The President Can't Find a "War Czar"

[rwarn17588]

What exactly was the question about Clinton's foreign policy? You've written so many reams of material, I couldn't find it.

And quoting a nearly insane drunkard like Chris Hitchens doesn't exactly bolster your case.

And then there's this:

<begin clip:

That's not entirely the case. Saddam's regime had been slowly imploding for a long time. Most scholars would concur that his regime would have cracked entirely or began crumbling within 5 to 10 years by itself. There were too many forces pushing on it, both inside and outside. And with thousands of pounds of chemical/biological weapons still unaccounted for, that was a gamble that no one after 9/11 could make, well, at least anyone with a conscience and an interest in protecting the US and Israel, could take.

<end clip>

Yahoo. We not only have a regime that was in its last throes, but hoarding WMDs that didn't exist. Did you get your intel from Bush's pals?

Keep digging for that pony.

[iplaw]

quote:
Yahoo. We not only have a regime that was in its last throes, but hoarding WMDs that didn't exist. Did you get your intel from Bush's pals?

Keep digging for that pony.

Keep half-reading my posts and you'll be just fine...

My questions about Clinton are on this thread if you care to respond.

WMDs that didn't exist?  What the hell happened to all the WMDs that HE DECLARED, and that were NEVER ACCOUNTED FOR?  Would you care to give us an answer, or do you not care?

Even if they did destroy all of their WMD, which they didn't, the destruction of them, without any accounting to the UN inspectors was yet another violation of 1441.

As for your half-baked comment about not taking out a regime like Saddam's in its last days, a thorough and less superficial reading of Hitchens' discussion on the topic will answer your question directly without the need for me to translate.  And it's funny that you would disparage Hitchens, as he is consistently the only supporter of the war that is welcomed by even the farthest left leaning groups as a rational voice, despite his viewpoint.

[rwarn17588]

So what if he violated a U.N. resolution. That doesn't give you the excuse to invade a country that wasn't responsible for 9/11, plan poorly for it, lay waste and screw it up so badly that you can't extricate yourself from it, further destabilize a region and thus harm your military's ability to respond to other crises around the world.

There are plenty of other ways to punish a country without such a huge drain on blood and treasure. It's called containment. It worked against the Soviet Union.

To me, it sounds like you're trying every excuse in the world, no matter how ill-advised, lame or dubious, to justify a war that you supported and now is turning into a miserable failure.

[iplaw]

quote:So what if he violated a U.N. resolution.

The resolution had automatic enforcement provisions which green lighted an invasion based upon violations of 1441; that's so what.

quote:
That doesn't give you the excuse to invade a country that wasn't responsible for 9/11,

I'm not going to address this issue anymore.  Only a complete ignoramus would keep regurgitating this.

quote:
plan poorly for it lay waste and screw it up so badly that you can't extricate yourself from it

Such was the fate of any action in the region...doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done...

quote:
further destabilize a region and thus harm your military's ability to respond to other crises around the world.

You're smoking crack if you think the region was "stable" to begin with.

quote:
There are plenty of other ways to punish a country without such a huge drain on blood and treasure. It's called containment. It worked against the Soviet Union.

Apples and oranges.  Also, containment was ineffective with Saddam, are you completely unaware of his attempted missile purchases in 2003?  Is that "containment" to you?

quote:
To me, it sounds like you're trying every excuse in the world, no matter how ill-advised, lame or dubious, to justify a war that you supported and now is turning into a miserable failure.

And you are simply regurgitating every uneducated opinion about Saddam and the pre-invasion status of Iraq that has been hatched by moveon.org.  I bet you still believe that Iraq was sunshine and butterflies with childrend flying kites before we got there just like Michael Moore told you was true.

[iplaw]

And still you refuse to answer my question about WMDs...

[rwarn17588]

My answer: He lied.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

My answer: He lied.

Despite the fact that Saddam delcared that he had them and never accounted for their dissapearance, you give Saddam the benefit of the doubt.  Congratulations.  Doesn't it feel good to side with a psychopathic, genocidal despot.

Do you deny that he delcared them to the UN?

[rwarn17588]

I didn't say I sided with him. But politicians are notorious for bluster, especially those in the Middle East.

Containment was the best option. There was plenty of contradictory intelligence about whether Saddam had those weapons. If you're doing something as grave as going to war, you'd better be damned sure you know they're there or you'll look mighty foolish.

We did, they're weren't, we did.

[iplaw]

quote:
I didn't say I sided with him.

But unfortunately that's the ultimate outcome from your POV.  

quote:
Containment was the best option. There was plenty of contradictory intelligence about whether Saddam had those weapons.

No.  There wasn't any contradictory information.  Everyone knew he had WMDs; there was no information otherwise.  They knew he had WMD because he declared that he had WMD.  No responsible president, post 9/11 could have believed him, and if 5 years down the road we would have had a chemical attack in a major US city Bush would have been responsible for allowing that to happen.  That's a gamble I wouldn't take.  In fact, I think we played the same game with OBL...no one believed that he was a threat despite intelligence saying otherwise.

Unfortunately, someone has inherited those WMD because no one forced Saddam's hand on the issue 12 years ago.

As for "containment":

Define the term "contained."  He was still, 12 years after GW I trying to acquire banned weapons.  What about that is "contained" to you?

Why would he need Nodong missiles if he didn't have anything to put in them?  Seems like an awfully arbitrary purchase of such expensive weapons for absolutely NO purpose.

Maybe successful "containment" to you was allowing him to continue giving aid to and harboring Taliban refugees after the war in Afghanistan?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Though it was in Kosovo for Clinton...I bet you, as a good democrat were all for it at the time.  I never met a democrat who argues otherwise.

There's kind of a "genocide policy loophole" there.  I would argue that it was mostly about stability in Europe, than "genocide" specifically.  The loophole in the case of Kosovo and Bosnia, was 1) due to primarily location, intervention was strongly encouraged and supported by both the UN and NATO, and 2) tactically, a large part of both conflicts could be stopped by going directly at Serbian units.

There IS a loophole in regards to Iraq too, but the no one really wants to admit it.  If all else fails, Oil is covered by foreign policy as a strategic interest of the US.  It does not relate to genocide necessarily, but if genocide causes problems with the flow of oil, US foreign policy would allow for intervention.  

Excerpt from Eisenhower Archives

quote:The reason for Russia's interest in the Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East.

This region has always been the crossroads of the continents of the Eastern Hemisphere. The Suez Canal enables the nations of Asia and Europe to carry on the commerce that is essential if these countries are to maintain well-rounded and prosperous economies. The Middle East provides a gateway between Eurasia and Africa.

It contains about two thirds of the presently known oil deposits of the world and it normally supplies the petroleum needs of many nations of Europe, Asia and Africa. The nations of Europe are peculiarly dependent upon this supply, and this dependency relates to transportation as well as to production! This has been vividly demonstrated since the closing of the Suez Canal and some of the pipelines. Alternate ways of transportation and, indeed, alternate sources of power can, if necessary, be developed. But these cannot be considered as early prospects.

These things stress the immense importance of the Middle East. If the nations of that area should lose their independence, if they were dominated by alien forces hostile to freedom, that would be both a tragedy for the area and for many other free nations whose economic life would be subject to near strangulation. Western Europe would be endangered just as though there had been no Marshall Plan, no North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The free nations of Asia and Africa, too, would be placed in serious jeopardy. And the countries of the Middle East would lose the markets upon which their economies depend. All this would have the most adverse, if not disastrous, effect upon our own nation's economic life and political prospects.

The Eisenhower Doctrine, though specifically talking about Soviet interests, states clearly that Middle Eastern oil is a part of US national interest.  Force can be used to protect the flow of oil.  That would be about the only explanation for US covert ops in toppling the Iranian PM in 1953.  In a roundabout way, it also explains the CIA toppling of Guatamala's President Guzman in 1954, over threats of nationalizing United Fruit Company.

Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, do not generally have many "loopholes".  If Peru fell in to all out genocide, the US would likely call for it to end, and look the other way.  US and NATO's interest in these areas is limited at best.  The UN doesn't have the capacity or desire for invasion, only peacekeeping.  It gives the appearance sometimes, as in the case of Darfur or Rwanda, of racism.  It's not racism, it's national interest.  Whether or not that needs to change, is another topic.

[iplaw]

quote:
There's kind of a "genocide policy loophole" there.  I would argue that it was mostly about stability in Europe, than "genocide" specifically.  The loophole in the case of Kosovo and Bosnia, was 1) due to primarily location, intervention was strongly encouraged and supported by both the UN and NATO, and 2) tactically, a large part of both conflicts could be stopped by going directly at Serbian units.

I should have started by saying that I agreed with Clinton on this one...and we have subsequently discovered the reasons for UN/EU abstention on Iraq after our expose on the oil-for-food scandal.  There were far too many EU crooks like Chirac manipulating the system for them to seriously consider deposing Saddam.

quote:
There IS a loophole in regards to Iraq too, but the no one really wants to admit it.  If all else fails, Oil is covered by foreign policy as a strategic interest of the US.  It does not relate to genocide necessarily, but if genocide causes problems with the flow of oil, US foreign policy would allow for intervention.  

Interestingly enough, though not for the same reason, I agree with you.  

Anyone who says that oil is not worth going to war over is mentally challenged.  Keeping oil out of the hands of state sponsors of terror is always a valid reason for intervening where funds could be used for the purchase of weapons or the financing of terrorists.

Saddam was using oil-for-food to do both.

Going to war simply for financial gains from oil is reprehensible, and standing contracts which entitle the Iraqi people to royalties from their own oil have insured that will not happen in this instance.

quote:The reason for Russia's interest in the Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East.

Not to mention their hatred of the Jewish state is futhered also.  Interestingly enough, there is a coup brewing in Russia as we speak, being financed and orchestrated by a Russian exile in Britain...

quote:
Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America, do not generally have many "loopholes".  If Peru fell in to all out genocide, the US would likely call for it to end, and look the other way.  US and NATO's interest in these areas is limited at best.  The UN doesn't have the capacity or desire for invasion, only peacekeeping.  It gives the appearance sometimes, as in the case of Darfur or Rwanda, of racism.  It's not racism, it's national interest.  Whether or not that needs to change, is another topic.

If not for these specific issues like genocide, what else is the UN good for?  We have an international bill of human rights...maybe they should cook up an interest in policing it.

[MichaelC]

The UN simply does not have the capacity for invasion.  The UN does provide logisitics and peacekeeping, the UN has provided at least logistics to the African Union peacekeepers in Darfur.  But UN actions are directly related to the desires of the council members, and capacity of UN members.

The difference between Kosovo and Darfur, is primarily that France, UK, US, and Russia, (four permanent UN Security Council members) were very interested in solving Kosovo.  And also, NATO  (perfectly capable of full scale invasion, and including 3 permanent UN council members) by it's very nature was interested.  Darfur may or may not eventually have that kind of luck.

[iplaw]

You're exactly right.  The UN is at the mercy of its member states who comprise countries like Syria, Venezuela and China who are all constituents on it's human rights council of all things.  It's a laughable community with self-serving participants.  Oil-for-food was neither the first, nor the last scandal to ever expose the UN for the sham of a community that it is.

The UN's first and foremost job should be denouncing and encouraging intervention in situations like Darfur.

To your point about troops...that would be the US military, whether we like it or not the military arm of the UN.

[MichaelC]

Syria and Venezuela have near zero power in the UN.  China does have power being a permanent UNSC member, but China in regards to genocide would most likely abstain.  China has for years been near 100% predictable.  Russia would either abstain or go with the US, UK, and France.  Neither Russia nor China have the military capacity to provide even minimal logistics for most conflicts.

The US, UK, and France run the UN.  If any of those three chose to make genocide in Darfur an issue, it would be an issue.  But it mostly requires the US.   UK and France won't give substantial support to activity in Darfur, unless the US is on board.  The US, to a great extent, controls the UN.

[MichaelC]

More at Yahoo!

quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and Britain, ratcheting up the pressure on Sudan, threatened it on Wednesday with sanctions and other punitive measures unless it agreed to accept a robust U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Better late than never.