[Ciberblade]

I've been thinking about this for some time, taking recent events into account.

What I am about to discuss, could shatter the illusions that some of you may have formed about my views, with specific regard to the following of President Bush.
**Consider yourselves warned**


I know we have discussed the war in Iraq ad nauseam (so no need to venture down that path again) On to my point:
Based on inaccurate data, and a perceived threat we went in. As with any course of this magnitude, the situation evolves as time progresses. Now we have freed an oppressed people accustomed to murder for no readily apparent reason. The result is good, and the lasting affects are being handed to the people. But does the end outweigh the means? (I know linsky, could you be a bit more specific without all the emotionally charged hate Bush rhetoric?

I hear the talk of liberation in reference to other countries, and frankly it's starting to make me cringe. I do not feel that it is our (the U.S.'s) 'job' to bring freedom to all the little boys and girls of this world. They have the same power we did, all that is laking is the desire. In addition to that, it almost sends a message of empire building (true or not) which could weaken existing support.

Now I know all the pre/post 911 talk on how the need for security changes things. I also understand that free nations in the middle east could help propagate such security, but I do not think military freedom will accomplish that goal for a host of reasons. a) The freedom would be temporary in nature because that nations people did not fight for it. b) While it is the yearning of all people to be free, it is not a package that can be given. c) The idea of 'strike them first' is a poor basis to build a groundwork of security.

We, as a nation, must not allow ourselves to turn into a society on the level of Minority Report. While I do not wish to see another attack, we cannot continue with preemption as a policy. We should take action to an attack in execution or in process -- and we should definitely decimate our enemy after an attack has taken place.

I have more views on this, but what would be left to discuss?

[rawmeat]

ciberblade,

I agree that to start "nation building" right away is not a good strategy for a number of reasons (spread too thin, cause misunderstanding of our goals, etc.), but I think the job of promoting democracy is ours by default. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you choose to see it, someone has to take the lead for civilization as we know it to survive. We are in a global struggle of biblical (I know!) proportions and we did not start it. Even if you go back to the crusades, the muslims started that too. I do not blame all muslims, BTW, but the muslims that do not believe in this "jihad" must step forward and denounce those that have highjacked the religion. But our course must be timely and deliberate. We should definately stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan before any other military options be seriously considered. But military planning for emergency action must continue. I have hoped as I think President Bush has hoped that the action and outcome in Iraq would spur more country to follow Lybia's example than North Korea or Iran's path. There is hope for that still, which is why he is in Europe and Russia to patch differences that can and try to get a concerted global effort to pressure Iran and Syria to understand that while President Bush intends for them to become a "democracy", he has not set a time table and would wellcome an orderly transition rather than a revolution, invasion, or civil war. I do not believe that Bush is a warmonger, but a leader who when faced with an attack on US soil, has risen to understand that you must face danger and terror head-on, especially when it has been demonstrated that you cannot, in good faith, settle things diplomatically. As they say, "Some men are born great, and some men have greatness forced upon them." (I know that is not the actual quote, unless by some freak accident I remembered it right )

I appreciate your point of view on this in any case.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

I've been thinking about this for some time, taking recent events into account.

What I am about to discuss, could shatter the illusions that some of you may have formed about my views, with specific regard to the following of President Bush.
**Consider yourselves warned**


I know we have discussed the war in Iraq ad nauseam (so no need to venture down that path again) On to my point:
Based on inaccurate data, and a perceived threat we went in. As with any course of this magnitude, the situation evolves as time progresses. Now we have freed an oppressed people accustomed to murder for no readily apparent reason. The result is good, and the lasting affects are being handed to the people. But does the end outweigh the means? (I know linsky, could you be a bit more specific without all the emotionally charged hate Bush rhetoric?

I hear the talk of liberation in reference to other countries, and frankly it's starting to make me cringe. I do not feel that it is our (the U.S.'s) 'job' to bring freedom to all the little boys and girls of this world. They have the same power we did, all that is laking is the desire. In addition to that, it almost sends a message of empire building (true or not) which could weaken existing support.

Now I know all the pre/post 911 talk on how the need for security changes things. I also understand that free nations in the middle east could help propagate such security, but I do not think military freedom will accomplish that goal for a host of reasons. a) The freedom would be temporary in nature because that nations people did not fight for it. b) While it is the yearning of all people to be free, it is not a package that can be given. c) The idea of 'strike them first' is a poor basis to build a groundwork of security.

We, as a nation, must not allow ourselves to turn into a society on the level of Minority Report. While I do not wish to see another attack, we cannot continue with preemption as a policy. We should take action to an attack in execution or in process -- and we should definitely decimate our enemy after an attack has taken place.

I have more views on this, but what would be left to discuss?

You see, finally CB has seen the light--He is actually expousing the tenets of true conservatism, not the kind that we have been hearing from the Bush administration!

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by rawmeat

ciberblade,

I agree that to start "nation building" right away is not a good strategy for a number of reasons (spread too thin, cause misunderstanding of our goals, etc.), but I think the job of promoting democracy is ours by default. Unfortunately or fortunately, however you choose to see it, someone has to take the lead for civilization as we know it to survive.

Is there not a difference in the promotion of democracy, and taking it upon ourselves to force it militarily upon others? I believe that civilizations will endure regardless of 'our' intervention.

Originally Posted by linskyjack

You see, finally CB has seen the light--He is actually expousing the tenets of true conservatism, not the kind that we have been hearing from the Bush administration!

and what do you mean finally?

[MSM Hobbes]

Ciber and rawmeat, good points in many regards.

I too believe in the one part that we can not go around being the police, the fireman, or the nurse to every country. But,,, where would you and how would you draw the line as to who to help and whom not to help? Is there some certain cut-off threshold that determines, for example, if this country's civil war/unrest is x-amount bloody, so we stay out, but that one there is 2x-amount bloody, so we go there to help? Heck, would love to see an accurate unbiased tally of all the countries that we have either "invaded", "liberated", "helped", etc. over the past umpteen years, and then take an honest appraisal of if the action outweighed the cost, AND if the cost was substainable - that good overcame bad, and that the good lasted for a reasonable amount of time. Korea, VN, Salvador, Haiti, Iraq, Africa, and so on... Do NOT get me wrong, I'm all for stomping out tyrants and helping to bring freedom to those that need AND want it, but there has to be some balance of our own internal good too.

And then, all the other variables, such as national security [for ourselves, and in other's own eyes], the economy [ours and others], human health, and all of the other environment, politics, culture, religion, and misc. values that go hand-in-hand in this dynamic world - and help shape each and every country's perspective and actions, as a whole by their leader and then also internally by their own populace, as they may or may not be allowed to help in their country's decision.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by MSM Hobbes

Ciber and rawmeat, good points in many regards.

I too believe in the one part that we can not go around being the police, the fireman, or the nurse to every country. But,,, where would you and how would you draw the line as to who to help and whom not to help? Is there some certain cut-off threshold that determines, for example, if this country's civil war/unrest is x-amount bloody, so we stay out, but that one there is 2x-amount bloody, so we go there to help? Heck, would love to see an accurate unbiased tally of all the countries that we have either "invaded", "liberated", "helped", etc. over the past umpteen years, and then take an honest appraisal of if the action outweighed the cost, AND if the cost was substainable - that good overcame bad, and that the good lasted for a reasonable amount of time. Korea, VN, Salvador, Haiti, Iraq, Africa, and so on... Do NOT get me wrong, I'm all for stomping out tyrants and helping to bring freedom to those that need AND want it, but there has to be some balance of our own internal good too.

And then, all the other variables, such as national security [for ourselves, and in other's own eyes], the economy [ours and others], human health, and all of the other environment, politics, culture, religion, and misc. values that go hand-in-hand in this dynamic world - and help shape each and every country's perspective and actions, as a whole by their leader and then also internally by their own populace, as they may or may not be allowed to help in their country's decision.

Well, we can stick with Iraq for this example. I have maintained that the removal of Sadamn and freeing the Iraqi people was the right thing to do. I'm not so convinced that it was done for the 'right' reasons.
Now in this case, the cost benefit ratio is to our favor -- not only have we stopped the loss of life, but also stopped the continued loss of life (shown by pattern over time) -- it has also cost us: lives of our solders, money, and world view. Additional gains would include and Ally in the region as well as being able to send a stronger message when we decide to put 'pressure' on other nations.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

I've been thinking about this for some time, taking recent events into account.

What I am about to discuss, could shatter the illusions that some of you may have formed about my views, with specific regard to the following of President Bush.
**Consider yourselves warned**


I know we have discussed the war in Iraq ad nauseam (so no need to venture down that path again) On to my point:
Based on inaccurate data, and a perceived threat we went in. As with any course of this magnitude, the situation evolves as time progresses. Now we have freed an oppressed people accustomed to murder for no readily apparent reason. The result is good, and the lasting affects are being handed to the people. But does the end outweigh the means? (I know linsky, could you be a bit more specific without all the emotionally charged hate Bush rhetoric?

I hear the talk of liberation in reference to other countries, and frankly it's starting to make me cringe. I do not feel that it is our (the U.S.'s) 'job' to bring freedom to all the little boys and girls of this world. They have the same power we did, all that is laking is the desire. In addition to that, it almost sends a message of empire building (true or not) which could weaken existing support.

Now I know all the pre/post 911 talk on how the need for security changes things. I also understand that free nations in the middle east could help propagate such security, but I do not think military freedom will accomplish that goal for a host of reasons. a) The freedom would be temporary in nature because that nations people did not fight for it. b) While it is the yearning of all people to be free, it is not a package that can be given. c) The idea of 'strike them first' is a poor basis to build a groundwork of security.

We, as a nation, must not allow ourselves to turn into a society on the level of Minority Report. While I do not wish to see another attack, we cannot continue with preemption as a policy. We should take action to an attack in execution or in process -- and we should definitely decimate our enemy after an attack has taken place.

I have more views on this, but what would be left to discuss?

ciber, what little i know about you has always impressed me, and i can almost feel the consideration you've put into this view...frankly, it doesn't come as all that much of surprise to me for you to come to this conclusion, but i'm glad that you've expressed it here....

imo, anyone who is really concerned about the world beyond american borders can only come to the same conclusion....

[Wino]

CB - me thinks you've been reading my diary! I pretty much agree with your statements and have posted several times that Iraqi freedom would be a greater entity had they freed themselves from Saddam (which I believe Iran will eventually do, if given the time and external support). Afghanistan was a good and just war - Iraq was not, nor ever will be in my mind, regardless of the eventual out come, good or bad.

It seems our government will never learn from past mistakes. What is happening now is reminiscent of the Carter years and his push for world wide human rights (same as democracy to me) - and it made us quite unpopular during those years - from Ford's short term to Carter to early Reagan was the period I lived and worked in third world countries - our interference into others internal affairs made my decision not to continue working overseas (not to mention the removal of tax benefits by Carter/Proxmire(sp). While idealism is a wonderful thing, realism rules the day, and we do not always Know what is best for everyone in the world. The freedoms that we know in the USA do not always transfer to other nations and it's people easily (Yugoslavia comes to mind).

Bush, like Carter, is rhetorical in his statements regarding spreading democracy around the world - we say we condemn with words, and then continue to prop up and support some of the vilest dictators/rulers in the world. We talk of sanctions, and even apply them in many cases - the only ones who suffer are the common people of the sanctioned country - the leaders and upper ruling class just keeps on trucking.

War should never be used to force change. While I do not really care for the UN, it's the best we have to prevent wars and to form dialogs with others to try and impel change. Freedom and democracy are sacred to us, but some in the world can't live under them as we know it. Educating the masses is the key to change anywhere IMHO. Most third world countries want the masses dumbed , to look to religion for relief rather than the government - it makes them easier to control.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

Well, we can stick with Iraq for this example. I have maintained that the removal of Sadamn and freeing the Iraqi people was the right thing to do. I'm not so convinced that it was done for the 'right' reasons.
Now in this case, the cost benefit ratio is to our favor -- not only have we stopped the loss of life, but also stopped the continued loss of life (shown by pattern over time) -- it has also cost us: lives of our solders, money, and world view. Additional gains would include and Ally in the region as well as being able to send a stronger message when we decide to put 'pressure' on other nations.

Iraq is still an open book, and thus, we can't make make many predictions. The killing continues--another 30 Iraqis and 3 Americans killed today. The question of Kurdish and Sunni demands is still up in the air. The Shi majority and the new prime minister have close ties to Iran, and thus, who knows what kind of world they will attempt to create in Iraq.

[ComputerFix]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

I've been thinking about this for some time, taking recent events into account.

What I am about to discuss, could shatter the illusions that some of you may have formed about my views, with specific regard to the following of President Bush.
**Consider yourselves warned**


I know we have discussed the war in Iraq ad nauseam (so no need to venture down that path again) On to my point:
Based on inaccurate data, and a perceived threat we went in. As with any course of this magnitude, the situation evolves as time progresses. Now we have freed an oppressed people accustomed to murder for no readily apparent reason. The result is good, and the lasting affects are being handed to the people. But does the end outweigh the means? (I know linsky, could you be a bit more specific without all the emotionally charged hate Bush rhetoric?

If we assume no deliberate intent to defraud, a decision was made based on information. Some was "good", some was "bad", but nothing was definite until after the fact. The way I see it, since it is all pretty much "bad information", any possible positive outcome is a good thing. Not so much an ends justifying the means, but rather the means happened, so lets try to have a good end.

I hear the talk of liberation in reference to other countries, and frankly it's starting to make me cringe. I do not feel that it is our (the U.S.'s) 'job' to bring freedom to all the little boys and girls of this world. They have the same power we did, all that is laking is the desire. In addition to that, it almost sends a message of empire building (true or not) which could weaken existing support.

They have the same power we did.

I am presuming you are referring to the revolutionaries who fought England and formed the United States? If so, than you are mistaken if you think another country(ies) didn't help them do that.

I don't think that it is a lack of desire as much as a lack of being able to come together cohesively and move forward with a plan of success. There are a thousand things that could foil such an attempt in any country, and even in reading history I have to wonder if part of the success in forming the US came from the time, when an ocean took longer than a few hours to cross.

As for the last part, yes I suppose it does.

Now I know all the pre/post 911 talk on how the need for security changes things. I also understand that free nations in the middle east could help propagate such security, but I do not think military freedom will accomplish that goal for a host of reasons. a) The freedom would be temporary in nature because that nations people did not fight for it. b) While it is the yearning of all people to be free, it is not a package that can be given. c) The idea of 'strike them first' is a poor basis to build a groundwork of security.

This is really the hard part. No, you cannot "give it" in one sense, but in the other, it can be when you consider that many may want it, but not know how to get from "here to there". The trick, IMO (and to overload on clichés), is teaching to fish instead of just giving a fish.

Strike first may be a poor basis, or it may not. If you point a gun at me, I'm not going to wait for you to pull the trigger before I act. Now, if it turns out to be a water gun, the outcome would obviously not be favorable, but if it is real, do you think anyone is going to legitimately think me wrong? (applying personal actions to a nation doesn't always work, but I would be lying if I said a country should only act after the damage is done, not when they see it coming)

We, as a nation, must not allow ourselves to turn into a society on the level of Minority Report. While I do not wish to see another attack, we cannot continue with preemption as a policy. We should take action to an attack in execution or in process -- and we should definitely decimate our enemy after an attack has taken place.

I have more views on this, but what would be left to discuss?

There is the real challenge. It can be argued that the governments of some countries ARE "in process". If a group of people are sheltering a well known bank robber, amassing weapons and explosives, and eying a particular bank, do you wait until they are there, surrounded by innocents, before doing something, or do you kick in the door, arrest the known robber, and take the weapons? Tough call, for in some cases, nothing illegal has taken place despite knowing (reasonably) that crime is the intent.

NK says that their nukes are for defensive purposes. All who believe this raise your hands. Iran just wants electricity, but will not use reactors that have a far less capability of generating weapons "on the side". All who believe they only seek electricity raise your hands.

So do we initiate a war over this? Not so sure that is a good idea either, but the only two things I have seen shape international relations are money and war. Money obviously didn't work with NK. What options exist? Will NK really do anything if we don't cut a check? Is it all just a giant bluff in order to give the appearance of being powerful?(lord knows we just watched that one happen)

It is my belief that in my lifetime (I am 29 now) I will see a significant evolution in the international community and how we relate with one another. We seem to have reached a critical mass of sorts, and something has to come from it. It is my firm belief that this is unavoidable, and we can put whomever we wish in the Oval, it will come to be either way. Outside this country, Democrat and Republican have no meaning, there is simply US & friends or not US & friends. (while Germany, for example, may not view themselves as not fitting into this either/or situation, they had better realize that for those who really are a threat, they do fit into one of these two groups)

[Ciberblade]

Good posts guy's

There is just so much to respond to, and so little time I'll just have to pick and choose.
Iltos ~ Thanks

Wino ~ I don't agree that war should not be used to force change. That is one of the responsibilities of war IMO, especially when in an offensive mode. Old school Germany is a good example of which (though there are many).

LJ ~ You will always be able to find failure in any situation if you look for it. It is true that we do not yet know the extent of how Iraq will choose to govern, but we do know that for life to return to the depths that they were under Sadamn -- will take decades. So at the very least we bought us and them time.

CF ~ For now I will respond to the threat example (whilst I digest the rest)
No, I do not expect you to wait until the trigger has been pulled to react. The situation I am concerned with, would be (using the same analogy) a man walking down the street with his gun holstered on the side of his hip, a person on the other side of the street shoots him -- because he was conceivably a threat.

You are correct in this being a very difficult position to be in. There is that 'line' to consider, and without policies or guidelines in place -- we could be in the dangerous position of trodden back and forth across it.

[Rich G]

Hello to everyone in this forum. You are all great! I love to read all your opinions and thoughts, they seem to be thought out. I am interested in knowing your ages. Is that ok?
I am 54 years old, white, from the midwest, now in New Jersey. Republican. My personal view is that being republican means smaller and less intervening Government, and everything else is arguable.
That said, all your opinions are terrific. Please remember, Governments, Countries, and the people of them are subject to sometimes hundreds of years of conditioning. How long to change a culture, even if it's for the good?
I personnaly remember when almost all of these countries, except the Asian communisms, sided with either USA or USSR. Their objectives were put aside to insure their perceived security.

[ComputerFix]

ciber,


Well, thats why the anologies can get tough, and you and I can go back and forth.

Suppose that person had shot at them before, and here they come again. By law, no imminant threat, so doesn't matter. But it could, and would, be argued that maybe the person did feel threatend based on history.

My point here is not to go back and forth in the analogy, but rather to show that my illustration may show one point, but not every point to consider. Above is another consideration. There are likely dozens more. Some decisions will be correct, some will be wrong. While we cannot apply singular personal attributes to nations, it would be wise to understand that they are run by singular people acting as a group. They too put on thier pants one leg at a time (even if we have to hide pretzles from some )

Again, on its face, I see great danger and great success both as possible outcomes when it comes to the concept of "pre-emption". However, I don't always see virtue in trying to close the barn door once the horse is gone. (my God, time to stop writing...)

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

I've been thinking about this for some time, taking recent events into account.

What I am about to discuss, could shatter the illusions that some of you may have formed about my views, with specific regard to the following of President Bush.
**Consider yourselves warned**


I know we have discussed the war in Iraq ad nauseam (so no need to venture down that path again) On to my point:
Based on inaccurate data, and a perceived threat we went in. As with any course of this magnitude, the situation evolves as time progresses. Now we have freed an oppressed people accustomed to murder for no readily apparent reason. The result is good, and the lasting affects are being handed to the people. But does the end outweigh the means? (I know linsky, could you be a bit more specific without all the emotionally charged hate Bush rhetoric?

I hear the talk of liberation in reference to other countries, and frankly it's starting to make me cringe. I do not feel that it is our (the U.S.'s) 'job' to bring freedom to all the little boys and girls of this world. They have the same power we did, all that is laking is the desire. In addition to that, it almost sends a message of empire building (true or not) which could weaken existing support.

Now I know all the pre/post 911 talk on how the need for security changes things. I also understand that free nations in the middle east could help propagate such security, but I do not think military freedom will accomplish that goal for a host of reasons. a) The freedom would be temporary in nature because that nations people did not fight for it. b) While it is the yearning of all people to be free, it is not a package that can be given. c) The idea of 'strike them first' is a poor basis to build a groundwork of security.

We, as a nation, must not allow ourselves to turn into a society on the level of Minority Report. While I do not wish to see another attack, we cannot continue with preemption as a policy. We should take action to an attack in execution or in process -- and we should definitely decimate our enemy after an attack has taken place.

I have more views on this, but what would be left to discuss?

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by ComputerFix

ciber,


Well, thats why the anologies can get tough, and you and I can go back and forth.

Suppose that person had shot at them before, and here they come again. By law, no imminant threat, so doesn't matter. But it could, and would, be argued that maybe the person did feel threatend based on history.

My point here is not to go back and forth in the analogy, but rather to show that my illustration may show one point, but not every point to consider. Above is another consideration. There are likely dozens more. Some decisions will be correct, some will be wrong. While we cannot apply singular personal attributes to nations, it would be wise to understand that they are run by singular people acting as a group. They too put on thier pants one leg at a time (even if we have to hide pretzles from some )

Again, on its face, I see great danger and great success both as possible outcomes when it comes to the concept of "pre-emption". However, I don't always see virtue in trying to close the barn door once the horse is gone. (my God, time to stop writing...)

Agreed. I do not wish to go back and forth over the intricacies that can develop. I am concerned with sending the message or action of reckless abandon in the world, it is a view that I would consider dangerous on many fronts and will be of specific interest to me in the upcoming elections.

I don't mean to come across as this being only one sided...but since we have no control over what others choice of action may be...I try to concentrate on what would be best for us and our place in the world

BM ~ Thanks