Illogic from the President

[andyfox]

Today, President Bush said that "ending this direct and growing threat" from Saddam Hussein would pave way for peace in the Middle East and inspire democracy throughout the Arab world.

How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy? How has it inspired democracy before? Hasn't it most usually, instead, inspired a distrust and even hatred of our country for interfering in others' affairs?

How does war pave the way for peace? Isn't this Orwellian logic?

Bush also said that "the safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." What direct threat? Haven't all the threats been issued by our country? What direct threat did Saddam pose to us before we started massing troops around him and threatening him with war, with nuclear weaponry, with war crime trials?


"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people," Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. "Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

If we have no intention of determining the form of the next government, how can we ensure who will be the leader, or what kind of leader he will be? I suppose the important word is "precise," insuring that Bush's statement is imprecise.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region," Bush said. How can he know this if we have no intention of determining the nature of that regime?

Please, Mr. President, tell us that you have more than this. Explain to us how overthrowing a government and starting a war in Iraq will keep the Palestinians from engaging in terrorism and convince the Israelis to build no more settlements in the occupied territories. Explain to us how war in Iraq protects us from the madness of Osama Bin Laden, when Bin Laden himself considers the Iraqi regime illegitimate. Explain to us why we don't have Bin Laden "dead or alive" yet, or even Mullah Omar. Explain to us why those regimes which no one denies have more to due with exporting terrorism (Saudi Arabia, for example) pose no threat to us or their neighbors.

Please Mr. President.

[adios]

To be honest Andy I have some problems with a unilateraly imposed solution by the US as well. As I posted before Lieberman brought this up today as well and stated that he had problems with Bush's plan for post Saddam Iraq. In my reprint of the WSJ column by an Iraqi regarding the establishment of a constitution and democracy for Iraq enumerated many problems with the US plan post Saddam. Hopefully Bush will heed the advice.

"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people," Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. "Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

I interprest this to mean that the intent is for free elections in Iraq. Bush is assuming that a brutal oppressive thug will not be the peoples choice in a free and open election. That seems to be a reasonable assumption if the elections are open and free.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region,"

I think it's fair to say that almost unanimously people prefer freedom to oppression. You tell me if people in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are oppressed. I don't think Bush has ever claimed that removing Saddam will end the conflict between Israel and the Palestiniams. How did our incursion in Afganistan further those ends? How effective the USA campaign in Afganistan was in damaging al Qaeda is open to debate. Apparently you believe it hasn't helped much if this is what you believe you may be right I don't know. As far as I know there are no UN resolutions calling for Saudi Arabia to disarm. I don't believe that Saudi Arabia has invaded Kuwait or lobbed Scud missles at other countries resulting in a UN resolution calling for disarmerment.

[andyfox]

Free elections supervised by an occupying power? "Free" elections would be a better description. Our record in securing free elections after removing a regime is not a good one.

Bush certainly indicated today that getting rid of Saddam would go a long way toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said that Saddam's removal will give both sides a chance to bury their differences in a more stable environment and that "ending this direct and growing threat" from Saddam Hussein would pave way for peace in the Middle East. He said there would be a "new stage for Middle East peace" once Saddam loses power.

By the President's own logic, the campaign to damage al Qaeda in Afghanistan must have been a resounding failure, since he has argued continually that we are in grave danger from Saddam's help to al Qaeda.

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

[Zeno]

"Illogic from the President"

What were you expecting from a Politican? Rational thought? A president can not be logical and expect to be very popular or remain in office very long. You obviously know this. So why the puzzlement? Just a small jab; I could not resist.

By the way, thank you for the book recomendation you made in a previous post. I plan on buying it (the James C. Scott book).

-Zeno: The Misanthrope

[MMMMMM]

"How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy? How has it inspired democracy before?"

Does Afghanistan count? What about Japan?

"How does war pave the way for peace? Isn't this Orwellian logic?"

War defeated Hitler and his Nazi thugs, and paved the way for peace and a better future for both Germany and Japan.

"Bush also said that "the safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." What direct threat? Haven't all the threats been issued by our country? What direct threat did Saddam pose to us before we started massing troops around him and threatening him with war, with nuclear weaponry, with war crime trials?"

On Christmas Day 2000 Saddam called for jihad against the USA and Israel. If Saddam provides (or sells) biological WMD to terrorists (and I believe he has probably done so already), I think that's something we should be worried about and it would be a direct threat to us. Also, if he has stored WMD in Syria and Lebanon, from there the weapons might easily find their way into terrorist hands.


""The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people," Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. "Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another."

It seems we managed to do that in Afghanistan somehow.

""A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom to other nations of the region," Bush said. How can he know this if we have no intention of determining the nature of that regime?"

He said the US has no intention of determing the precise form...clearly the US has an intention of determining the general form: democracy.

"Please, Mr. President, tell us that you have more than this. Explain to us how overthrowing a government and starting a war in Iraq will keep the Palestinians from engaging in terrorism and convince the Israelis to build no more settlements in the occupied territories."

Overthrowing (an illegitimate and tyrannical) government and starting (or finishing) a war will be much appreciated by the average Iraqi, both those in Iraq and the 4 m,illion exiles in Europe. Iraq will also be a nice location from which to swat various terrorist groups. I'm not sure how it will impact the Isareli/Palestinian situation, but at least Saddam won't be funding what has become the cottage industry of suicide bombings for cash payments.

"Explain to us how war in Iraq protects us from the madness of Osama Bin Laden, when Bin Laden himself considers the Iraqi regime illegitimate. Explain to us why we don't have Bin Laden "dead or alive" yet, or even Mullah Omar."

It won't cure bin-Laden's insanity, but it may mean that al Qaeda won't gain access to WMD from Saddam either directly or by intermediates.

"Explain to us why those regimes which no one denies have more to due with exporting terrorism (Saudi Arabia, for example) pose no threat to us or their neighbors."

They certainly do--and they will have to be dealt with either diplomatically, militarily, or by some combination such as a carrot/stick approach. However, this war on terrorism must be prosecuted one step at a time. Removing the Saddam's WMD proliferation threat and potential oil-field blackmail is just one big step. From there we will exert appropriate pressure on other regional sponsors of terror. Having the oil flow secured will reduce our dependence on the Saudis, freeing us up to speak with them more plainly about the need for them to cease their export of Wahhabist Death-Cultism (even to our country: most mosques in the USA are funded by the Wahhabis)--and their need to reform their system and teachings of this virulent Islamist hard-line philosophy of aggression and intolerance.

"Please Mr. President."

Please attack Iraq ASAP, and speedily free the Iraqis from the monstrous Saddam/Baath Party, and help them rebuild for a brighter future. Please do what is necessary to help the people of Iran overthrow their hard-line, unpopular, Dark Ages religious government too, and to replace it with some sort of democracy as well.

[MMMMMM]

"Free elections supervised by an occupying power? "Free" elections would be a better description. Our record in securing free elections after removing a regime is not a good one."

As in my post below, what about the examples of Japan and Afghanistan?


"By the President's own logic, the campaign to damage al Qaeda in Afghanistan must have been a resounding failure, since he has argued continually that we are in grave danger from Saddam's help to al Qaeda."

andy, I know you are smarter than this. Look at what you are saying. Isn't it possible to damage al Qaeda without [/i]eliminating[/i] the threat it poses? Let's pick a number out of the air--say 40%--let's say we damaged al Qaeda by 40%. Wouldn't al Qaeda still pose a grave danger? Yet the campaign wouldn't be classified as a resounding failure; rather, it would be evaluated as progess having been made, with much work left yet to do.


We can't eliminate all of al Qaeda in one fell swoop--they're somewhat scattered--it's not like defeating a country. Yet progress is progress--assuming we made some, that is. I just don't see how or why anyone would expect that routing al Qaeda, capturing some of their leaders but not all, and killing some of their men should remove the threat. It's a process, and as Bush plainly said, the war on terror will take a long time.

[Rick Nebiolo]

"How would the United States changing a government by force inspire democracy? How has it inspired democracy before?"

Uh....Germany? Maybe Japan? I mean after 1945.

Also another link for you Andy [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

http://tinyurl.com/6j3f

~ Rick

[nicky g]

1945 was a very very long time ago. The vote is stil out on Afghanistan; it's still controlled in large parts by war lords, most women still wear the burqa ,and the reconstruction efforts have been utterly pathetic. The shura which chose Karzai was nominally democratic at best (noone really belives that all those representatives were elected by their regions; half of them were just Northern Alliance generals)and I don't know of any guarantee of future democratic elections, though perhaps there is one.

I've asked this before: if the US is so keen on fostering democracy in the Middle East, why does it continure to prop up Mubarak in Egypt? Let's be very clear: Mubarak's regime could simply not survive without the massive aid it receives from the US: Egypt is the 2nd largest recipient of US aid. The US has huge leverage over Egyptian policy. Yet it is quite happy top let this brutal, unelected dictator remain in power without any serious reforms.

Mubarak is certainly not as brutal as Saddam. But he is an unelected dictator (unless you believe 98% election results, which curiously got no coverage over here, while the Saddam election where he won 99% of the Iraqi vote was ridiculed round the world). 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?

[adios]

You wrote:

"Free elections supervised by an occupying power? "Free" elections would be a better description. Our record in securing free elections after removing a regime is not a good one."

I made the following caveat to my interpretation of what Bush meant:

"To be honest Andy I have some problems with a unilateraly imposed solution by the US as well. As I posted before Lieberman brought this up today as well and stated that he had problems with Bush's plan for post Saddam Iraq. In my reprint of the WSJ column by an Iraqi regarding the establishment of a constitution and democracy for Iraq enumerated many problems with the US plan post Saddam. Hopefully Bush will heed the advice."

Your point illustrates exactly why I believe multilateral participation is vital to that process.

"Bush certainly indicated today that getting rid of Saddam would go a long way toward ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said that Saddam's removal will give both sides a chance to bury their differences in a more stable environment and that "ending this direct and growing threat" from Saddam Hussein would pave way for peace in the Middle East. He said there would be a "new stage for Middle East peace" once Saddam loses power."

Ok your interpretation of his remarks is different from mine but I'll concede that you're right.

"By the President's own logic, the campaign to damage al Qaeda in Afghanistan must have been a resounding failure, since he has argued continually that we are in grave danger from Saddam's help to al Qaeda."

I don't think he's ever claimed that the Afghanistan campaign would eliminate al Qaeda. It think it's obvious that it was good place to start though. So no I don't think that Bush is tacitly admitting failure.

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

There sure is. Have I claimed otherwise?

[adios]

Yeah 1945 was a long time ago so I guess you'd say that US foreign policy since then has been a disaster more or less.

I don't think our reasons for removing the Taliban are very clear and it wasn't on a pretense to establish a democracy.

I've read a few things where the Iraqis themselves want to establish a democracy.

Yes Mubarak is a dictator and Egypt does not have a democratic government. I certainly wouldn't want to see yet another dictator propped up by the USA either.