Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Sourskunk]

Did some people change their minds? Sure. Did the Popular Party have the lead prior to the attacks because it supported the USA or in spite of that fact? From other polls I've seen on support for the USA in European countries, I'd say the latter. Each individual assigns different importance to different issues. The attack probably changed individual's assessment of the *importance* of supporting the USA rather than their support position overall. Those that were willing to vote Popular *in spite* of the Popular's position on Iraq decided that that issue had become more important. Sufficiently so that they voted the other way.

Ok, fair assessment. And I apologize for going too far on the "full retreat" line. We'll have to see how they react on the rest of terrorism, them pulling troops out of Iraq I can understand. So far, Zapatero, is saying he's still going to combat it so that's a good sign. Whether he and Bush gets along is something those two boys will have to deal with until November.

[--Pete]

Hi,

That's easy, Japan.

Sorry, no. From http://www.worldrover.com/history/japan_history.html "During the 1920s, Japan progressed toward a democratic system of government. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential."
Pre-existing home grown democracy. They were on the path, the US occupation did little to change that. As a matter of fact, the USA even kept the traditional Emperor in place because of pragmatic considerations. OK, so far no knowledge of history demonstrated.

I would have said Germany

And you would have been wrong again. This time from http://www.worldrover.com/history/germany_history.html we get "The postwar Weimar Republic (1919-33) was an attempt to establish a peaceful, liberal democratic regime in Germany." Again, a country well on its way to democracy. And the puppet post WW II governments became true democracies in Germany in spite of rather than because of the occupying forces.

But you're expressing defeat. Too early to call both and both sides are trying to justify emotional investment that haven't been verified yet.

You bet both ponies and governments on the basis of track record. And on the card so far, invading a country with no history of democracy to impose any form of democracy has always failed unless the occupation spanned generations (India comes to mind). And both sides are *not* trying to justify anything. The side that invaded Iraq for reasons that were false is the one that is using arguments that are specious to try to justify their illegal action. The other side is just pointing out how asinine in view of the historical evidence the "freeing Iraq" argument is. But, as I've said before, I'm willing to wait five years to either eat crow or taunt you with your unfounded optimism.

Well, I'm listening, educate me

Not my job. If you are ignorant, it is your fault. There are libraries out there, there is an Internet filled with facts. You want an education, go for it. Be thankful that there are at least some who are willing to point out gaps in your knowledge, but remember they are under no constraint, unlike your parents, to do so nicely. Both Jester and I have made statements which could have been checked by you. But instead of researching them and determining where the truth or preponderance of evidence lies, you've just continued to reiterate your opinions. Repetition does not make right, nor does it alleviate ignorance.

As I said, Iraq's connection to terrorism was weak, especially compared to all the other players in the world. But it is true that terrorism is central to the rebuilding,

God! Logic! We're discussing the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Now you are saying that we should have invaded Iraq because after we did so and have been unable to control the country terrorist have moved in? Thus, since terrorists moved in *as a result of our invasion*, their future presence justified our invasion? And then you wonder at my frustration in trying to discuss this issue?

Go ahead. I've made my case. Onus is on you now.

There is no onus on me. I am not trying to justify an illegal act. The onus is on you and all who are trying to do so. And when the only argument you have is that you think (contrary to historical observation) that the future is rosy, then I can only doubt your sincerity or your intellect.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I don't need to.

A successful bombing of any western soft target is viewed by terrorists as a success. If Canada is an easy mark, then their time will come. Canadians may feel not a bit of hostility toward Islamic extremists, but the reverse is not true. If given a choice, a US or Isreali target would be preferred. But, if they are too well protected, then they will kill our friends and allies. Just to strike indirectly at us.

The press is already a buzz with the scenario that terrorists will view their action in Spain as having actually toppled the Bush friendly popular party. This will embolden them to attempt to influence other nations and elections with the same tactics. So maybe the answer is to just leave well enough alone. Heck let's just pull everything back to this side of the pond and let the Middle East, and Europe, and Asia, and Africa sort out their own little squabbles. Fortress America.

The ostrich effect is not new to this continent. Before WWII, the majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with that European problem. Some American pilots ran off and joined the RAF in Canada, or the Flying Tigers in China because they felt the need to fight tyranny. 9/11 forced many Americans to pull their heads out from their holes, but there will always be a vocal minority that advocates rolling over to the enemy. Don't provoke Japan and they will leave us alone. Sign a non-agression pact with Hitler, and let the Germans sort out their own issues. Don't resist Stalin, and maybe he will just let us live in peace. Don't get involved, just walk on by, ignore it.

Yup, rest in peace, you victims of tyrannts.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yes, something should be done about terrorism. And it should have started a whole lot sooner, given that international terrorism has been a major world wide problem for half of a century. That the USA needed 9/11 to get involved was a shame. But not just any arbitrary spasm is a proper reaction.

You talk of fighting terrorism? OK, let's give the administration a grade:

Invading Afghanistan: while there were terrorists in the country, we failed to catch most of them and now they are spread throughout the world, many of them in a country that we will not invade because it has nuclear weapons. So-so effort, poor result. Call it a C+ on the curve.

Invading Iraq: not a terrorist in sight prior to the invasion. But it is becoming a haven for terrorists now. Bad effort, worse result. Solid F.

Homeland Security: we spend many times as much as we do for getting drunken drivers off the road for an infinitesimally smaller result, if any. We greatly increase the bureaucracy at the airports for a negligible increase in safety (again, keep in mind that airport security DID NOT FAIL in 9/11). We spend large sums of money integrating pre-existing agencies which continue to roll on doing their expensive and inefficient jobs as before. We now have a person in charge of flicking the spinner to determine the color of the day -- and if that color is "hot" we spend a whole bunch for readiness to vague threats. D- minus at best, and only because the motivation is right.

Patriot Act: It's a good thing the founding fathers are all dead, because they'd either have grabbed their muskets or died of shame. Solid F.

Yeah, in an emergency it's good to act decisively, rapidly and correctly. This administration and its actions got two out of three correct. And alienating the rest of the world is hardly a good way of leading the attack against a global problem.

BTW, your analogies to the "ostrich effect" is yet another of those "you're with us or against us" rants. One can feel that much has to be done about terrorism (and other problems) and not agree that the inefficient and stupid blundering of this administration is the right thing to do. Perhaps it is time to let some intelligent and informed people take over and attempt some actions that actually address the problem rather than just making the American feel good. International politics is not a ball game. Not that Shrub did that well even in managing a ball team.

--Pete

[Sourskunk]

What you're saying is that you can't promote democracy in countries where it has never existed before, only in areas that had experimented with it in the past. Ok, that's a distinction I can appreciate, thanks.

I also enjoyed the links, did give me a bit of a brush up on Japan and Germany. However, here's an exert on Afghanistan from http://www.worldrover.com/history/afghanis...an_history.html.

In 1964, King Zahir Shah promulgated a liberal constitution providing for a two-chamber legislature to which the king appointed one-third of the deputies. The people elected another third, and the remainder were selected indirectly by provincial assemblies. Although Zahir's "experiment in democracy" produced few lasting reforms, it permitted the growth of unofficial extremist parties of both left and right. This included the
communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had close ideological ties to the Soviet
Union. In 1967, the PDPA split into two major rival factions: the Khalq (Masses) faction headed by Nur
Muhammad Taraki and supported by the military, and the Parcham (Banner) faction led by Babrak Karmal. The split reflected deep ethnic, class, and ideological divisions within Afghan society.

Now, that's not "full" democracy but again, I don't think we should expect a form of democracy that will resemble ours in any way. I also figure there is a good chance that the Afghanis, just as we did, will have to take this initial constitution they created, give it a few years to see all its weaknesses, and say "To hell with this", and rewrite it. To expect a peaceful, rosy near future without some really raucous disagreement would be outright lunacy. It's the growing pains that have to define them and if America tries to staple this provisional constitution to them so some politician can hold to the "success" mantra, then I agree that failure is a certainty. If we don't have the stomach to watch the Afghanis fight like a couple stray cats in a wet cardboard box, then I agree, it would have been better never to have tried at all.

Now Iraq is a whole different ballgame and I suspect was what you were focusing on. Yes, I do see the problem of Iraqis not being able to go back into their history and say "let's try that again". In that sense, we are indeed involved in something completely new and extremely risky. The kurds are also another element which throws the whole thing in peril. On that, yes, we'll have to wait and see and yes, it may be something someone like Bush is not equipped to handle. On that, I can see your point.

I can also see your point of looking to other countries where attempts at "nation building" ended up more like nation destroying. Haiti and Liberia for example. The problem was, again, this ridiculous attempt to just foist upon the people a guy or a group that *we* liked, then dust our hands off and go back and give a "peace in our time" speech while the country we're "helping" is screaming "Screw you! We don't even like that guy! We're doing this!" And of course when there's unrest, we go and send in troops to protect the scumbag we appointed. That is, indeed, promoting "freedom" at the point of a gun. Like I said, it's oxymoronic and of course it can't work.

Be thankful that there are at least some who are willing to point out gaps in your knowledge, but remember they are under no constraint, unlike your parents, to do so nicely.

Heh, trust me, compared to other arguments I have, this one is downright tame so I'm more than used to it :). Including arguments with my parents ;). But just because your posts to me haven't exactly been cordial doesn't mean I have to get furious in turn. You expected me to because you thought I was some sort of Bush-fanatic partisan. Not everyone that disagrees with you is doing it for duplicitous reasons and with all your worldly experience, I'd figure you know that. I wanted reasons and reasons I got. Thank you.

But it has taken almost, what, 5 posts of me baiting you two to get any responses pointing out gaps in my knowledge (existance of democratic movements prior to our assitance), but I do appreciate you presenting them.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Heh, trust me, compared to other arguments I have, this one is downright tame so I'm more than used to it . Including arguments with my parents . But just because your posts to me haven't exactly been cordial doesn't mean I have to get furious in turn.

I'm not furious, just grumpy. Stick around, we're gonna have fun ;)

--Pete

[Sourskunk]

Will do =p.

[Jester]

"Maybe if the Skylon or CN tower is a pile of rubble you might have a different opinion. If it is as you say, then your time will come."

Let them.

The actions resulting from my ideas are on how to best combat terrorism. If they're wrong, they're wrong, but how nationalistic I feel at any given moment shouldn't have any bearing on that.

Jester

[kandrathe]

One can feel that much has to be done about terrorism (and other problems) and not agree that the inefficient and stupid blundering of this administration is the right thing to do. Perhaps it is time to let some intelligent and informed people take over and attempt some actions that actually address the problem rather than just making the American feel good. International politics is not a ball game. Not that Shrub did that well even in managing a ball team.

You are large on casting down what you think is foolish, but I don't read any of your brilliant suggestions on something you think would be more effective. Your grades are harsh and your points show only the negative. Afghanistan is a desolate place with plenty of hiding places, and since the terrorists blend into the population when they decide to flee, not much will stop that. I don't know how you could have prevented it. "Invading Iraq:not a terrorist in sight prior to the invasion" -- I already presented a link from a year ago, prior to the invasion where Colin Powell describes Zaraqawi (who is and was in Iraq), and the links to Iraqi intelligence.

again, keep in mind that airport security DID NOT FAIL in 9/11

I would say that it did. I doubt a collection of dubious characters with questionable documents would go by unquestioned today. We were too lax before. Maybe Homeland Security has some issues getting started, but it seems that having coordination of these hundreds of ports of entry and disparate agencies is a good thing. No one else made it a reality.

Ok, since we've got our critics scoreboard out, how about grading the administrations for the past 50 years. Mostly you find they were too busy fighting the Cold War, or it was not our problem. It was the Bush senior administration that began to realize that our WWII style military was no tool for asymetric warfare.

BTW, your analogies to the "ostrich effect" is yet another of those "you're with us or against us" rants.

Oh, I disagree. You may be one of those that thinks something needs to be done, and disagrees with the methods. I'll give you that. But, if you look around you will see as I do a disturbing clamor for appeasment.

Some food for thought;
How to Stop Terrorism -- P. Terrence Hopmann
5. How to Stop Terrorism? Stop Being Terrorists! -- Micheal Moore
Finding way to win war against terrorists -- Harris Freier
CDI -- Responding to Terrorism

BTW, I think Micheal Moore is very smart, but still sensationalist and a self promoting bag of wind. If you were to bottle his vitriol I think we would have a universal solvent.

[Leah_heartsword]

I think O'neill should blow him away.

Oh wait, wrong Kerry...

O'Neill who...?

Any ways, I'm all for Kerry. I was for Edwards, then he droped. I can't wait until Bush is out of office. I live in Texas so I felt his wrath long before he was president. This site gives some hillariuos background on the ol' Shrub.

[Jester]

"I already presented a link from a year ago, prior to the invasion where Colin Powell describes Zaraqawi (who is and was in Iraq), and the links to Iraqi intelligence."

And if that's the accepted criterion for invading a country, I have a list of countries you have to invade. It's in the index of an atlas.

Jester

[kandrathe]

I didn't claim Zaraqawi was a justification for invasion.

Personally, I believe the only neccesary justification was Saddam's violation of the 1991 Gulf War armistice. If deference to the whims of our allies, we stopped short of finishing the job in 1991. That was a big mistake, compounded by the next administrations failure to contain. He was a huge pain in our arse and a festering boil that needed lancing. There was no walking away from the inhumane Iraqi sanctions without deposing Saddam, or losing face and giving Saddam his victory through survival.

As for a UN mandate, or mission; The UN is good for forming peace keeping missions, but once the kettle boils to war they should step aside. Wars should never be fought by commitee, and resolution. Also, the history of the world up to this point indicates that "might makes right", and the victors write the histories -- as much as you or I might like to rely on justice, truth, logic, or compassion I just don't see that what we think matters much.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You are large on casting down what you think is foolish, but I don't read any of your brilliant suggestions on something you think would be more effective.

An idiot's argument. I don't need to be a major league pitcher to recognize poor pitching. Similarly, I don't need to run the country to see that it is being run by fundamentalist fanatical idiots. Given that terrorism is an international problem, that the Europeans, the Indians, the Israelis have all had to deal with it since the mid 50's or before, the failure to put together an international force against terrorism and the ability to alienate almost every country on earth does not smack of capable leadership.

More effective? Start with the fact that terrorism is not a form of warfare, it is a form of crime. One does not combat crime by nuking the regions of high crime. One focuses on the individuals and uses intelligence (both the "smarts" variety and the military variety) to capture the individuals involved. Want to know what to do about terrorism, look at what the Israelis did after the Olympic village shootings. Now, get permission from all the countries involved to work within their borders. Not only cheaper than an invasion, but it might actually accomplish the objective. But it doesn't play as big in Peoria as the flash bang of a John Wayne invasion.

I would say that it did. I doubt a collection of dubious characters with questionable documents would go by unquestioned today.

Are you blind, do you choose not to see, or have you not been in an airport since 9/11? By "dubious characters", I presume you mean people with big noses, a dark complexion and a full beard. Preferably stinking of camel dung and wearing a turban. Because, after all, we all know those ragheads all look alike and can easily be picked out by the well trained minimum wage government employees manning the security gates and making us take off our sneakers to make sure we don't have an assault rifle hidden in them. And, of course, its so difficult to get a driver's license, the only document needed, that not even thousands of teenagers can do it.

The only meaningful thing that has changed in air travel is that the crew will no longer tamely turn their plane over to anyone demanding it and a plane load of passengers will no longer sit with their thumbs up their buts and let a plane be hijacked. And neither of those changes has a damned thing to do with Homeland Security. As to the safety of air travel, we looked into it fifteen years or so ago and found hundreds of ways that arms and explosives could get onto commercial flights. Even more if one didn't care which particular flight. About six of those holes have been plugged.

So, no, I don't think air travel is one bit safer now than it was pre 9/11 because of anything the HS office has done. Most of what has been done is more along the lines of looking like the problem is being worked rather than actually solving the problem. More of the typical Shrub perception rather than performance.

but it seems that having coordination of these hundreds of ports of entry and disparate agencies is a good thing.

Really? In what way other than making the greatly increased paperwork a bit more uniform? The failure was one of intelligence, caused by "right thinking" people who were too uptight to permit the intelligence agencies to use scumbags as sources. That problem didn't need more supervision to fix, it needed less (and by people with more vision). As to the rest, the illegal immigrant problem has by no means been fixed. If illiterate, unprepared, uneducated people can still get into the country in large numbers, you think the measures taken by HS are going to keep trained agents out? If so, I'd suggest you go get a reality check.

But, if you look around you will see as I do a disturbing clamor for appeasment.

Again, faulty thinking. You argue as if the only choices are appeasement and continuing the spasm this administration has been having. I maintain that there are many other choices, some of which actually make sense and have a hope of addressing the problem. Just because some of us didn't upgrade our impression of Shrub's intelligence because of 9/11 doesn't mean that we don't want something done. Indeed, my greatest complaint is that nothing *effective* is being done in spite of the time, the people, and the money wasted by the present batch of incompetents.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Also, the history of the world up to this point indicates that "might makes right", and the victors write the histories -- as much as you or I might like to rely on justice, truth, logic, or compassion I just don't see that what we think matters much.

Shall I then start following you around with an RPG? That way, when you exceed the speed limit, I can blow you away. After all, you broke the law, the state failed to enforce it and my might (an RPG) gave me the right.

Pretty stupid argument at the personal level. Doesn't come out much brighter at the international level.

--Pete

[Jester]

"If deference to the whims of our allies, we stopped short of finishing the job in 1991."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

Isn't the memory hole wonderful? It seems that *the president* didn't actually want to go in either, for fear of exactly the situation you're in now. Whims of your allies and your president, maybe.

"The UN is good for forming peace keeping missions, but once the kettle boils to war they should step aside."

Hello, Kofi? Yeah, hi. We want a war. What's that you say? You don't want a war? Well, that's really too bad. The kettle's boiled, we're having one. Now step aside and let the big men do the heavy lifting.

"Also, the history of the world up to this point indicates that "might makes right", and the victors write the histories -- as much as you or I might like to rely on justice, truth, logic, or compassion I just don't see that what we think matters much."

The only thing preventing Al Qaeda from invoking this principle and ruling the world is firepower.

Jester

Edit, afterthought: It's a scary world when George Bush Sr. seems like an elder statesman of mythical proportion and oracular foresight.

[Professor Frink]

afterthought: It's a scary world when George Bush Sr. seems like an elder statesman of mythical proportion and oracular foresight.

Indeed, it is. Good thing that here in the real world he's an incompetent one-termer that snuck in on Regan's coattails and got booted after managing to screw up the first Iraq war.

It's not that surprising that George Bush Sr.'s legacy-polishing version of the events conveniently dismisses the massive post-war rebellion against Saddam that he could have protected with a little air support; when the US turned its back on them they were mercilessly slaughtered by the Iraqi forces recently freed up from fighting the retreating American forces.

It's a little sickening to see him badmouthing the people whose blood is all over his hands, though. "President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people", but he wouldn't lift a finger to help them when their preference was clear.

Is it all that surprising that modern Iraqis are concerned about been seen as cooperating with the US? Who knows, we might abandon them again.

-- frink

edit: spelling

[LiquidDamage]

It's not that surprising that George Bush Sr.'s legacy-polishing version of the events conveniently dismisses the massive post-war rebellion against Saddam that he could have protected with a little air support; when the US turned its back on them they were mercilessly slaughtered by the Iraqi forces recently freed up from fighting the retreating American forces.

If the Iraqis actually rose up against Saddam after the Gulf war, then doesnt that suggest that they wanted to get rid of him, but didn't have the power to do so, and therefore could have used help?

So doesn't that justify our action, according to Pete's arguments? They had a rebellion against Saddam that wanted our help, "we" (Bush Sr.) just refused it the first time around.

According to this, they clearly aren't being offered freedom at the point of a bayonet, if they wanted it in the first place, but were not able to accomplish it.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You assume that an Iraqi rebellion against Saddam was a push for a democratic state. From what I remember reading, it would simply have been one strong man ousting another. But, even if it had been as you assume, time is still of the essence -- a rebellion that was crushed by '95 is not really aided by an invasion in '03.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

It's not a reflection of my belief, but an observation of the way things are. If you are OJ, you can blow away your Ex and her boyfriend in some mad outrage and walk away. It does work at a personal level, and no it does not make any sense.

[kandrathe]

The only thing preventing Al Qaeda from invoking this principle and ruling the world is firepower.

I think they will still try.