Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Nystul]

You'll note the President's "For us or against us" formulation is predated by 9/11 by quite some time, and a lot of very controversial actions...

Not at all. On 9/20/2001, President Bush made a speech to a special joint session of Congress that could probably be called the defining moment in his presidency thus far. In this speech, he revealed that the early indications suggested the Taliban was involved in the strike, and he layed how he would deal with the situation, from the local cleanup of New York to domestic policy to the global effort.

It was in this context that he said "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." The full speech is archived here: http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

Everything about Bush that has been discussed in this thread revolves around this moment. This was not the agenda he brought to America during the 2000 campaign. It is the agenda he brought forth to a nation at war. If a leftist president had to face the same circumstances, the results would probably not be much different.

[Jester]

Fair enough, I had that placed wrong in my memory. Thanks for the correction.

However, there is clear evidence that, although neither terrorism nor Afghanistan was on the president's radar, an invasion of Iraq was. The Project for a New American Century had its goals clearly stated, and nearly every top administration official was connected (some of them founding members) with that group.

I cannot imagine a "leftist" president (by whom I suppose we could only assume Al Gore) extending the "war on terrorism" to include neoconservative foreign policy objectives. Afghanistan was probably unavoidable, although the methods were up for debate. But Iraq? That was pushed through entirely by Washington, and it's fairly clear which group was behind it: Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Would Al Gore have subscribed to this? I highly doubt it. I don't like Gore at all, but he's certainly not from that crowd.

From that same speech:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

That would be precisely the point at which my support evaporates entirely. A global hunt for every US-defined terrorist group that will not end until they're all gone? In addition to its futility, that struck me as the worst kind of overstated arrogance. I will not follow the United States as it crusades (Bush's word, not mine) across the world hunting down terrorists. I certainly will not follow them so long as their definition of "terrorist" includes whatever nations they've been itching to invade since the early 90s, regardless of how unconnected they are to 9/11. This was all, thanks to that line at the very least, implicit in his 9/20 speech. That puts me "against" them, since I'm no longer "for" them, and there are only two categories.

Jester

[Sourskunk]

No we really don't which is the consequence of our rather rigid two party system. It's a bit regrettable since it narrows and obscures debate at times but I suspect when the Bull Moose party of Teddy Roosevelt led to the defeat of Taft by splitting the vote and when the CPUSA folded here in the US because of hostility of support for the extremes due to the Cold War that it all but ended serious 3rd parties (although Perot came close in '92 before he went wacko).

Unfortunatly, all that means is our fringes become lobby groups under the table rather than parties dancing on top of it.

[Sourskunk]

What were your problems with Afghanistan?

Now, I can respect your opposition to how we handled Iraq, but I can't understand why you would be against the United States, along with our rather large amount of allies, actually trying to eliminate terrorism.

The fact that you were viscerally and instantly opposed to our position of eliminating terrorism shows that it didn't have to do with "extending the war on terrorism to include neoconservative foreign policy objectives" or even our methods in Afghanistan or Iraq because no one would know about them just 9 days after 9/11. Your opposition comes down not to method, but any action at all. That puts you "against" a lot more than just US policy, by proxy it puts you against anyone that has ever been affected by terrorism. I'd rethink your position and come up with one less reactionary (something we are falsely accused of when opposing terrorism) or you risk supporting some very evil men.

Sadly, your leaders demonstrate the exact same mentality which is why our respect for the United Nations has gone down to zero. They just react to their anti-American tendancies (and their wallets) and by doing so cut off their nose to spite their face. It would be laughable if I could ignore all the families affected by terrorism that still go to the cemetaries to mourn.

That you find the elimination of terrorism "futile" and "arrogant" is just sad. What would have happened if we had taken that mentality towards the Soviet Union (although some did)? It's not an impossible task at all, it just requires the will and resolve to go through with it, a resolve and will it seems you never had even right after 9/11.

[Nystul]

Honestly, it does not interest me much why you oppose the Iraq invasion. There are plenty of widely held reasons and I agree with some of the points. What interests me is that you accept the premise that you must choose either to side with the United States or with the terrorists as true, and then choose to side with the terrorists. I assume that you don't really accept the premise at all and are basically just trolling with it, which is why you got the response you got. But that aside, what does it really mean? What does it mean for Bush to make this statement (specifically talking about the 'for us or for the terrorists' premise here) and what does it mean for Jester and the other world leaders?

Here's how I see it, within the original context: If Toronto were bombed tomorrow, with Canada being a strong ally of the U.S., the U.S. would obviously be willing to get involved in the investigation. Now let's say that investigation traced back to an extremist group in Great Britain. Now the statement becomes relevant to the U.K. The British government would face the ultimatum; cooperate in the investigation to whatever extent is needed to obtain justice and eliminate the local threat, or be held responsible as a nation for sponsoring terrorism and face the consequences as a nation. This is the new policy as of 2001, and a controversial one to be sure. But here is the point: by saying you are "against" us, it does not mean you are against the policy itself. It means that if the policy applied to you, you would defy the U.S. It means that if you were the British Prime Minister in that situation, you would say "Sorry Mr. Bush, if one of my citizens wants to blow up London there is really nothing I can do about it." It means that you would rather side with the terrorists than help to solve the problem.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It is the implicit "and if you disagree with anything we (the Bush clique) say or do you are against us and therefor a terrorist" that makes my gorge rise. Except to the fanatical jackasses that ignorantly support this administration, disagreeing with the idiot in the white house is neither terrorism nor treason. But the Bush supporters are too damn stupid to see that, and that is the basic problem. Given a choice between Bush and Satan, I'd gladly take the honest devil over the lying scumbag.

--Pete

[Cybit]

Well said Pete. :)

As for the entire India-Pakistan thing, being Indian, it is a big sigh of relief that Powell did whatever he did to at least not have a nuclear aided pissing match go off over there, even if the hiatus is temporary. Methinks Pakistani usage of "freedom fighters" in Kashmir + Bush's statements of non-negotiation with terrorism kind of forces Pakistan's hand at not involving itself in Kashmir too much, ergo, reducing tensions between India and Pakistan. The entire India-Pakistan-China-Russia deal isn't as deep-rooted as Israel and Palestine, but has the potential of being far worse if someone got cranky. (To clarify, India is allies with Russia, while China and Pakistan are allies, possibly to the point of China giving Pakistan the bomb, though I imagine the Russians might have afforded the Indians the same deal)

[LiquidDamage]

Given a choice between Bush and Satan, I'd gladly take the honest devil over the lying scumbag.

I personally think Bush is the honest devil. He's been pretty clear that he is a bigot, doesn't care about anyone's beliefs on religion but those that agree with him, and is more interested in big business than small business or the average American. The only questionable thing is the whole WMD bit, and for all we know, he may have actually believed they had them.

Not that this matters anyway, as we aren't getting Bush vs. Satan. We are getting Bush vs. Kerry.

[Jester]

"Your" leaders?

What Canadian wallet was fattened by any stand at all in the "war on terror"? By my count, we've lost money twice: once for sending considerable support into Afghanistan, and once again for missing out on reconstruction lucre which could have been ours with even a symbolic contribution.

France and Russia are not innocent of the charge of opportunism. But Canada? I don't think that accusation holds water.

"What would have happened if we had taken that mentality towards the Soviet Union (although some did)?"

What, not eliminating the Soviet Union? That *was* the attitude you took, and thanks for not blowing up the world by trying it the other way. If you pursued the cold war with half the belligerence you've shown lately, your nation would have been vaporized. Instead, you tried a policy remarkable for its non-suicidiality: containment. You chose to deal with the problem in more nuanced, slow ways that don't incite nuclear wars. There were plenty of people who would have been just fine with hunting down communism at any cost. They were callet McCarthyites, and one of the worst things ever to happen to your country.

Similarily, if your idea for fighting terrorism is to declare war on country after country, or to evaporate fundamental freedoms in the name of security, my support for you is exactly zero. If you think you can beat terrorism this way, I think you're either being naive with the lives of others, or outright stupid. There may be ways to significantly set back terrorism. Keep the intelligence networks tight. Undercut support for terrorist networks by removing their causes. Offer support to populist governments rather than oppressive ones. International police actions, rather than full-scale wars.

I don't find it at all surprising that I find your current policy counterproductive. And, since I think your policies are driving you farther from any reasonable objective (like reducing the actual threat of terrorism), of course I'm against it.

Jester

[Jester]

"Not that this matters anyway, as we aren't getting Bush vs. Satan. We are getting Bush vs. Kerry."

Which is really too bad. Kerry's a bit of a lily liver when it comes to taking unpopular stands. But Satan? There's a guy who really delivers.

:)

Jester

[Jester]

"I assume that you don't really accept the premise at all and are basically just trolling with it, which is why you got the response you got."

As I said, within the framework of this (absurd) declaration, since I cannot be for you, I must be against you. It's not from my perspective that I support terrorism; it's from Bush's.

"It means that if the policy applied to you, you would defy the U.S. It means that if you were the British Prime Minister in that situation, you would say "Sorry Mr. Bush, if one of my citizens wants to blow up London there is really nothing I can do about it." It means that you would rather side with the terrorists than help to solve the problem."

Does it mean the United States has a right to declare war on Britain based on this? I would certainly support the British side over the American if the USA, without any legal cause for going to war, invaded Britain because the British government failed to meet an ultimatum. To support that would be to radically rewrite the rules for what justifies a war. Now, for Britain to ignore the threat of London blowing up (killing what, 25 million people?) would be absurd. But it would be their problem to deal with, or an international problem at the most. It is certainly not the US' right to invade whomever does not agree with their policy, even if that policy concerns terrorism.

Jester

[LiquidDamage]

But Iraq? That was pushed through entirely by Washington, and it's fairly clear which group was behind it: Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Would Al Gore have subscribed to this? I highly doubt it. I don't like Gore at all, but he's certainly not from that crowd.

Iraq had it coming.

What you seem to forget is that the only reason there was a cease fire in the first Gulf war was because of some agreements made between Saddam and the U.N.. These agreements were that he prove disarmament, or face sanctions. Over the 10 years thereafter, Saddam repeatedly spit in the U.N.'s face, and all the U.N. would do about it was impose sanctions, sanctions that we all know did nothing but hurt Iraqi's because Saddam used them to his advantage, all the while blaming the U.N. and the U.S..

We had this discussion, remember? The sanctions did nothing. Saddam repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.N. after invading another country, and they didn't do a damn thing about it. When someone won't listen to reason, it's time to punch them in the face.

We had good reasons to resume responding to an invasion when it was clear that nothing else would keep that jackass from exploiting people for his own gain.

The fact that Bush claimed we were really going in there because of WMD's and 9/11 has no bearing on whether the war itself was justified, other than Bush using a half-assed reason that he either believed or thought was more likely to convince people it was necessary.

I don't like Bush very much. I'm not a Christian, I support gay marriage, I oppose prayer in schools and other mixings of government and religion, and I oppose his policies on immigration. He'd put me in his Axis of Evil if I had a shred of influence. However, the war on Iraq was reasonable and necessary, and would have been lauded as a good idea by the people booing it now, had it been headed by Clinton.

Well, except for those countries that had oil deals with Saddam.

[kandrathe]

Which is crazy, since I prefer neither of the two in power now. Or, rather, I feel that both have been subverted to a power higher than "We The People", and that is greed. It's not a new thing in Washington, which is a symptom of an apathetic or uninformed populace. But, a two party system forces political decision into a majority/minority realm. Each issue of concern enough to be written as a bill by a congressman is addressed by the two parties and either supported or defeated. You can see how controversial elections can get when they are close as in the last US Presidential election. A multi-party system favors the minority with the most cohesive voting block. Which is how you can get Joerg Haider's Freedom Party.

As for fringe party's... And far right(if we are talking about the same right) of Republicans too. Although, all kinds of crack pots claim to be either Republican or Democrat, but fail to endorse their platforms. Like this guy.

We have them all, they just need to pass the 5% consistent average to get matching federal and state election dollars. We had that here in Minnesota briefly, thanks to Jesse Ventura's popularity in getting elected Governor. But, it was not sustained in the last election. Philosophy shifts large enough to unseat either the Democrats or Republicans as major parties wouldn't happen over years, but decades.

[--Pete]

Hi,

At least on paper, the sanctions against Iraq were UN sanctions. The USA was only involved as a member of the UN, operating under its rules. When the UN decided that no action was necessary, then that ended the "sanctions" justification for the war. All that was left was the WMD (which will probably survive as the lie of the century) and Iraq's support of terrorism (which is total hokum). The more information that comes out, the more it is clear that the administration discounted any information it did not want to hear and even went so far as to create "information" that would support its crusade. No surprise there, they've been doing just that in regards to science, to the environment, to the economy, to education. It's the way the act, because, like all fanatics, their are justified by their certainty of being right.

Bush was a recognized bigot and idiot (by about 68% of the population) prior to 9/11. The events of that day did not add one iota to either his tolerance or his intelligence. His administration took advantage of a national tragedy to further their political and religious agenda. As an impeachable offense, I think that has a whole lot more merit than lying about a bj.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Its seems to be an absurd strawman anyway. The significant portion of 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, and were routed though a cell from Germany. There are financial links between the families of the 9/11 terrorists and the Saudi Royal family. Was there ever talk amoungst non-kooks about going after Saudi Arabia, or Germany? Clearly, their was an international gap in understanding the depth of terrorist infiltration into western societies, as well as how pervasive a problem it is even in middle eastern nations. We don't really know how extensive the problem of "The Enemy Within" is, right?

The US vs Terrorist rhetoric, means that to be a player State on our side in the war on Terrorism, means that nations need to cooperate and share intelligence with the US, rather than harbor secret terrorist training camps and known fugitives. It was a clear message to Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yeman, Pakistan and others that it was time to choose a side. Clearly, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Poland, and other traditional allies are of course on the anti-Terrorist side. Some surprises to me are Pakistan, Yeman, Egypt, Jordan and other islamic nations who lose quite a bit of street cred by being involved in something which many feel is anti-islamic.

[LiquidDamage]

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Suppose we take Bush, Gore, Clinton or whoever out of the picture, along with the events of 9/11. What should we have done about Saddam after the first Gulf war ended, and he continued to show that the U.N. was impotent?

Sure, the U.N. was in effect the police, and we were vigilantes, but what do you do when you have the power to solve a problem, and the police either return "stolen goods" and give him a slap on the hand, or just sit around letting it (Saddam exploiting/murdering his own people) continue to happen?

Sanctions have been proven repeatedly to do nothing but hurt the people of the country they are opposed upon, and Saddam had no interest in reforming, so what other options could we have had to deal with him other than removing him or ignoring him?

[Jester]

"Was there ever talk amoungst non-kooks about going after Saudi Arabia, or Germany?"

Germany, of course, is just out of the question.

But Saudi Arabia? While I don't support going to war over things like this, if you wanted to find the number one source of 1) Islamist leaders 2) Islamist money 3) Islamist support, you wouldn't need to look any further than our good friends at the House of Saud. Terrorism is not just acceptable there; it's downright popular. People getting uppity about Saddam contributing to the Palestinian resistance? That was a token. The big support for nearly all Islamist terror comes out of their money and Wahabbi ideology.

If there was an objective search for the causes, sources and support structure of terrorism, Saudi Arabia would probably be the global no. 1, even before the invasion of Afghanistan.

Why haven't the Saudis gotten anything more than a slap on the wrist? Oil. Apparently, if someone has the US by the balls, in terms of fuel, they get a "get out of the axis of evil free" card.

"Some surprises to me are Pakistan, Yeman, Egypt, Jordan and other islamic nations who lose quite a bit of street cred by being involved in something which many feel is anti-islamic."

Yes, they have. And if Islamist terrorist recruitment triples as support for these governments plummets, that would certainly paint the "obviously you must be against terrorism!" notion in rather a different light. If the people of these nations feel unrepresented by their governments, the best case scenario is that they join terrorist organizations by the hundreds. The worst is that the whole governments come down, a la Iran.

Jester

[Jester]

"The sanctions did nothing. The sanctions did nothing. Saddam repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.N. after invading another country, and they didn't do a damn thing about it."

Well, uh, no. The sanctions did plenty. First and foremost, they killed a lot of people. Whether that was worth it or not depends on where you sit, we're not going to go over that again. But past that, they apparently prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining anything even resembling a WMD program after the Gulf War, and indeed prevented Iraq from rebuilding anything at all, except Saddam's ego. The invasion has even verified that he was far weaker than even our lowest estimates considered.

If they didn't work, why was Iraq a crippled, powerless nation ever since '91? As far as containment goes, that was a pretty rousing success, except for all those dead babies, which I suppose is just the price of doing business.

As per invading another country, I seem to remember something like the wrath of the western world coming down on Saddam Hussein, and his country was blown to smithereens, his army was cowering or defecting, and then crippling sanctions blocking practically everything from reaching Iraq were levied on him for a dozen years.

That doesn't really sound like "nothing". The invasion of Kuwait was resolved in Gulf 1; if you want to justify Gulf 2, you'll need something else.

"However, the war on Iraq was reasonable and necessary, and would have been lauded as a good idea by the people booing it now, had it been headed by Clinton."

That's just downright offensive. I hated Clinton's politics nearly as much as I hated Bush I, although they both seem like George bloody Washington compared to Shrub. Partizanship doesn't much apply to me, since I don't live in your country, and, if I did, would have voted for Nader unrepentantly. I hold my views because I've thought about them, not because they're held by a party, and even if I did follow a party line, it sure as hell wouldn't be the American Democratic Party.

"The fact that Bush claimed we were really going in there because of WMD's and 9/11 has no bearing on whether the war itself was justified, other than Bush using a half-assed reason that he either believed or thought was more likely to convince people it was necessary."

Well, that's certainly true. But since "liberation" doesn't hold up, and neither does "we're allowed to enforce the UN's declarations unilaterally, even if it doesn't pass the security council", what reason exactly is there? That he "had it coming"?

"Resume responding"? In addition to the somewhat absurd nature of that concept after a dozen years, the first war was fought and won under the aegis of the UN. Wanna start shooting again? Get the security council's permission first. France being whiners? Tough, the US abuses its veto more than anyone, the French are allowed to do the same. That's even presuming you'd have won the vote anyway, a dubious proposition.

I see no justification that holds water. What does that mean? Unjust war. What does THAT mean? The Hague for Bush and co.

But, then, the world just might not be logical enough for that. I'll have to settle for him being turfed out of office next election.

Jester

[Nystul]

Errr, sorry. The city in the example is Toronto; not sure how or why I flipped it to London halfway through. And one potential threat would be that the U.S. would declare war. My question was, if you were that PM, would you cooperate with the US/Canadian investigation, or would you start gearing your troops up to go to war against the U.S.? But I think you completely missing the point of this.

The Bush quote was a message to the leadership of countries where terrorists are trained, funded, etc. that their countries can be held accountable for the actions of the individuals. If you are a head of state, then it is a strongly worded threat. Either cooperate in the elimination of the terrorist elements of your country, or face the consequences. Kandrathe is right in that it really was aimed at specific countries (because, as I'm sure Occhi would point out, there is always more than one issue involved in any international relationship). For you to apply this quote to yourself and say you are not for Bush, so you must be for the terrorists... I don't have the slightest idea what you are saying by that. The only thing that would make sense would be that either you take part in harboring terrorists, or it is within your power to stop some terrorists, but you refuse to do it. Since this doesn't seem to be what you are getting at, I think we are just arguing about the context of the quote.

[Sourskunk]

Fair enough on Canada. I keep forgetting who is part of what countries and should try to make myself more clear. Yes, I largely meant France, Germany, Russia, and to a lesser extent China.

As for the Soviet Union, yes, we did not employ the same means with them as we are doing with terrorists but that wasn't my point. Our intentions for a long time had been the defeat of the Soviet Union if at all possible but that idea was poo-pooed by many as being an impossible dream and belligerant that we would even suggest the goal (and God forbid we actually say that America and its allies were morally superior to a dictatorship). However, I'll remind you, that containment of the Soviet Union was not what brought them down and instead caused some of the largest failures of Nato and the US, most notably Vietnam. It was brinkmanship, via the arms race the U.S. accelerated, that led to the Soviets going bankrupt and emploding once and for all. It was extremely risky, yes, but ultimately successful. Containment does not bring about success, only a delay to eventual conflict.

Similarily, if your idea for fighting terrorism is to declare war on country after country, or to evaporate fundamental freedoms in the name of security, my support for you is exactly zero.

Partially that is my belief on the first part, absolutely no on the second. I did in fact say about 2 days after 9/11, long before Bush echoed anything similar, that if it honestly took going to each hostile country and knocking them down, then that was the only way we'd eliminate future attacks. You seem to like the "good enough" approach of "eh, just a few attacks a year, we can handle that". I suspect the residents of Madrid, Spain wouldn't be too receptive of that line of reasoning right now. Me, I prefer the "good once and for all" approach. Call me niave if you will.

Now, that doesn't mean that we *have* to declare war on every country we don't like and I didn't think we would have to at the time. Knock an enemy down at the start, and the other enemies do start to get the message and become more susceptible to other means of pressure, namely diplomatic and economic. That didn't work for Iraq. I doubt we'll have to declare war on Libya at all since they are caving on all fronts. Iran may be a different issue. North Korea will likely fold if they get pressure from all sides without war which is the one country I'm apprehensive of at the moment. Pakistan has become about as good an ally as we can expect in the Middle East and is making progress.

That makes another point. We're not delusional enough to believe that we can just snap our fingers and expect many of these countries to just instantly change. What we're looking for is real, honest progress which is why we're warming up to Libya, been cozy with Pakistan since 9/11, and keep toying with Iran. I agree on Saudi Arabia but there's a more important reason we don't attack them so willingly and it has to do with Mecca and Medina. During Gulf War I, we went well, well around them because we knew the offense that would cause and we're being careful with our pressure there now. Is it the most ideologically pure defense strategy? Probably not. But we're not a bunch of airheads either. It's a tightrope we're walking and we know it but we can't just pull down our pants and watch it happen again and the only response we hear is "condemnation in the strongest terms". We're tired of condemnations of our enemies. We put up with that for over 20 years. Now we want action. Call me arrogant and stupid if you will.

In the meantime, we're gambling on the hope that if we set up democracies in the countries we do have to go to war with, they will be friendly to the world because they will be more prosperous. Before you get your bile up over that, it worked in Germany, and it worked in Japan. It can and will work again. They won't be democracies set up in our image, just as Germany and Japan weren't and that's actually a good idea. The situation for both Afghanistan and Iraq is much different than ours and will only work if they build it (I liked how they compromised about Islam in the Iraq constitution) in a way that suits them. That, and I hope they do a lot of screaming at each other cause that's the only way they'll get something they all can appreciate. The truth is, Americans don't know enough about either country to assume how to solve all their problems. All we can do, and will do, is give them the freedom and the defense to decide it for themselves. Do you oppose *that*? You said that one of the ways to reduce terrorism was to remove the reason for people to need to go to it in the first place. I submit that it is exactly what we are trying to do.

That's my policy for dealing with terrorism. Now, I know you laid out a basic layout of yours but if you could put some meat on the bones, I'd be interested in hearing your ideas. I'm not being angry cause I do suspect we're talking past each other here. I'm just being...overly assertive. It's a failing and a strength of mine :).