Illogic from the President

[MMMMMM]

"If the US wants to create an "inspiring" democracy in the Middle East, why doesn't it start with its client dictatorship, Egypt, instead of wasting billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives in this war?"

I don't think anyone said that our reason for being there is primarily to establish democracies in the region. Our first concern is security.

[andyfox]

Well, compare Mr. Blair's speech, posted, I believe, by M, a while back. While I disagree with much in it, it was a much more logical exposition. Of course we know politicians are primarily interested in making themselves look good and getting reelected, but I would have hoped for more solid information and logic in such a serious circumstance.

[MMMMMM]

I think Blair's speech was better. Also, it seemed more tactful than Bush's speeches--it elicited empathy--whereas Bush, in another speech, said Castro "took a beautiful island and turned it into a prison." That's typical of Bush's style. He may be right on many things--and that's just what Castro did-- but his style of presentation is confrontational and judgmental, which tends to elicit resistance rather than agreement from many.

[andyfox]

Mr. Bush said a change of regime in Iraq would inspire democracy throughout the middle east. How has changing a governemnt by force in Afghanistan inspired democracy in neighboring countries? How did occupying Japan inspire democracy in the far east?

Of course peace follows war. This doesn't mean war paves the way for peace. One might as well say that peace paves the way for war.

The direct threat to Americans is, according to our government, by al Qaeda. Certainly we have direct evidence of this, the 9/11 attacks. We have no evidence of Saddam selling biological weapons to terrorists. The President specifically said, in his State of the Union address, that the threat from Saddam was not imminent.

It seems our difference on foreign policy, M, stem from your assurance that we are always in the right, that it is our business and duty to right the wrongs in other countries, and that we can assure things will be better in other countries after we take events into our own hands.

My reading of our recent history makes me less sure of these things. We often have little or no understanding of the history of the countries in which we interfere; it is certainly not our right to overthrow other governments because we do not approve of them; it is our duty to consider such actions only when there is a direct threat to the safety of our country; and things often get worse in other countries after our interdiction.

I fail to see Iraq as a threat to our national security that requires a preemptive war. I fail to see how the war will accomplish the things President Bush said they would in his speech yesterday.

[andyfox]

Inspire democracy, not create democracy. The President said is would inspire democracy in the other countries of the Middle East. This is ridiculous. It will inspire contempt for the United States.

[andyfox]

Thanks for the link, Rick. As you may know the WSJ is among my favorite political publications. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

The logic of containment works much better, I think, in the current situation, than in the Cold War. The Soviet Union was much more powerful vis-a-vis the U.S., and showed a much greater willingness to use that power, during the Cold War. Iraq is in nowhere that postion of power compared to the United States today. Containment would work much better, and in fact, has worked much better since 1991, than it did against the Soviets.

Regards,
Andy

[nicky g]

He neglected to mention that, prior to being a prison, Cuba was a US brothel AND a prison. So some progress there. Though his time should have passed long ago, Castro was a VAST improvement on Batista. May the flaming begin. (No jokes about being imprisoned in a brothel, please [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] ).

[andyfox]

The jury is still out on Afghanistan.

There are many counter-examples to Japan. The overall record for democracy, post United States directed regime change, is an abysmal one. Vietnam, Guatemala and Chile come readily to mind, all more recent examples than Japan.

We were told al Aqeda operated in Afghanistan and that the Taliban had to turn them over at once. Is the President saying that they now operate in Iraq? Didn't Bin Laden himself say the government of Iraq is illegitimate and that the enemies of the United States must now pull together solely for the reason of defeating the Great Satan? Al Aqeda may still pose a grave danger, but to think that Saddam was the source of this danger doesn't make sense. Or at least it didn't until we united the two madmen.

I agree with the pursuit of the war on terror. Al Aqeda should be target #1.

[andyfox]

"There is ample evidence of Saudi support for the Palestinian terrorists."

There sure is. Have I claimed otherwise?

No. My point was that Bush is claiming, among his many reasons for warring on Iraq, that they support terrorism, and that a change of regime in Iraq, because of this factor, would make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians more achievable. There is much more evidence, as you and I agree, that the Saudis are much more culpable in the instigation and support of Palestinian terrorism which subverts the peace process. The logic of Bush's argument, then, would support regime change in Saudi Arabia, more than it would in Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

Not just peace following war, but a better future too was my point about Afghanistan, Japan (and Germany).

I believe the threat from Saddam's WMD is growing. Also I think, as John Howard pointed out, that containment was a Cold War doctrine, whereas the war between terrorists and civilization is borderless--and allowing terrorists to gain WMD would eventually lead to immense human catastrophe.

You are oversimplifying my beliefs about how often our country is right or what I think our duty is---and you are extending it beyond what I actually do think.

I think you are wrong if you categorically state there is no right to overthrow certain governments "because we do not approve of them." How about if NOBODY approves of them...except the band of thugs themselves who are ruling that country by force? To state that no outside power ever has the right to intervene is tantamount to saying that any government which seizes power in a coup should automatically be immune from outside intervention.

You say it is certainly not our right to overthrow other governments because we do not approve of them. Well, if Japan had never attacked us and Germany had never declared war on us, would we have had the right to attack Nazi Germany? And what of Serbia/Bosnia?

One point on which we agree is that the outcomes cannot be foreseen with certainty. Also, I am definitely not advocating attacking every country we do not approve of. However a country which fits these three criteria is highly worthy of being considered as a candidate: 1) a totalitarian system which abuses its own people horrifically and on a widespread scale 2) which has demonstrated naked aggression against other countries 3) which poses a potential and serious threat to us and our allies--as in the scenario of Saddam's WMD even potentially getting into the hands of terrorists.

I know you largely discount number 3, but I don't--and neither do the leaders of quite a number of countries. The intelligence services of many countries have stated that Saddam poses this emerging threat--even German intelligence has said that left unchecked they expect Saddam to have a nuke by 2005.