying that [blah].

No, you said:

We are the world's bully.

And so it is off-limits for debate? Whether we were right to do what we did is irrelevant? You would so easily put American selfishness above international justice - claiming it's for international justice - and place this all off limits for debate?

And you didn't try the thought experiment?

How in the hell are we going to rebuild anything while there is a civil war going on?

A good question. Now how about we go about asking it and looking for answers to it. That's an option you completely ignored.

You are correct in saying that some Israeli weapons came from Czechs, but the Israelis bought them form Czechoslovakia. Plus, most of the weapons were second rate and light arms.

While at the time most other countries, including the US, wouldn't even sell Israel second rate light arms.

What you obviously don't know about our involvement with Israel

Thanks for the insult, but I know quite a bit about it. More than you, I would venture, including how the US has also supplied Saudi Arabia and Egypt with arms and a lot of other confusing facts you're uninterested in.

It is off limits for debate because we know what the facts are. The reason for a debate is to find the truth.

The facts as you're willing to see them. There's a link above. Try reading it instead of amking snarky comments about "reality." Or are you afraid of learning something?

I ignored it because the logistics of the option are ridiculous. I don't have time to prove you wrong. I have already spent more than I wanted with this.

And why are they ridiculous? Because you say so? Your article is about things that shouldn't be debated anymore because they've been debated to death already. But you won't even begin to engage in debating this?

Doesn't that make the point of the article seem more along the lines of "Things I'm tired of debating because I'm always right, and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid"? For the other stuff you've listed, like global warming, the debate really is over. People who argue against global warming are just ignoring evidence. But people who argue for reconstruction in Iraq (and, btw, contrary to your assertions that the logistics are impossible, early reports I've seen are positive and viewed positively by the Iraqis) aren't arguing against facts like that. You're just trying to treat your opinion as if it were fact.

I don't know about Egypt, but there is no reason for us to give Egypt anything for free, so I am stopping the discussion here.

Actually, Egypt receives a great deal of aid from the US for the same reason Israel does. It was a condition of the Camp David Accords. (And, for the US to stop giving aid to Israel would sort of be like the US reneging on that peace treaty.) You say there's nothing to debate here, but there's obviously plenty to debate, including what is happening (how we construct narrative from collections of facts), whether it is morally right, and how we can respond to the way it is perceived by others. The only thing I agree with you on is that most Arabs see our support for Israel as wrong, though I probably disagree on why they see it that way (and this is why it's notable that the US did not support the creation of Israel, but that US support came later, and pretty much all Western/Soviet support for any Middle Eastern state has been in historical context), but that doesn't lead us anywhere by itself. You're trying to put all sorts of things out of the range of debate, but only because of a small set of facts - and you and I can't even agree on the relevance of those facts.

Now here's that link again. Seriously, you'll learn something.

not to get too off topic, but Israel is not really a democracy. It's closer to an oligarchy. at best, you can call it a democratic oligarchy.

Uh, no Babar, it's a democracy.

As for you Blog4Brains, I never said I disagreed with the claim that most Arabs think our support for Israel is wrong. But you keep taking things for what they're not; you took what I said for what it wasn't.

I know that we had many chances at settling the violent tension between Palestine and Israel, but Clinton screwed it up by being to passive.

Not true. Or at least (though I disagree strongly) not obviously true. This isn't in the world of fact. It's an interpretation, a narrative, or understanding. Do you understand?

Bush Senior should have taken Sadam out right after he pushed the Iraqi army our of Kuwait, but he was more worried about getting reelected than solving a Middle Eastern crisis.

Not true, either. According to people who were there, his concern was with alienating his international allies (like Saudi Arabia and France).

I also know that there was a powerful group of people (also called Neocons) that wanted America to go to war with Iraq even before 9/11 but the Administration did not want to.

Let's stay away from that. I'll point you here.

And when someone comes out and starts speaking the truth about Israel and our unconditional support of the country and the tension and imbalance it causes in the Middle East, they are labeled anti-semits and racist.

No, when people are antisemites, they get labeled antisemites. Sometimes, they're antisemites who happen to be arguing against Israel. If you don't understand this, go ask some Jews.

Palestine/Hezbollah is Shi'a.

Here is an actual factual matter. Hezbollah is Shi'a. Palestinians, though, are generally not. Try again. (And as for Egypt, you're wrong on your proportions, and never seem to have considered that there might be a reason the treaty is the way it is. And no, Egypt does not receive aid because it's a third world country.)

The Shi'a party is one that hates us the most because of our Israeli stance.

What Shi'a party? Hamas? They're Sunni. Al Qaeda? They're Sunni.

Add this on top of the fact that Islam, from my best knowledge, will never support democracy

Aye ya Yai. Most people who make that argument get dubbed Islamophobes. Go ask Salman Rushdie or Irshad Manji about that.

Did you know that one of the main reasons al Qaeda grew so passionate for hating us is because of our occupation in Saudi Arabia? This was during and after Desert Storm.

Yes, I did. Did you realize this had nothing to do with Israel?

Then during the 9/11 commision report they were asked to research the reasoning for the attack, that reason that never made it to the final report was support of Isreal over Palestine.

You know what else didn't make it in there? That we don't behead gays. Does that mean you support beheading gays now?

This is why I say rebuilding is nearly an impossible task and will not be possible by American efforts.

Huh? I don't see how you've drawn a line from A to B. And that's the problem. You're arguing in strange circles, taking interpretations for facts and (even when you don't get facts wrong) simply pretending that there aren't other interpretations, other ways of looking at these issues.

Blog4Brains.com:

I am tired of this debate, and I am tired of you. This...

This has gotta be the lamest response I have ever seen on NV. Whether you like it or not, ignoblus covered a lot of valid ground and has addressed a lot of misconceptions on your part. It would do everybody good if you re-evaluated your position based on the new information he provided. I really want to remind everybody that we are talking about things that are related to human suffering and we should, for the sake of humanity, be careful not to stubbornly believe something that is wrong.

ignoblus- i urge you to grab a dictionary and see which form of government it most closely resembles. i'm not saying that an oligarchy is a good/bad thing or that democracy is either, but confusing the two does us no good. why is that so hard to understand?

NikitaB linking to your own site and opinion again?
I find it ironic that you would do something like that: link to your own site to a column where no doubt you would delete some one for doing the same thing.

First off, B4B, I'm not even close to conservative. You figured that out, but didn't revise what you wrote. Did you revise what you thought?

Nothing is purely fact, and all of history is up for interpretation due to the perspective of the person recording it. Have you ever noticed that three people can witness something, yet all three have a slightly different story to tell? I have read many books, papers and sources that give me what I know. You have obviously read some things as well that give you your perspective. Who is truly right, and who is truly wrong?

Good. (A few things are simply fact, like that al Qaeda is Sunni, but facts by themselves rarely mean anything.) Now go back and read my posts, and you'll see this is the first thing you've said that's begun to address what I said. You just weren't paying attention because you're so damn sure you're right. Now, if we go back to the facts (admittedly more time consuming than either of us are probably willing to endure), we can see that there are lots of ways to understand these things. Lots of reasonable ways to understand them. But you want to put them off-limits for debate because you're so certain of yourself.

This is like a game of dodgeball, yet I have no nothing to throw back at you. Do you think I am going to like this game and continue it forever?

Then read what I wrote. I disagree with you on a great deal here, but what I am arguing against is your claim that the whole thing is not debatable. That's the court you set up.

Of course, if you can offer so many "facts" that are debatable or just plain wrong in such a short space (and I'm not pointing them out just to be disrespectful), it's pretty silly to think that yours should be the last word. I'm especially unimpressed with your argument that, "Whether I think [US support for Israel] is right or wrong is irrelevant." Of course morality is relevant to establishing a moral (or respectful) foreign policy. And you haven't begun to even consider the critique that foreign policy decisions are made historically and cannot be ao easily criticized in a simplistic, ahistorical manner.

I'd offer a vision along the lines of "Our support for Israel is warranted," but that's not how you set this up. You claimed the whole damn thing is so obviously one-sided that there's no point in anyone even bothering to say such a thing. That's how you set it up, so don't blame me. If this isn't the discussion you wanted, you shouldn't have started by claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is entirely dismissable.

I bare no responsibility for healing the world of its suffering. I have done my part by saying my perspective and trying to push for change. What else do you want from me? I am not being paid for this, and I am not getting anything out of the one-sided debate that ignoblus has created. As far as the misconceptions... what do you know about misconceptions, how do you know he is right? Why don't you present something as well? You sure a critical, yet you are not taking the same amount of risk, time and effort that I am.

B4B, you should consider looking at my column before making such accusations - I've also invested a lot of time and my criticism is not not empty muckraking. I've laid out my understanding in this article. You can also see some of my posts on Iraq here (my column filtered by the Iraq tag). I also created an article specifically to address what we should all know before we debate the subject here. What you are saying is that you can make vague statements that might be misrepresentative of reality and you refuse to undergo scrutiny. You are pushing for action without actually understanding the subject, with your ignorance summarizable in this:

all they are trying to say is, "Respect us and leave us alone!"

I am sorry, I do appreciate your having put the time into this article and I appreciate your engaging me on this, but your statement above are incredibly misguided and detached from reality. They miss both the internal struggle of people repressed by their governing structures and the external conflict in which such countries pose a risk to their neighbors and to the West.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, my friend. What you wrote was a well-summarized position of many of the people, as can be seen from the number of people who voted for your article. The problem is that when you get enough people who agree with the statements you make (which do not reflect reality), this affects US foreign policy, which, in turn, leads to death and suffering. So we have a responsibility to attempt to understand what's going on beyond the surface and to achieve an understanding. Ignoblus made some very valid points and you are trying to kill the discussion without re-evaluating your position given the new information.

BTW, I too am not being paid for this save for NV revenue sharing.

sorry, double-negative - I meant to say "my criticism is not empty muckraking"

B4B, what are you talking about? If I remember correctly, when I mentioned WMD in this context, I did not suggest that they had the weapons, but that they failed to demonstrate lack of transparency and intent (Resolution 1441, Blix report) and this issue combined with the consequences of centralized governments actually getting and deploying WMDs by way of terrorists was one element that made Iraq a good candidate to aggressively push for reform. Of course instead you latch on to a catch-phrase without bothering to understand the implication and, of all things, label me a fascist and go on a ridiculous rant. I think you owe me an apology.

BTW, please feel free to point out any other lies and misconceptions in my articles that you suggest I have. I would be happy to re-evaluate my position if I have been misled/brainwashed by the evil republicans who send out hypnotizing sygnals that can only be blocked by tin hats of condescending dismissal.

Oh, and to return the favor on the misonceptions/lies issue, this is false:

6. Iraq has ties to terrorism - FALSE/LIE

The only reason left to attack Iraq was that Saddam was a bad guy.

Proof:

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq's link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam's suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

...

What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein's regime?

Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam's regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, however, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamist ones such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

Or this:

Saddam Hussein showed no reluctance to support terrorism per se during his career. The fact that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists and had a close working relationship with the PLO was well known, and something he admitted.

Source: NRO

Not to mention the main fact as to why Iraq was invaded - a reason that was stated then and has not changed since: non-compliance with the UN. Back when the war was starting and these debates were starting to take place, I did some research to attempt to understand what is going on. I wrote this down here. On the link I am giving you, you will find a link to 1441, to Blix' report, to exerpts from the resolution.

Nikita, do you really think you quoted impartial sources? The supposedly nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations? Yeah, they only hosted and moderated a Foreign Policy debate at the Republican National Convention.

National Review Online? That one's so obvious I won't even bother...

B4B, well thank you very much for providing me with material to discredit/avoid you in future discussions. Oh, and BTW, I am an agnostic.

Bondibox, and that proves the information they provide is false? Question the information, not the messenger. The fact that Saddam was connected to terrorism is well documented. I am sure you can find it in liberal sources if you actually take the time to do it. Again, regardless of you position on current events, there is no excuse for ignorance in our day.

B4B, you simply CAN'T put forth vague aggressive points and then refuse to discuss them when you are show specifically where you are wrong without looking like a tool. I pointed out specific things you are very wrong about that lie at the foundation of your arguments and you, instead of re-evaluating your position, become hostile. This is your choice, but if you think you have attained a moral high ground, you really ought to take a step back and reread this discussion.

Who are we, Americans, to categorize what is right and wrong?

My purpose is to attempt to understand what we, as a civilized world, can do to reduce world suffering. Who are we to do that? We are a comparitively small, yet incredibly fortunate segment of the world population who do not have to deal with famine and tyrannical regimes. Take a look at Congo, Sudan, take a look at the repressions and suffering that goes on in the Middle East. If anything, through your writing you have shown complete lack of perspective with respect to the rest of the world.

The reason you never reach an agreement with people like me is because you refuse to listen instead repeating vague information over and over again. To suggest that Israel and US want to continue the violence is already a crazy argument for the simple reason that both profit significantly more from peace and stable economy than from volatility. If Iraq and Iran did not pursue the policies they are pursuing and instead integrated with the West a-la-China, the world would be a truly different place. To give you some perpsective with respect to dynamics in the world, I recommend that you take a look at this lecture by Hans Roesling.

If you do indeed know something we don't, feel free to publish it and perhaps I'll learn something. But, in the meantime, your raw and emotional thoughts, in my perception, only delay the day when the world will be a stable place with freedom for all.

About right and wrong in Iraq, I recommend that you take a look at an interview with Pam Hess and look over this article that seeks to cover some ground with respect to what we need to understand to even begin to make conclusions as to what actions should take place.

And if you don't believe what I say, then look at what the leading economists in this world are saying. My main point is that, from what you've written, you have a very long way to educate yourself before you can make any sort of conclusions, let alone conclusions as aggressive as you made in this discussion.

Well, I actually can do what ever I want, but I continued the debate for a good while with ignoblus. Yet, there was a point where I realized that the debate was going to go nowhere fast. So, instead of getting caught up in who is right and who is wrong, I just stopped debating.

You stopped debating when you said "here are 6 things that are non-debatable." From there, a lot of this has been entirely in your head.

The reason for my aggressiveness in dealing with you two is how bullied the people feel that are against this administration, and its policies.

But you ignored the simple matter that I agree with you on 95% of stuff. I'm not a supporter of this administration. I'm not arguing that the Iraq War was a good thing. (In fact, didn't I start by saying I had opposed it from the beginning? Go ahead and check... I'll wait.)

I did argue that simply leaving Iraq is not necessarily right. There should be a vigorous debate on what to do going forward, and I've generally been really pissed that all of the arguments are looking backward. Juan Cole has been a go-to-guy for the anti-war movement, and if he says that staying should be considered, it's obviously not an unreasonable position. Is he right? I'm hardly certain of that, but it's certainly worth debating. And I did argue that you're being simplistic on Israel, and that there is plenty worth debating there. I haven't hidden my views in any way on Newsvine. I'm pretty straightforward about them, and there are lots of people around here who could tell you what I think - but my point here has been that it's not a simple matter. But I'm also capable of understanding that there are other valid, perspectives, and I'm willing to argue (from time to time) from someone else's view. Usually, that's considered respectful, but somehow you've taken it as an insult. That's on you.

B4B, so there is hope yet.

1. With Iraq, the article you referenced does not indicate lack of connections to terrorism. Please correct me if I am wrong. It shows that there has been a lot of politics. Our purpose as citizens is to attempt to separate politics from reality, which brings me to point 2 - transparency.

2. Terrorism and WMD is something that should not be addressed in retrospect. I am only for this war because of the consequences of not having this war - it is an optimization problem where the variable being optimized is suffering and death all-around. One Russian poet once said that no war is worth fighting if a single child sheds a tear. But what do you do if it is one child crying or ten? Morality, as much as we hate it, becomes a relative value.

Coming back to transparency, WMD + terrorism becoming a usable weapon is incredibly dangerous. Of the countries you mentioned (Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China, India), each poses a varying threat and is moving in a specific direction. Specifically:

Pakistan - right now has a responsible government. The situation is very dangerous.
India - a democracy integrated with the West - does not pose a danger
NK - the point of getting the regional powers to put pressure is to specifically address this concern and to attempt to avoid war. Personally I think it is a travesty that we are allowing NK to abuse its people like it is doing now - it is as hollow as USSR.
Russia - reasonable player whom we should be very careful with, but is more interested in integration with the West than alienation
China - projected to overtake US economy - the level of integration is amazing and this is a country that has undergone a peaceful integration with the West (still taking place).

Iraq and Iran are really the only major countries who are creating problems and, instead of moving towards integration, are creating more volatility. Iraq could and Iran can change this situation by simply adjusting their policies. They made a conscious choice to move in the opposite direction. If you can show me how Saddam could be kept in check without a war after 2003 given that UN would have lost what little ability it had to monitor WMD activity, I am all ears.

Of course, the problem is not as complex as US good, Saddam bad. The reason Saddam was there in the first place is because US failed to take care of him after the Cold War instead giving him free reign. But this is the past. The question to me is, what is the optimal way to address the current problem, and I discussed this in the foundations article.

You are upset because you feel lied to and I can understand that. But what you are failing to realize is the fundamental problem that put the wheels in motion to begin with. I don't like the fact that US had to resort to manipulation either, but then again, if the world operated more efficiently, then the problem could have potentially been solved by the UN if they stood a united front against Saddam, who would have had no choice by to open up.

If you would like to persuade me that this war is wrong, I am very interested as I truly hate the fact that we support this war. But to do that you should show that my perception of where the world was going is false.

Once you do that, then there is a question of what to do now. Your description of what is going on there is really misguided. Again, I recommend that you watch the inteview with Pam Hess - it is very powerful.

B4B, take your time. I look forward to your reply.

Guido, the usual suspect...

First, can you explain exactly what issue you disagree with me on?

First, let me explain that I do have respect for other positions. If I have disrespect for anyone's position on either topic, it is because they have taken a strong stance belied by the ambiguity of each circumstance.

In Iraq, I do agree that the war was wrong. We shouldn't have started it. Now, though, I don't think the matter is as simple as "we can make it right by leaving." We can't. We've done a lot of damage that we have a responsibility to undo, and leaving abrogates that responsibility. On Israel, I have problems not only with the accuracy of your details, but also how it fits into the overall picture.

You're right that the terrorists feel that we have been meddling in their countries too much. But there are two things about that which are not only debatable but important to debate. First, the accuracy of that view (especially if understood in a simplistic way). We obviously have done a great deal to meddle in their countries, but it's simplistic to say it was always wrong or merely selfish. When we supported Hussein in Iraq (as the thought experiment discusses), a big part of the reason was to defend Saudi Arabia and Jordan. If we hadn't, the repercussions on the poor of the world, including in the Middle East, could have been catastrophic. The first Gulf War was about protecting Saudi Arabia. And even if we hadn't interfered militarily, our economic power and interference can't be ignored. Interviews I've seen with people in places like Lebanon and Jordan talk more about how Hollywood films have corrupted their cultures than they do about American military adventures. Nike had a sweatshop in Afghanistan with machine gun turrets to protect it from warlords. We have to complicate our analysis of American intervention in both these ways. We cannot assume every instance of American meddling is equally wrong or offensive to any subgroup of Arab/Middle Eastern peoples. We cannot become militarily isolationist and pretend that we're not messing with anyone because our corporations are. (Though, in this respect, the US prohibits companies from bribing officials in the rest of the world, which is a step up from most other countries, including France and Britain. The difference is our economic power, which magnifies everything we do.) The biggest, most legitimate gripe people in the Middle East have with the US is that we've supported authoritarian regimes. (For the Islamists, the problem is merely that we've been supporting the wrong authoritarian regimes.) The obvious answer to that is to push for democracy, but -hello- that's exactly what the neocons wanted. Analyzing these things seriously, we can construct a more moral foreign policy. I think we have to do that because we have legitimately engendered hatred, but if we don't examine these issues clearly we'll only replace one immoral foreign policy with another. Our support for Israel doesn't come close to encompassing these issues, and it is one of the rare examples of the US actually supporting democracy. We have to debate this fully, and all the talk about how we lied to go into Iraq - as true as it is - interferes with that. It isn't pushing us forward.

Second, it doesn't completely explain their motives, so there's a limit to how much we can appease them by accepting that this is their motive. Many Islamist terrorist groups have aims to recreate a Caliphate. They're often motivated by antisemitism (which usually argues that the US is run by Jews, and this is completely unadressed in Western media). The primary objection to democracy among some Iraqis is that they think it's a "Judaicized" form of government. A great deal of the objection to our support for Israel stems from Hitlerian propaganda that still informs many understandings of Israel. People in the Middle East, even many of the most moderate, still blame Israel for everything, even when it's just absurd, like when the issue is the quality of schools in Morocco. Many (though fewer) still think Israel is a base of operations for the takeover of the Middle East and then the world. You asked:

Why not Canada, Norway, Holland?

Two reasons are that these countries aren't as powerful (which is not something that can so easily be addressed, as economic power must be considered alongside military power), and that these countries aren't perceived as being run by Jews. How can we address these concerns? Serious engagements with the details leads to something quite different than that we should obviously just leave Iraq and stop supporting Israel. If we leave, we came in and destroyed the country. If we rebuild, we can prove to many that our motivations weren't completely selfish. To me, giving the UN more authority (if the international community is willing to make sacrifices to help us clean up our own mess) would be much more helpful. Certainly we have to stop giving contracts to Halliburton and start giving contracts to Iraqis. But the stakes here are enormous, not only for the US (though the US is not my primary concern here), but for the Iraqis and the world. Letting Iraq descend further into civil war could be catastrophic for millions of people across the globe. If we just leave now and let that happen, what are people going to say about American foreign policy once that happens? It'll be a lot worse than what they say now.

The point of the thought experiment is that it's very easy to criticize something from the outside. But when you engage with the actual details of a historical situation, when you put it in a historical context, it is often much harder. Our criticism cannot remain ahistorical and still be credible. To historically contextualize our criticism on Iraq, we have to argue seriously about what to do now, not whether or not the invasion was wrong in the first place.

In all, I'm arguing for a more thorough debate on American foreign policy.

The problem will always be how the religion is interpreted, not the religion per se.

Interpretations change, and they are never homogenous throughout a population. If you talk about "Islam" as if it were a single monolithic entity, that's problematic. Even among Iraqi Shi'a, understandings of what Islam is vary. And if they see circumstances differently - if they see a sincere effort to rebuild - they may draw on different parts of Islam. When you turn to "Islam" as part of the problem, that's really not good.

Bottom line, I do think we have a responsibility to clean up this mess that we made, but war and violence is not our only option. Maybe you can help me, but I don't think we have been able to in the past, or will we be able to now, rebuild a country while we are warring with its very own citizens. As I write that last sentence it almost sounds comical and against all logic.

This is something I'd like to see a lot more debate on. Unfortunately, too much of the debate turns back on just a few points. A lot of what you write is certainly true, but I will note one thing with which I disagree somewhat. While much of the Iraqi population does despise us, it is a minority fighting against us. A lot of people there do want democracy. Most people there want peace. The majority think we should leave, but not just yet. What they want is a timetable to satisfy them that we won't stay indefinitely. So there is a lot of room in there to rebuild with the support of the population.

While I agree with you that it would certainly be difficult, it does not strike me as necessarily impossible. And, even if it's profoundly unlikely, the results of not trying would be catastrophic, and I don't think you're adequately accounting for that.

Here's where I say, "I don't know." Going forward, I don't know what to do, and that is why I really want to see more debate on this not less. But those opposed to rebuilding can't pretend that there opposition is merely to "the war" and argue on how it started. Or ignore the disastrous effects of not staying. This is too important to not debate or to debate shallowly.

Like I said before, we have no true allies with in Iraq.

We do. The Kurds support us. The Shia and Sunni have different sets of mixed feelings. Although they've been able to infiltrate police forces and carry out some spectacular operations, the people we're fighting against are a minority. As with terrorism everywhere, the solution has to depend on not creating more terrorists, but that can be done if enough of the Iraqi people see a sincere effort at rebuilding. Last I heard, we still hadn't restored electricity and water to most of Baghdad, let alone most of Iraq, so this isn't a strategy we can say has been tried and failed.

That is why I urge people to step back away from the details and look at the bigger picture.

But when you do that, the argument you get is usually just "Bush lied" versus "Saddam was evil." It's not helpful. I want a debate that will seriously acknowledge both the difficulty and importance of rebuilding. That doesn't necessarily require tremendous detail on both sides, but it does require acknowledging that there are two sides, both very serious. If you tell me that your best estimation, your opinion, is that the costs of staying outweigh the costs of leaving, I can absolutely respect that. But I do think it's a difficult decision, and that it would be best if we all acknowledge just how difficult the decision is.

So that I am not repeating myself and wasting both of our time, can you give me examples of what you feel is inaccurate and how it does not fit into the picture. I appreciate your patients and help with this debate.

I think I've pretty much spelled out where I think you are worng above. To a large extent, we agree on how most in the Middle East view our support for Israel, but we disagree on how much emphasis to give to that in constructing a narrative. Maybe it will help if I point you to this comment I just made about the Civil War. In it, I argue that there are different ways to construct a narrative. I reproduced the Confederate narrative of the war entirely based on facts, but pointed out that it's a narrative most of us would disagree with (unless we accepted a "Chomskian" analysis, in which case we would be forced to side with the South). So the question is what alternative narrative do I think you haven't payed enough attention to. That would begin with the typical Zionists narrative in which Israel was created to establish political self-determination for Jews, a principle articulated in the UN charter and two international treaties as a basic right of all peoples. If your position is that we should not promote minority rights in the world, I can't respect that. If your position is that we can promote minority rights in a different way, I can respect that, but you've avoided attaching any sort of morality to your argument. I don't think that's responsible. And, moreover, I don't think the narrative you've provided has enough predictive power to inform foreign policy going forward. In other words, while it improve our image with some Muslims in the world, it won't sufficiently improve our image to counter for other problems it would create.

Mostly, I think you overstate the centrality of Israel to any productive narrative. The US is just too powerful, and economic power is perhaps more important than military power here, to not have dramatic effects on the world. If France, Russia, or China were as powerful as the US is, things would be a lot worse for the world and there would be a lot more instability. We can work toward creating a more egalitarian world to try to fix this - we should do this carefully - but we can't simply concede a few points on Israel and effect much change.

If we are such a moral country, why are we not, and have we not, been more involved in African issues of genocide, civil war and violent atrocities?

A good point, and I'd like to see us more involved in such matters. But various individual instances of our meddling have been more mixed in intent and effect than is often realized. Most often, we have combined a (flawed) sense of morality with a certain selfishness. One of my concerns is that we don't leave Iraq out of selfish reasons, which could (and justifiably) further damage our reputation.

I believe Bush I was the best at dealing with the Middle East

In some ways, he was decent. But that had mostly to do with his close relationship to the Saudi royal family. Our relationship with these dictators, hated throughout the Middle East and especially by al Qaeda, will hurt us. Because of his relationship with them, he achieved a certain level of stability, but not in a way that can last. In fact, al Qaeda formed directly in response to his putting military bases in Saudi Arabia.

I am okay with this as long as the push is not militarily. It is the wrong way to do it. I am all for diplomacy and non-violent measures to push for democracy. Yet, even this can cause enemies.

But what you're overlooking is that a lot of our actions were in response to imminent military threats. Our siding with Sadam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, which has cost us greatly, was largely to protect Saudi Arabia and Jordan who had every reason to be afraid of an aggressive Iran that was promising to attack Jerusalem (which would have required going through at least on of those states). In such times, it's a lot harder to be critical. I would agree that our support for the Shah of Iran was wrong. Our support for Nasser in Egypt was wrong. Our support of the Saudis is wrong. Overall, we've made too many mistakes that were all in the same direction. But fixing that isn't going to be especially easy, and it's going to take some great effort and sacrifice.

Take care, B4B.

This was exactly what I was saying about how THEY perceive our involvement with Israel. That is why it is so important to see it through the eyes of the Arabs.

Yes, I recognized that what you were saying, and I agree that it's important to understand their perceptions. But that doesn't necessitate adopting their worldview and doesn't necessarily mean that adopting their worldview would change their perceptions much. For starters, a lot of that perception is based on a long history of colonialism (including Ottoman and Islamic imperialism prior to European colonialism), and the conspiracist elements of Middle Eastern culture that developed in response to that (quite understandably, since it was typically true for well over 1000 years that local decisions were based on politics in some far-away place) won't change overnight. Interestingly, Shia and Sunni Arabs often refer to each other as "Zionists" - Iran recently published an article in the state-controlled media accusing al Jazeera of being part of the International Jewish Conspiracy. If al Jazeera can be seen that way, there's no hope we can fundamentally change the way we're seen without empowering the people of the Middle East by fighting for democracy there.

Further, it simply can't inform our foreign policy very well since so much of it is untrue. Among the changes I would advocate for the US, instead, would be to stop telling antisemitic fairy tales to explain our support for Israel. Our state department routinely tells Arab leaders and diplomats that "the Jews" run our foreign policy, but this exacerbates a lot of problems. If we were to simply explain ourselves in a straightforward manner, while it might lead to some more immediate disagreements, it would earn some trust and respect in the long run.

It is the incredibly enormous amount of military aid to Israel that creates the imbalance of power and the origination of fear through out the area.

They're quite aware that the Arab states started numerous wars against Israel. They're quite aware that without American support Israel would have been toast. There's still plenty of "Death to Israel" rhetoric going around, and if we stopped aid to Israel, it would probably encourage more radical voices and lead to instability. As for why we give aid to Israel, I'd recommend this article from Stephen Zunes (who has been a leading source for criticism of military aid to Israel - scroll down if you want to skip some less directly related material). I'm no fan of Noam Chomsky, but this is the same analysis Chomsky offered (in response to the Mearsheimer and Walt paper) - that Israel has been a client-state of the US. Of course, this ignores that Israel does have it's own interests, but it's much closer than a lot of the "analysis" out there. (It also addresses where you said, "There is also the AIPAC and the American-Israeli Lobby that has a very large influence on our Middle Easter foreign policy," which is something I think is dangerously wrong. Chomsky also notes, correctly, that American foreign policy in the Middle East is no different from American foreign policy anywhere else, which I think is the strongest proof that "the Israel Lobby" isn't directing our policy in the Middle East.) Changing our support for Israel would not change the underlying reasons we give support to Israel, like to offset threats from Arab nationalism, so simply changing our relationship with Israel would not otherwise alter our often manipulative or hostile relationships in the Middle East. The only real alternative is greater honesty.

The reason for the non-debatable issue for me is should we leave, and my answer is definitely YES... We need to figure out if there is a way to leave soon with, as ridiculous as it sounds, a guarantee that we will rebuild as soon as they can come to an agreement.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't leave. Not even Bush or Cheney. The questions are when and how. Reasonable people who have been against the war from the beginning are arguing against leaving quickly. Your idea of a promise to return is intriguing, but I don't think it would ameliorate the effects of leaving except for some of the effect on America's reputation, not enough.

One problem is that most Iraqi Muslims, from my understanding have a different perception of what democracy is...From what I understand, many Muslims want Islamic law, not laws created by man.

Yes, this is true. But it stems from misperceptions. Oddly, Palestinians who have spent time in Israeli jails and had the opportunity there to watch the Israeli equivalent of C-Span are very pro-democracy. Iraqis who have experience with democracy will undoubtedly come to appreciate it. For now, the problem is that many don't really understand how it works. (After all, their perception of American democracy is that it's run by the Jews - that it isn't democratic.) They get all the basic ideas, but they haven't had the chance to experience how it can work. While it's true that some Iraqis want theocracy, I do think you overstate how many.

After reading the Thought Experiment article, I though I needed more information. With the amount of information that was there in the article, I thought it was completely inconclusive whether I would go to war or not. Then there is the problem that we think war is our only option.

Good. I don't think war should be considered an option very often. I've never supported a war (or at least the way we went to war) in my lifetime. But it's important to recognize that some situations are difficult.

How can we stop creating terrorists when we are still having to use violence? Violence births more violence.

It's not easy, but we can limit the violence we use and try to offset it with other projects. People in lots of places blame terrorists (at least in part) for the violence used to combat terrorism.

Are we flawless in the support for Jerusalem?

Do you mean Israel? (We still don't recognize that Israel considers its capital to be Jerusalem. Our embassy is in Tel Aviv.) Of course there are times when we could have done better. And times when Israel could have done better and plenty of times when each of the various Arab states and players could have done better. Perfection is impossible. But if the question is whether we've been right to support Israel (as opposed to the Saudis - by which I mean the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia, not the people), yes, I think so. As I said above, one of the few cases in American foreign policy where we've consistently supported democracy.

I just think the way we supported Iraq in the wake of an Iranian threat could have been different.

Remember, the Iran-Iraq War was, in part, a proxy war in the Cold War. If we became involved directly, it could easy have escalated into something far worse.

Thanks ignoblus; you really have a lot of good things to say, and you are showing to be quite the intellectual. I just wished I had more time to dedicate to debating with you.

Thanks. I'm on vacation at the moment, so I actually appreciate that you don't have so much time right now :)

B4B, sorry for not replying earlier. Traveling - now in CA + have a ridiculous amount of work and not a lot of time to sleep, let alone converse on NV.

Can you elaborate on 1 and 2 for me. Before I go and answer these two issues, I would like to better understand what you mean by "It shows that there has been a lot of politics." and "I am only for this war because of the consequences of not having this war". I would just like to know what your thoughts are behind these two issues as I don't want to assume anything. They are very key to my ability to further this debate.

1. Politics - politicians in a democracy get to the top and remain there by appeasing the largest segment of the population. With an ignorant population (which is the case in the US even if less so than in other countries), that means playing politics: i.e. saying things that are not necessarily the correct course of action, but they will get you the votes. So the politicians always have a dilemma: they know the situation intricately, they are aware of consequences for different courses of action, and they are all-too-aware of the misallignment between politically correct moves and socio-economically correct moves. For example, assume that a politician, after familiarizing themselves with Iraq came to the conclusion that if Iraq does not reform its political structure, this will result in nukes going off in the West (will be addressed in point 2) killing N millions of people. So now, assuming that there is no political solution, there must be a war now in accelerate the change. If the politician comes out and says "We need to go in there and have a reform", from a political point of view, it would be a really stupid move: it would not attain the objective AND it would get them voted out. On the other hand, if they scream "WMD!", politically, it is the correct move to reach their goal. Were American people lied to? May be. But those who are too ignorant to understand the situation and prove that it's a lie leave politicians no choice. And those who understand the situation sufficiently, even if they disagree with the chosen strategy, understand that the lie given is not necessarily indicative of reality and treat it just like they treat most public speeches: a tool of politics.

2. This gets us to point 2 - why do I feel that it is the correct course of action. The consequnces of not having this war is use of WMD together with terrorism as a weapon by countries with centralized governments to undermine Western economies to reduce their influence once WMDs become accessible enough. This was the subject of the foundations article that I referenced several times above. Basically, the consequences of not having this war would have been:

1. Iraq would have been able to successfully avoid scrutiny by the UN and would eventually be able to have an unchecked WMD program given that this endeavor is becoming cheaper and more accessible by the day.

2. Neighbouring countries would also move stronger against integration with the West (Lybia would not have given up their ambitions for nukes, for example)

3. The region would remain significantly longer under despots who trample their people's rights.

4. As soon as centralized governments could employ WMD+terrorism combination for political/economic benefit, they would. (Major problem)

and all of this amounts to one simple argument: within our lifetime, the net amount of pain, suffering, and death in the world could be singificantly higher if countries with centralized governments have anything to gain from physical destruction of decentralized economic infrastructure. The world has been rapidly moving in the direction towards decentralization, as can be seen indirectly in the presentation by Hans Roesling. The problem is that the world is plagued by short-term interests that are exploited by states with centralized governments to remain in power for as long as possible (which is natural), which has created a situation when some countries moved rapidly towards integration (China) while others moved in the opposite direction (Iraq, Iran). So to avoid massive consequences, it may be the case that the West has to engage these countries in an aggressive manner and had they done it as a united front making war an inevitable option, the war could have been avoided as Saddam would have caved in to UN demands. But instead the West broke at the seams over politics, which resulted in speculation on part of Iraq that US wouldn't follow through, which, in turn, lead to the war. And not without reason: US was a very weak player in the Middle East letting people down (Kurds), not responding to attacks (Beirut), failing to to take aggressive action when they had a chance (targeting Al Qaeda). US didn't support the Shah back in the day when this entire mess could have been avoided had Iran integrated with the West. Overall, US track record until the Bush administration in the Middle East, in my fairly limited understanding, has been pretty abysmal.

The problem is your foundations article is filled with half truths and a lot of bigoted assumptions such as the Middle East is a primitive culture and can only improve if they become just like the US.

That is the biggest problem with you quote your own articles as authoritative sources: they aren't!

Chindi, Guido, I find it hard to respond with something other than "You are idiots". But I'll try out of respect for B4B.

a lot of bigoted assumptions such as the Middle East is a primitive culture and can only improve if they become just like the US

NEVER did I suggest that. Economic integration is in no way evaluation of their intellectual capacity. Some of the best minds and some amazing art come from the Middle East. The problem is that instead of supporting and cultivating those minds, the repressive governments are stamping them out as dangerous. Chindi, for the Nth time, what I am suggesting is open society with economic and intellectual freedom. If these are US values, then yes, I am suggesting that the Middle East should adopt them.

Guido, the fact that you are an avid anti-semite aside, in 1) you have denied any sort of socio-economic analysis, which is like saying "If I throw a rock, I can't predict it will land". You also went on your traditional tirade on absolute power.

Chindi, Guido, it would be nice if you made some constructive suggestions rather than issue liberal talking points.

NikitaB it would be nice if you used facts instead of right wing intolerance of those different than yourself.

Guido, your writing speaks for itself.
Chindi, you sound like you'd like a hug. Would you like a hug? I think you'd like a hug. Guido, give Chindi a hug, will ya?

Guys, no offense, but we've been through this before. Why do you even bother interjecting with your garbage? I am not going to respond to you any more unless I see substance.

B4B, while I am not going to repsond to Chindi and Guido (I hope that despite us being on different sides of the fence, you can see why I no longer care to entertain them), I am still tracking this thread and am very curious to read what you have to say in response to what I wrote.

Cheers,
n

...like 72 virgins...in the after-life... come Noah, come to the dark side... Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha MWHA- HA -HA -HAAA

under sworn testimoney they said she was covert, but i guess the cia lied to congress.
doesnt matter about the soviet crap especially since there is no linking evidence of this claim, but the fact still stands, she was officially covert. and had done work on wmd proliforation in the past 5.

iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or our freedom and our own pentagon has said that.. we are talking iraq and not aphghanistan, we are talking the illegal war and not the legal one

tell me who will surrender in iraq? who will sit on the table opposite us and negociate surrender? the natzis had leaders. we are fighting the iraqi people. they dont want us there. Iraq is not germany, not even close.

we have bases in over half the world, we strong arm and bully nations into doing what we want.. sure it may be typical to blame america but you also cant say we do no wrong that we are pearly white, sometimes when people comaplin about you, you are actually wrong, this country doesnt even look like america anymore.

even fox admits global warming is real and bush as well. william gates says "even if it's real we cant do anything about it"
and you fight his eoloquent co2 statement with one on weather? Sorry but weather isnt climate. Weather changes daily, climate changes geologically. it is cold at the north pole, today tomoorow and the next day,t hat is climate.. ask me the temp tomorrow and that is weather. You really blow this one as your arguement is filled with ignorance on the subject.

lol on wmds

and i guess we should forget scott ritter, republican war hawk and weapons inspector that was siftboated like a liberal for saying saddams wmd program was gone.

you must need more sleep because that was hardly a trump.

you must need more sleep because that was hardly a trump.

I'll give you that it wasn't my best effort.

Several reasons contribute to that. One is being at work and on a work computer with limited time. Another is that when I started this I thought, "Bleh. What's the point...I'll write a bunch of stuff and list sources and then the other guys will write a bunch of stuff and list sources and who, realistically, do I expect to convince here? Guido, who wants me to just shut the @!$%# up, the author, you...nah, I didn't see any of that happening. And finally, working 12 hour night shifts tends to put a damper on my motivation to write something up.

I probably shouldn't have written the first post because it led to me doing one like the above.

Man, I need some coffee.

Bodhi1, are you actually a Republican? Since you created the Libertarian group I've always assumed you were a Libertarian. Not that it really matters, I'm just wondering if you're being attacked for party loyalty to a party you don't belong to.

So a Soviet agent outed her, but she is still covert. Plus she was listed as Valerie Plame under Joe Wilson's Who's Who listing. Brilliant.

The director of central intelligence has stated on the record that he considered Valerie Wilson to be covert at the time she was outed by her own government. That's called treason.

It would serve them better to let them fight for freedom. Let them help the people who need help while creating a valuable democratic state in a sea of fascism. I hate to see wounded soldiers, but I hate to see 9/11 happen. And I'd hate to see it happen again.

I'm sorry to say this, but what serves them best isn't really the issue here. They are our military, our warriors. Just as U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, our military dies at the pleasure of our will. That sounds terrible, but that is the cold reality of having an entire group of people dedicated to being the best killers the world has ever known.

We can pussyfoot around it for eternity, but the reality is they go where we tell them to go, to kill who we tell them to kill, in the service of our survival. Iraq did not before the second war and does not now represent a threat to our survival, therefore their mission today is a matter of luxury, one we cannot afford given the damage it is causing to their ability to wage war.

This sentiment is unpopular, but it is long past time for us to come to terms with what our military is and what it is for. What best serves itself is of no concern in practical terms, only what best serves us. We are not best served by having that military fight in the middle of a civil war. Third parties cannot win civil wars, that's just a fact of life.

The best value the military represents to us today is in coming home and healing, and preparing for coming battles of consequence, not these misguided attempts to bring back colonialism.

We get more oil from Canada and Mexico than any state in the Middle East, yet we have not invaded either country. How do you pretend to make this into a War for Oil? Do you think there is any way that it is possible that this is actually about protecting America's interests?

Canada and Mexico only produce about five million barrels of crude per day combined. The United States is closer to 11-12 million. The Middle East ranges between 30-50. Oddly, the US is the third largest oil producer in the world. If not for our obscene consumption, we would actually be a player.

This places us well above Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, and Venezuela who is our primary supplier. Only Saudi Arabia and Russia place above us.

We have already lost, because we can't win.

Circular logic. Begging the question, I believe.

How can we win over an ideology?

I don't know. Let's ask the Nazis.

One good turn deserves another. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law.

3. Global Warming is a lie.

Cleveland may not have a season opener because of snow and you want me to believe that the world has a fever.

In Hawaii:

The result of global warming is climactic instability and a subsequent climate shift, not literal "oh look it's 100F outside instead of 70F!". It was reaching into the mid 70's here in December and now in other places it is snowing in mid-April. Yeah, nothing unusual about that...

This is the usual and very basic ignorance of the issue that causes people to rail against it. They hear the word but they don't comprehend the problem. Yes, the term is accurate in that the global mean temperature is rising, but that doesn't mean the long-term result is a hotter planet. The long-term result is an increasingly unstable ecosphere that will reach a tipping point, and *bang*.

That tipping point will most likely be centering on the Atlantic current. If and when that shuts down, which could happen sooner than a lot of people think possible due to severe ice melts, our entire planet's weather pattern is going to change, and *that* could happen very quickly.

The fact that you think colder than normal temperatures is proof that global warming isn't occurring in the literal sense is frankly laughable. And I take no pleasure in this, but do you know anything about this issue at all?

2. Terrorists want to destroy America.

Well, you already said this was true. But then blamed America for what someone else is doing. Typical.

Typical that we stop for a moment to consider our past actions and what impact those might have had, both positive and negative, on the situations we find ourselves in today? The United States partnered with Bin Laden against the U.S.S.R., we armed him and fought beside him. First of all, what the hell does that say about us? Second we do have a level of responsibility for 9/11. We have pissed off an entire section of the planet by supporting Israel (during times when we absolutely should not have), having a military presence in Saudi Arabia, and our first invasion of Iraq.

Had we not done those things -- and I'm not saying we shouldn't have -- 9/11 wouldn't have probably happened. Now does this make it our fault entirely? Of course not, that's a straw man fallacy because nobody (and I mean nobody rational) has ever said it was. But it also does not completely abdicate our role in it either.

It doesn't matter if you refuse to recognize them, most terrorist groups do have real complaints about things in the world and we're the smack dab in the middle of three of them. That doesn't mean they are legit, but they do exist and if we just ignore them, we're being willfully ignorant in our past actions that helped cause todays problems.

That is very serious because it also means we're likely to ignore our current actions and how they will have future unknown repercussions in the way that these past events did. If we refuse to see how we helped to screw ourselves then, we are dooming ourselves to be screwed in the future.

I for one refuse to pay the price of that kind of arrogance and ignorance.

1. Iraq war... Democrats knew all the same information as Bush did and they voted for the war.

So many Democrats called for the removal of Saddam prior to Bush even getting into office it isn't funny. Why did they call for his removal? WMDs is usually the reason.

But Bush lied to the people.

Yes, he did, and got away with it scot free. It's sickening.

Paul William Tenny, a great job of nailing every point!

6. Purely speculation. Plus: discovery by a single foreign government is not the same as public outing.

5. It would serve them better to fight for freedom. Are you sure that is what they are doing? Dying for nothing? Throwing good bodies after bad makes no sense. Vegas is built from people with that attitude.

4. Doesn't Godwin's Law apply here? Sadam != Hitler != Al Queida != Sadam.

The major problem with saying we can't leave until we win is that no one has defined victory. Bush would have us just giving the next "strategy" (read: "tactic", previously tried and failed "tactic", see Falluja) a chance until the heat death of the universe. When have we won? When we've pre-emptively killed every single *potential* terrorist? Great, foreign policy by Keyser Soze.

I'm completely sick of the asinine "emboldening" argument from all of the conservative armchair psychologists. How much "bolder" can these freaks get? We are constantly reminded by this administration that "the terrorists(tm) will stop at nothing", that "they do not value human life". How can they get any bolder than that, I ask you?

The "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument is both morally bankrupt as well as geographically ignorant. Pushing our problems into someone else's backyard (the innocent Iraqi civilians, who were never part of the problem before the war) is selfish and just as evil as bombing civilians intentionally. Ignoring that, how are they going to "invade"? Are you expecting them to swim across the Mediterranean and Atlantic? It's not like we've cut off all transportation to and from the Middle East, so assuming they'll swarm over here on planes the moment we leave is just the product of watching too many movies.

3. Wait, you are familiar with "circular logic" and "begging the question", but not with anecdotal evidence?

2. "Blame America First(tm)" has reached meaning saturation. It's been used with alarming frequency, but doesn't really mean anything. Bush != America.

1. According to report after report, Bush knew and was told long before committing to Iraq. He chose to ask for more rationalization for invading (it's all part of the Culture of Life(tm)). He did not share the exculpatory info, so anyone else's desire to make any sort of informed decision was hamstrung.

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm:

I am a Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, a governmental institution, involved in environmental studies. CLOR has a "Special Liaison" relationship with the US National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NCRP). In the past, for about ten years, CLOR closely cooperated with the US Environmental Protection Agency, in research on the influence of industry and nuclear explosions on pollution of the global environment and population. I published about 280 scientific papers, among them about 20 on climatic problems. I am the representative of Poland in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and in 1980-1982 I was the chairman of this Committee.

For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man's activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement. ......
The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A) . The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B) , and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9].

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

I don't know if what this person is saying is true. I've only recently heard about there being direct atmospheric CO2 measurements in the 1800s. If this is true, it is disturbingly bad science. If it's not, let me know.

Sorry, but this is the same old argument that I am tired of debating.

I know thwe feeling; some people use hype and lies to make their point and would not know a fact if it bit them in the butt