[bgates]

Got it. Iraq was virtually crime free, because it was run by a mafia boss. You know there was little crime, because that’s “well-known,” not because there is any evidence you can cite. Now there is widespread organized crime, again unlike when the mafia boss was running things. You also know about the level of electricity production, somehow. Have you heard this from Iraqis? Or is it something ‘everyone’ knows?

Among the people who don’t think pre-war Iraq was covered very well is Eason Jordan, chief of CNN, who wrote in 2004:”Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported….” He didn’t seem to think the full truth of the pre-war environment was ‘well-known’. Maybe you have better sources than CNN used?

The Sunni and Shia had some degree of coexistence before. On the other hand, Saddam’s Sunni-dominated government killed between 70 and 230 thousand Shia and Kurds after the 1991 war, which I think qualifies as ‘sectarian violence’ (as does the Anfal campaign, which killed another 50-100 thousand Kurds.)

The fact that woefully ignorant people like you continue to slur our government with the unsupported and unsupportable accusations of lies probably helps our enemies’ propaganda. But they want to kill Americans anywhere they can; we’re just making sure the Americans closest to them are heavily armed.

The level of violence is still shockingly high. But it was shockingly high before the invasion. Another factor people like yourself never consider is that Saddam was mortal. If we hadn’t invaded and he died, would there have been no power struggle? Sectarian violence? Al quada trying to gain control? Of course all of those things would have happened, resulting in worse violence without us there to fight it.

And to finish. You claim Saddam was able to stay in power so long because of Reagan’s support. This must be another thing ‘everybody knows’, since that phrase apparently means “something I heard somewhere that is completely unsupported by evidence.” Wikipedia has data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute on arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990. Guess how much came from the US.

Go on, guess.

Half? Lower.

10%? Closer, but no.

1%? Still too high.

0.5% is their estimate. You might want to tell ‘everyone’ they’ve been giving you bad information (widely known bad information – Peter Bergen from CNN:
Various books and multiple news reports have charged that the CIA armed and trained the Afghan Arabs and even bin Laden himself as part of its operation to support the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets in the 1980s. They argue, therefore, that the United States is culpable in the jihads and terrorism those militants subsequently spread around the world. As we shall see, those charges are overblown and are not supported by the evidence.

One lesson is you should try finding a couple facts before you post.

[bgates]

Do you even know what the Monroe Doctrine was? It was a statement of opposition to European colonialism. We were telling Europe to leave the Americas alone.

What kind of interference bothered you most?

The Marshall Plan?
Protecting South Korea from Communist aggression?
Liberating Kuwait?
Our interference in WWI and II?

You want to compare our record to the Belgians in the Congo, France in Haiti and Africa, Britain in Ireland and India, Russia in eastern Europe, Japan in China, China in Tibet….You say we were pretty awful. Who was better?

[bgates]

VCJIM, sorry if I gave you the impression I was claiming we had UN support. Bush asked for it, but it wasn’t given.

I think the UN is quite capable of emaciating itself. Case in point – France has decided to send just 200 troops to Lebanon, saying the “peacekeeping mandate is not explicit enough” – yet the mandate comes in a resolution which was written by France in the first place.

World opinion should not be ignored, but it shouldn’t just be obeyed either.

Why do you think the lack of UN blessing equals doom? The US ousted Milosevic with an aerial campagin that had no UN backing. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan did not have formal UN support. Are you embarassed that we removed the Taliban from power?

There is no reason to think the war in Iraq is doomed. We haven’t lost. The enemy hasn’t won. The war is still going on. We’ve been in Iraq for 3 years trying to lift people who had been tyrranized for decades. In this country, terrorism against blacks continued for over 100 years past the end of slavery. Should we have given up after 3? 3 years after Pearl Harbor the Germans launched an offensive that killed 10,000 – three times more than have died in the entire Iraq campaign. Should FDR have given up? He had no exit strategy either. We’re still in Germany.

Finally, I’m curious about your anecdotes from overseas. I hear frequently from people I know in other countries that the US should act differently to improve its standing elsewhere. I’ve never told someone from another country that their government should change to suit us better. Have you? I’e never heard someone ask how their country could change to become closer to us. Have you? I understand the value of considering other points of view, but why is it always the US that should conform to another country, rather than them to us?

[bgates]

Each in turn:
Socalalarm, it’s as foolish to assume the media are always wrong as it is to assume they’re always right (as FormerSanDiegan points out, they’re not always wrong even on housing). As for being convinced ‘the facts’ are wrong, you’re begging the question – our information comes from sources we know to be fallible. In the housing bubble, the ‘Rathergate’ fake memo story, the recent Photoshopped photos from a Reuters stringer, the media has screwed up or deliberately lied. Again, doesn’t mean they all do it all the time, but it means we should try to find independent information.

Powayseller, I’ve noticed you tend to not believe anything Bush says. He claims Arabs were behind the 9/11 attacks. Do you believe him? Do you think maybe it was the Jews?
As far as Iranian nukes, France, Germany and the UK put out a united statement earlier this year that began:
Iran‘s nuclear activities have been of great concern to the international community since 2003, when Iran was forced to admit to the International Atomic Agency Authority that it was building a secret installation to enrich uranium, which could be used to produce material for nuclear
weapons. The IAEA Director General at the time found Iran’s policy of concealment had resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with the provisions of its Safeguards Agreement. Under the IAEA‘s rules, this should have been reported to theSecurity Council then.
Do you think Israel forced them to make that statement?

I remarked on the Spiegel’s coverage of Ahmadinejad in another thread when I noted he claimed that “a green aura was coming out of his head during his speech to the United Nations.” The same article referred to his “hate mongering” in discussing the destruction of Israel. What do you think, ps, do the Jews run the German media as well?

smfj, I’ve been talking to guys who were there too, and they won’t call it a pretty picture either. But they won’t call it a lost cause or a catastrophe, and I have yet to hear from someone over there, “Yep, it’s pretty much the same as what the tv news says.”

Speedingpullet, agreed.

[bgates]

You’re unable to refute an argument of mine or make one of your own, so you make little jokes. Tell me why you believe everything the papers tell you about Iraq when you know they’ve been wrong about housing for the past 3 years. Can’t do it, can you.

[bgates]

Your point about the Lebanon resolution makes a different point to me. France has a historical relationship with Lebanon. It was the crown jewel of their middle eastern colonies. There is UN backing for foreign presence there – due to a resolution that France wrote.

Yet they can only find 200 troops to send? That will make no difference. If that’s all they had to contribute in Iraq, their support there would have been meaningless as well.

You think Iraq is getting worse; I think it’s getting better. I think Europe wants to see us hurt, and that’s the main reason they’re not committed. We should probably offer them a cut of the reconstruction in the hopes that their greed overcomes their anti-Americanism. What Europe has to lose, of course, is that Iraq as a failed state is susceptible to Iranian influence. The EU doesn’t want Iran to have nukes; they’ve been negotiating for over 3 years and have gotten nowhere.

Maybe they don’t know to open up diplomatic channels.

[bgates]

Not soon enough. But it would happen faster if the enemy was confronted with a united America, instead of thinking they can chase us out or outlast us.

Do you have a link to that Rumsfeld story?

[bgates]

Perry, you’re pulling this “he knows he’s got the final answer” stuff out of your ass. He’s never said anything like that. And I don’t understand why you’re happy to let Iraq become an intractible problem. This is bigger than real estate. I’m debating with you guys because this is a critical issue for this country, and we need an honest, vigorous debate about what to do about Iran. It’s a problem that predates Bush by decades, and absolutely will not stop being a problem in January of 2009 (when Bush’s presidency absolutely will end).

My argument is stronger than yours because, unfortunately, you have no argument.

[bgates]

PS, you’re being disingenuous at best. You didn’t ask why people were getting emotional when posters were comparing Bush to Satan. I just had a guy write that it’s “crap” that I might be concerned about the well-being of people in Iraq. Are you puzzled why that would ‘create emotion’? Really? I think you’re smarter than that.

The #1 reason I didn’t vote for HW Bush in 92, or W in 2000, was that HW spent all of 1991 comparing Saddam to Hitler, encouraged the Iraqi Shia to rise up against him, then pulled back and let them get slaughtered. Bush did that in large part to preserve the big anti-Saddam alliance. I’ll say that again: many of the nations that joined us in 1991 but not 2003 pressured Bush to allow a mass slaughter of Iraqi civilians rather than remove Saddam from power when he was at his weakest. I’d ask those of you who are so fond of the ‘international community’ to keep that in mind.

In response to “how do you feel about us being a war-mongering nation”, I would note that I haven’t asked any anti-war poster “how do you feel about being on the terrorist side” because I don’t want to descend to personal attacks. I’d appreciate it if you would reciprocate. (I will aggressively point out where you are wrong, but like our Brit friend said, all part of spirited debate.)

Here’s a half dozen or so reasons why Iraq was different from the other nations you mention:
1) We were in low-intensity conflict with them already. American jets were shot at regularly, and returned fire. A large scale bombing strike on Iraqi targets was ordered as recently as 1998.
2) There were many outstanding UN resolutions – conditions of the ceasefire, not the peace treaty but the ceasefire – which Saddam had systematically violated for a dozen years.
3) We had to garrison large numbers of troops in KSA to deter Saddam, at considerable cost to the budget and our standing in Arab world opinion (our presence there was one of the reasons al Q came into existence).
4) The sanctions regime was falling apart due to Saddam’s bribery, largely of Russian and French contacts but also UN officials. Maintaining the sanctions fell to us and the UK, again at considerable cost to the budget and allowing Saddam to paint himself both as the brave Arab hero standing up to the west, and the Iraqi people as the poor victims of US aggression.
5) We could get to Iraq. Like I said, big bases in KSA; port availability in Kuwait, the hope of a second front through Turkey. We don’t have the operational infrastructure in Africa, and Seoul won’t let us mount an invasion from South Korea to North.
6) Getting to Iraq puts us closer to other enemies. This should be a bigger advantage than it is, since Bush has elected to allow Syrian and Iranian aggression go unanswered as far as I can tell, but if we do need to take action against either of those countries, we’re in a position to do so.
7) The strategic benefit of the Arab world’s first reasonable government. A representative government is going to allow Iraq to be the first nation in the Arab world in which the citizenry shares in the oil wealth and doesn’t fear its government. That will help diminish the appeal of the fundamentalist lunatics over there.

But what you really want me to say is that we did it because of oil. Can’t help you there. If we wanted oil, why not just cut a deal with Saddam, like the Russians and French? Yes, international community fans, nations besides the US had oil interests in Iraq, and they were willing to keep Saddam in charge to keep their oil coming.

As for why the Iranian government hates us, they see us as a threat to their theocracy and dream of regional empire. Also, some of them are nuts. I didn’t make up that idea of a green aura coming of the Iranian President. He claimed it happened while speaking at the UN, and it kept everyone spellbound without blinking for half an hour.

I’m curious why you don’t think it’s important for Iran to be equally introspective and find how they have offended us?

You’re right, our support of Israel is part of why they hate us. I think it’s really terrible that you would be willing to sacrifice 6 million Jews, who are living in their own ancient holy land, to placate murderous terrorists. But I have to admit it’s a plan. Better than anyone else has come up with, if morally bankrupt.

[bgates]

salo_t, you asked “where’s the logic” while claiming the wmd evidence was ‘weak’. I think in demolishing your claim I answered your question. Also note that any criticism I’ve made of you has been based on easily obtainable facts, while you resort to claiming I’m indifferent to human suffering in Iraq, which is not only personally insulting and wrong but for which you can find absolutely no evidence. If you have any decency you’ll apologize.

If we hadn’t gone to Iraq, Saddam would still be undermining the oil-for-food program, scoring propaganda victories right and left by blaming any and all civilian deaths on us because of the sanctions. Iran’s wmd program would have continued at the same pace at least, because they were no more comfortable bordering Saddam’s regime than bordering a US-backed Iraqi government, and their dreams of empire would be the same. We would still have bases in Saudia Arabia at considerable cost and again lending propaganda to our enemies. To imagine that the pre-war policy was free of either financial or world-opinion consequences is the pipe dream.

Instead, Saddam is gone; al Quada’s murdering of Muslim civilians instead of Americans has cost them greatly in public support; there’s a fighting chance of a reasonable government in Iraq; and there are lots of troops on either side of Iran should they be needed. Oh, and the levels of violence against civilians, while horrible, are lower than they were before we got there, according to UN claims of the effect of sanctions and other human rights bodies’ description of the death toll during Saddam’s reign. Do you care at all about Iraqi civilian deaths?

You claim you can name 10 or more leaders worse than Saddam. Last time I asked for evidence, you came up with nothing, but I’ll try again: who?

[bgates]

Salo_t, another leftist with poor understanding of facts. quote from a member of Clinton’s NSC:
Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France’s President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

I won’t embarass you by asking for evidence that anyone in the administration claimed any citizen was either for the war or a terrorist – wait, yes I will, put up or shut up.

North Korea, meanwhile, has been working on nukes for over a decade. You’re ex-military, why don’t you explain to the class why a military solution there would have been much harder than in Iraq? And maybe Perry can help you with how negotiations should have worked – apparently, we’d just need to open diplomatic channels and our problems would be over, right, Perry?

[bgates]

The fact that many nations have since pulled out doesn’t change the fact they supported us initially, which means you were wrong when you claimed Bush didn’t try to get world support.

You are disgustingly shallow when you compare the task of saving 25 million people from random terrorism and civil war with helping a bossy colleague.

“Negotiating with Iran requires opening up diplomatic channels,” on the other hand, is sheer genius. You really need to take that insight to the State Department, it could be just the breakthough we need. Once they know to open up channels, they will just need to fill in the minor details, like, oh, WHAT TO SAY.

‘My way’ is not to have Bush in power. ‘My way’ is to see America’s interests defended, which I think Bush has done imperfectly, yet far better than the alternatives. I would be happier if there were more alternatives, instead of circle-jerks about impeachment hearings that collapse into silence and an offer to “give them the benefit of the doubt” when confronted with even my meager debating ability.

But I accept that you recognize you’ve lost this argument, and yeah, I’m kinda happy about that.

[bgates]

We asked for the world’s input. Bush went to the UN. Several nations (UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Italy, South Korea, to name the most prominent) joined us. Iraq was busted before, and it’s busted now. How is it in anyone’s interests to have Iraq in its current condition, except someone who wants to see the US weakened? And if a nation wants to see the US weakened, isn’t it foolhardy to try to get their diplomatic or military support?

For Iran, do I understand that your ‘policy’ would be, “send Kissinger”? Do you have an independent thought? You said earlier that you thought we should negotiate with our enemies. I’ve given you Ahmadinejad’s perspective. What’s your response? Terri Schiavo? Focus, buddy!

[bgates]

Rank, I was responding to someone else. Read the thread.

[bgates]

I really don’t get how they calculate an affordability % for 1st-time buyers. Their old affordability index, I thought, just looked at how many people had an income such that the monthly nut on a median-priced home would be less than 30%. But how do you find the income distribution for first time home buyers? And if they are deriving their numbers by looking at the people who are in fact buying homes, aren’t they in effect saying that 70% of first-time homebuyers can’t afford the homes they’re buying, even under the new BS affordability index guidelines?

[Author]

Posts