SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bilow who wrote (155969)1/12/2005 12:04:18 AM
From: steve dietrich  Respond to of 281500
 
"The mistake in Iraq was to believe that it would be easy. I already went through your posts from before the war and you did not expect us to be militarily defeated. You were arguing against an invasion on the basis of the morality of stealing their oil, not on the practicality. You're no smarter than Bush."
The mistake in Iraq was to think there wouldn't be intense resistance to an occupation. I doubt anyone didn't know we could defeat Saddam and his dictatorship. The problem was after the initial full scale assault, Bush didn't think beyond that point.



To: Bilow who wrote (155969)1/12/2005 1:36:06 AM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Carl, re: "So when you call Bush and company fools for getting into Iraq, you should at least admit that back before the war you yourself were talking about how the war was all about oil and how immoral it was that Iraqi oil was going to be stolen by the US and pumped at $10 per barrel, for example: "Philosophical discussions aside, we certainly have the power to take the Iraqi oil and if we've learned anything about this administration, it's that if the ends justify the means then it's usually a go."

Do you recall that we've gone down this path before? Do you recall that your characterization of my position was incomplete, taken out of context and misleading? I've posted my earlier response from 3 1/2 months ago in case you actually did forget. See below.

In the meantime, maybe you should consider the fact that your apparent partisan zeal places you in an untenable position. On the one hand you cannot stop yourself from ridiculing the absolute idiocy of a long series of immature decisions in Iraq which have cost, and will continue to cost, this country tremendously. In your view and in mine, this was not a "close call;" only dogmatic, privileged and protected people swollen with their own power or scared stupid would embark on such a course, much less maintain it. Despite this you cannot bring yourself to call them to account and, in fact, voted to keep them in office. You can justify your position by falling back onto "left wing," or "far left" bunkers, but the fact is that Kerry's cabinet was rumored to be slated to look a lot like Clinton's cabinet.

As far as your statement of my prior opinion, I've reread those posts as well as the ones you failed to cite. I kind of like them. And don't assume too quickly that we'll get our asses kicked out of Iraq. If they can, they'll pull back into enclaves, turtle up and try to maintain a strong presence in the gulf.

"My view is that we've done tremendous damage to the principles of international law and that if we aren't careful we may well create sentiments and anger that will lead, as did the Palestinian-Israeli action, to long term and intractable conflict with passionate and irresolute foes. [from one of the posts you linked.]

My last response the last time you made this assertion:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Message 20563545

To: Bilow who wrote (146265) 9/24/2004 12:24:58 PM
From: cnyndwllr Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 155975

"Hi Carl. It seems we are, after all, in agreement on many of the aspects of what Bush has "learned," or more precisely, what the limitations are on his ability to act foolishly. There are a couple of points in your post that I want to address.

First, the points I made on the oil thread were, as I recall, intended to address the motivations of the Bush Administration and the reasons why oil exploration and drilling had not reacted to shortages and prices the way most observers would have expected. Interestingly, there were some articles that later disclosed that in the "energy meetings" of Cheney, the oil majors discussed the potential that Iraq's oil fields might be opened up. I'm sure you're aware of the effect that would have on the value of more expensive lifting operations.

Second, you write: So where's your post predicting the guerilla war in Iraq?

It is not correct to say that I was not aware of the limits on American military power. You may have forgotten that I had the opportunity to see for myself what those limits are, and I can assure you that it's a lesson not readily forgotten. In any event, here are excerpts from two of my historical posts that you evidently overlooked from early April of 2003. I was posting much earlier but, I'm ashamed to admit, I posted on Yahoo:

siliconinvestor.com

NO ONE that I heard speak in this country had any serious doubts that we'd overcome the conventional forces of the Iraqis with a modest effort. We met and exceeded those expectations. The war that we should fear in the next decade is not the war that's imposed on us by nations. Most nations of the world are not YET prepared to counter or suffer the utter devastation that our weapons of mass destruction could wreak on them in a matter of minutes or hours. As the Iraqis who had the will and the means to fight us have learned, however, the way to fight a high tech, powerful army is to eat it's young when the bear is out of the den.

Low tech guerrilla attacks from an enemy that hides among a civilian population can be deadly and can disrupt a stronger foe forever. It's that kind of war that we should fear. It's that kind of enemy that we may face in future months and years in Iraq and here at home when they can reach us here. It's that kind of enemy that we may be creating in greater numbers with our current policies and actions and it's that kind of enemy that you seem unwilling to recognize. You can call them "thugs" if you like, but any time men and women are willing to die for the chance to kill us, we should recognize the power of their beliefs.

Now tell me how objective you are and how I've "just seen the greatest military victory in a century" and how most of the Iraqis all see this as the best thing since Mohammed. If that belief and the negative labeling of those that disagree with you allows you to sleep better at night and feel bright and powerful, that's up to you but don't expect to post such views without dissent. As for me, I'll continue to think critically and I won't let my hopes blind me to the views of the other side. I won't get caught up in a wave of patriotism or nationalism or pride of conquest and I won't forget and stop struggling to retain what made this country a great nation and a great civilization admired by almost every man and woman in the world.

Message 18818734

The Iraqi's are a strong nationalistic people and they may not appreciate our use of force to "liberate" them. The other factor that we don't discuss is that unlike N. Korea where the people are starving, most Iraqi's have led relatively comfortable economic lives. Sure, there are sects who will welcome us and sections where we will undoubtedly be welcomed with the dancing and flowers we were told awaited us. The Kurds are ecstatic, The Shiites are leaning our way. I don't know about the Sunni and the Baeth are definitely not our friends. Time will tell and a few images on the screen will not. I expect that when this is done we will see substantial celebrations but we should be aware of those that do not share in the rejoicing. Even among those that rejoice, the mood can change quickly if we don't handle things properly.

Sure, I'm stuck in the Vietnam era. I'm also stuck in the Russian-Afghanistan era and a few others. That's called history and learning from it. If we install a puppet government that is not supported by the population and then try to prop it up with American military might, and if we use that tool to try to secure control of Iraqi oil, we may have to learn the lessons we learned in Vietnam again and those that the Russians learned in Afghanistan. Or maybe "it's different this time."


-------------------------------------------------------------

But hey, many people meet criticism with criticism when they're stuck in a box of their own making. You, of all people, should be familiar with that emotional impulse since I've seen it employed against you many times.

Ed ....(who didn't vote to reempower the people who screwed this up at such a high cost to our soldiers and this country.)



To: Bilow who wrote (155969)1/16/2005 2:54:35 AM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Bilow, I wouldn't want you to feel that Bush mis misinterpreted your vote.

It looks as though your insightful foresight went on tilt when you predicted that he was a smarter, wiser man and would seize the opportunity to withdraw from Iraq if reelected. Or did I misinterpret your pre-election analysis on this critical point? Ed

msnbc.msn.com

'Accountability moment' has passed, president says

By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher

Updated: 11:33 p.m. ET Jan. 15, 2005

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

No timetable for withdrawal

With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. Bush said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed.

In a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans for both foreign and domestic policy. For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization.

Bush was relaxed, often direct and occasionally expansive when discussing his second-term agenda, Iraq and lessons he has learned as president. Sitting at the head of a long conference table in a cabin at the front of the presidential plane, Bush wore a blue Air Force One flight jacket with a red tie and crisp white shirt. Three aides, including his new communications adviser, Nicolle Devenish, accompanied him.

Inauguration costs defended

With his inauguration days away, Bush defended the administration's decision to force the District of Columbia to spend $12 million of its homeland security budget to provide tighter security for this week's festivities. He also warned that the ceremony could make the city "an attractive target for terrorists."

"By providing security, hopefully that will provide comfort to people who are coming from all around the country to come and stay in the hotels in Washington and to be able to watch the different festivities in Washington, and eat the food in Washington," Bush said. "I think it provides them great comfort to know that all levels of government are working closely to make this event as secure as possible."

The president's inaugural speech Thursday will focus on his vision for spreading democracy around the world, one of his top foreign policy goals for the new term. But it will be Iraq that dominates White House deliberations off stage. Over the next two weeks, Bush will be monitoring closely Iraq's plan to hold elections for a 275-member national assembly. He must also deliver his State of the Union address with a message of resolve on Iraq, and he will need to seek congressional approval for about $100 billion in emergency spending, much of it for the war.

'I am more patient than some'

In the interview, the president urged Americans to show patience as Iraq moves slowly toward creating a democratic nation where a dictatorship once stood. But the relentless optimism that dominated Bush's speeches before the U.S. election was sometimes replaced by pragmatism and caution.

"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said. "I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. . . . I am more patient than some."

Last week, Powell said U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, but Bush said it is premature to judge how many U.S. men and women will be needed to defeat the insurgency and plant a new and sustainable government. He also declined to pledge to significantly reduce U.S. troop levels before the end of his second term in January 2009.

"The sooner the Iraqis are . . . better prepared, better equipped to fight, the sooner our troops can start coming home," he said. Bush did rule out asking Congress to increase the size of the National Guard and regular army, as many lawmakers, including the president's 2004 opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), are urging. "What we're going to do is make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the reserves closely dovetail with active army units, so that the pressure . . . is eased."

Pleased with bin Laden hunt

A new report released last week by U.S. intelligence agencies warned that the war in Iraq has created a training ground for terrorists. Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen. And I agree. If we are not diligent and firm, there will be parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that."

As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding." While some terrorism experts complain U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, could do more to help capture the al Qaeda leader, Bush said he could not name a single U.S. ally that is not doing everything possible to assist U.S. efforts.

"I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased he's isolated," Bush said. "I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be."

Bush acknowledged that the United States' standing has diminished in some parts of the world and said he has asked Condoleezza Rice, his nominee to replace Powell at the State Department, to embark on a public diplomacy campaign that "explains our motives and explains our intentions."

Bush acknowledged that "some of the decisions I've made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world," but predicted that most Muslims will eventually see America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.

"There's no question we've got to continue to do a better job of explaining what America is all about," he said.

No push on marriage amendment

On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture. Groups such as the Family Research Council have made the marriage amendment their top priority for the next four years.

The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."

Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes need to pass the amendment in the Senate.

Yesterday morning, the day after the interview, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called to say the president wished to clarify his position, saying Bush was "willing to spend political capital" but believes it will be virtually impossible to overcome Senate resistance until the courts render a verdict on DOMA.

Concern over 'baby boomer bulge'

On the subject of revamping Social Security, Bush said he has no intention of making changes that would affect the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who receive disability or survivor benefits. The Bush administration has privately told Republicans that the White House plan to restructure Social Security will include a reduction in benefits for future retirees. The interview marked the first time Bush strongly suggested disability and survivor benefits would be shielded.

"Frankly, our discussions in terms of reform have not centered on the survivor-disability aspect of Social Security," Bush said. "We're talking about the retirement system of Social Security."

Bush has put an overhaul of Social Security at the top of his domestic priorities. He has revealed few details of his reform proposal, except to say he wants to enable young workers to voluntarily divert a portion of their taxes to private accounts. Program participants could then pass the accounts to their heirs.

Bush said it is imperative that the White House and Congress deal with the "baby boomer bulge" that is threatening the long-term solvency of Medicare as well. Medicare faces the same demographic crunch imperiling Social Security in coming decades, as the population grows older and more money is taken out of the system to pay benefits than is put in by younger Americans funding it. Many lawmakers and policy experts say Medicare is in much bigger trouble than Social Security because of skyrocketing health care costs and the added expense of the prescription drug benefit signed into law by Bush in his first term.

"The difference, of course, is that in Medicare, we began a reform system [in the first term] that hopefully will take some of the pressures off" the system by preventing illnesses and streamlining the program, he said. Social Security and Medicare trustees estimate that the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan will top $8 trillion by 2075 -- more than twice the projected shortfall in Social Security.

On the election Bush said he was puzzled that he received only about 11 percent of the black vote, according to exit polls, about a 2 percentage point increase over his 2000 total.

"I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president," Bush said. "It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."