George W. Bush's unelectable foreign policy

[IndyBeerman]

After 911, security came to the forefront. You had a dictator in power who had taken active steps to aid terrorists around the world. He had an infrastructure that could provide very valuable aid to any terrorist organization. As far as we could tell, he had some pretty dangerous technology, including possibly biological weapons and a nuclear program which we had so far been unable to determine just how advanced it was, mainly because he had been actively attempting to deceive the inspection program he agreed to in order for us to halt the invasion of Iraq.

No way we could have responsibly left him in power. It's not about punishment for 911, it's about doing what you can to prevent a future 911 or worse.

BTW, I think the invasion of Iraq is the single largest reason we haven't had another major attack.

What everyone forgets about Gaddafi is that after the invasion of Iraq he opened communications with the U.S. and voluntarily ended his own nuclear program.

Personally, I am convinced that without the invasion of Iraq, we would have already had more major attacks on our soil instead of just the several individual attacks we've had.

That's why.

Ding Ding Ding!!!

I think we have a winner here!

 

[UncleMike]

Personally, I am convinced that without the invasion of Iraq, we would have already had more major attacks on our soil instead of just the several individual attacks we've had.

That's why.

Ding Ding Ding!!!

I think we have a winner here!

Yup!!!

 

[Plinker]

After 911, security came to the forefront. You had a dictator in power who had taken active steps to aid terrorists around the world. He had an infrastructure that could provide very valuable aid to any terrorist organization. As far as we could tell, he had some pretty dangerous technology, including possibly biological weapons and a nuclear program which we had so far been unable to determine just how advanced it was, mainly because he had been actively attempting to deceive the inspection program he agreed to in order for us to halt the invasion of Iraq.

No way we could have responsibly left him in power. It's not about punishment for 911, it's about doing what you can to prevent a future 911 or worse.

BTW, I think the invasion of Iraq is the single largest reason we haven't had another major attack.

What everyone forgets about Gaddafi is that after the invasion of Iraq he opened communications with the U.S. and voluntarily ended his own nuclear program.

Personally, I am convinced that without the invasion of Iraq, we would have already had more major attacks on our soil instead of just the several individual attacks we've had.

That's why.

Using that logic, should we then invade North Korea and Iran?

 

[rambone]

Using that logic, should we then invade North Korea and Iran?

Now you're getting it.

 

[KG1]

Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam was no worse than Ghadafi. IMHO Obama did a better job with Lybia than G.W.B. did with Iraq.

The way I see it GW did one better. He neutralized Saddam and at the same time it managed to put a lid on Ghadafi just in case he had any aspirations of going back to his terrorists roots and join in the fray.

 

[KG1]

Using that logic, should we then invade North Korea and Iran?

You seem to be under the pre-concieved notion that we would take military action against either one of them for no reason at all. If they want to state sponsor terrorism that could have an effect on our national security then they have it comming otherwise we would have no reason to do so.

 

[88GT]

Sure, one can say that. It is a traditional conservative's approach to foreign policy. The neo-conservative approach is to try to act as the World Police. The party needs to realize how far its traveled from its roots. Bush's platform wasn't isolationism then, and it isn't isolationism now.

Now I know you're just argumentative.

WTF?!

You mean just like G.W. Bush did...

Not sure I follow.

Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam was no worse than Ghadafi. IMHO Obama did a better job with Lybia than G.W.B. did with Iraq.

Who said anything about needing to connect Iraq with 9/11. I can justify action against Iraq had 9/11 never happened.

Using that logic, should we then invade North Korea and Iran?

Invade, maybe not. Carpet bomb? I'm down with that.

 

[langb29]

After 911, security came to the forefront. You had a dictator in power who had taken active steps to aid terrorists around the world. He had an infrastructure that could provide very valuable aid to any terrorist organization. As far as we could tell, he had some pretty dangerous technology, including possibly biological weapons and a nuclear program which we had so far been unable to determine just how advanced it was, mainly because he had been actively attempting to deceive the inspection program he agreed to in order for us to halt the invasion of Iraq.

No way we could have responsibly left him in power. It's not about punishment for 911, it's about doing what you can to prevent a future 911 or worse.

BTW, I think the invasion of Iraq is the single largest reason we haven't had another major attack.

What everyone forgets about Gaddafi is that after the invasion of Iraq he opened communications with the U.S. and voluntarily ended his own nuclear program.

Personally, I am convinced that without the invasion of Iraq, we would have already had more major attacks on our soil instead of just the several individual attacks we've had.

That's why.

This makes little sense to me. If Saddam had all these amazing technological weapons, why didn't he give them to terrorists? Especially after 911, when he realized there was a smart terrorist group out there who needed backing? Wouldn't that have been the perfect opportunity for Saddam and Al Queda to work together against the US?
Countries make claims all the time about weapons they don't have, we fell for it once, now some people want to do it all over again. Why do we have to be the aggressor? All we end up doing is losing support, abroad and domestically. Paul understands this, so does Iran. Iran wants us to go after them first, kill some civilians, and gaining a ton of support from terrorist groups.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Then why not invade N. Korea?
They do have the weapons.
They do have the means.

They did at the time.

The ONLY thing I will give the invasion of Iraq credit for is the arab spring.

 

[dross]

Using that logic, should we then invade North Korea and Iran?

Every situation is different. We're not making rules to run a second grade class, we're operating in a very complex world with many, many factors. Iraq was obvious, at least to me. I predicted an Iraq invasion the same day 911 was happening. It seemed obvious to me that we couldn't leave Saddam in place in a post 911 world.

We can't easily do much about North Korea. They have nukes and they have a dangerous crazy man with his finger on the button. I think Seoul would be in too much danger.

With Iran, what we don't want is for them to get to North Korea's same level of power. Our options become limited. Luckily for us, the Israelis can't let Iran get nukes. Their survival depends on it.

Some have argued, and I believe it's the silliest of arguments, that because we invaded Iraq we are therefore somehow obligated to invade any other countries that provide the same justification. This is simplistic. Justification is not the only consideration.

This makes little sense to me. If Saddam had all these amazing technological weapons, why didn't he give them to terrorists? Especially after 911, when he realized there was a smart terrorist group out there who needed backing? Wouldn't that have been the perfect opportunity for Saddam and Al Queda to work together against the US?
Countries make claims all the time about weapons they don't have, we fell for it once, now some people want to do it all over again. Why do we have to be the aggressor? All we end up doing is losing support, abroad and domestically. Paul understands this, so does Iran. Iran wants us to go after them first, kill some civilians, and gaining a ton of support from terrorist groups.

It's really not relevant whether he had them or didn't have them. Pretty much everyone thought he had them, but that doesn't matter much. What percentage of chance must you have to take an action? 100%? Not realistic. Ninety percent? Eighty percent? I'd argue that when you're dealing with certain levels of danger a 10% chance might be enough justification.

Again though, it doesn't matter whether he had them or not. We know he had them once. According to the ceasefire agreement he agreed to, it was his responsibility to show that he did not have them, not our job to prove that he did. Instead of demonstrating he didn't have weapons he used every method available to attempt to deceive the inspectors.

And again, it wasn't just the entire U.S. government from the CIA to the Democrat leadership who thought he had weapons, it was also the intelligence agencies of pretty much every country in the world who has an intelligence agency.

No reasonable person could say, "Gosh, Iraq must not have weapons 'cause if they did, they'd have already given them to the terrorists."

The simple response to that would have been, "Then why are they hiding from the inspections?"

Putting all that aside, there is still lots of evidence that weapons were moved out of Iraq and into Syria, but I don't even consider that an important point for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[rambone]

And again, it wasn't just the entire U.S. government from the CIA to the Democrat leadership who thought he had weapons, it was also the intelligence agencies of pretty much every country in the world who has an intelligence agency.

A couple days ago you were making a compelling argument against taking action based on what "everyone knows", without tangible evidence to prove the claims.

I would think the standard for going to war should be higher than protecting a politician's public image.

The simple response to that would have been, "Then why are they hiding from the inspections?"

Not cooperating with the loathsome U.N. isn't the worst quality to hope for in a leader. Doesn't prove anything, just like it wouldn't prove guilt if I declined a cop's request to search my vehicle.

 

[langb29]

Every situation is different. We're not making rules to run a second grade class, we're operating in a very complex world with many, many factors. Iraq was obvious, at least to me. I predicted an Iraq invasion the same day 911 was happening. It seemed obvious to me that we couldn't leave Saddam in place in a post 911 world.

We can't easily do much about North Korea. They have nukes and they have a dangerous crazy man with his finger on the button. I think Seoul would be in too much danger.

With Iran, what we don't want is for them to get to North Korea's same level of power. Our options become limited. Luckily for us, the Israelis can't let Iran get nukes. Their survival depends on it.

Some have argued, and I believe it's the silliest of arguments, that because we invaded Iraq we are therefore somehow obligated to invade any other countries that provide the same justification. This is simplistic. Justification is not the only consideration.



It's really not relevant whether he had them or didn't have them. Pretty much everyone thought he had them, but that doesn't matter much. What percentage of chance must you have to take an action? 100%? Not realistic. Ninety percent? Eighty percent? I'd argue that when you're dealing with certain levels of danger a 10% chance might be enough justification.

Again though, it doesn't matter whether he had them or not. We know he had them once. According to the ceasefire agreement he agreed to, it was his responsibility to show that he did not have them, not our job to prove that he did. Instead of demonstrating he didn't have weapons he used every method available to attempt to deceive the inspectors.

And again, it wasn't just the entire U.S. government from the CIA to the Democrat leadership who thought he had weapons, it was also the intelligence agencies of pretty much every country in the world who has an intelligence agency.

No reasonable person could say, "Gosh, Iraq must not have weapons 'cause if they did, they'd have already given them to the terrorists."

The simple response to that would have been, "Then why are they hiding from the inspections?"

Putting all that aside, there is still lots of evidence that weapons were moved out of Iraq and into Syria, but I don't even consider that an important point for the purposes of this discussion.

You bring up some good points, but it didn't really want to argue whether or not Iraq had WMDs, I think our differences lie in the link between terrorists and established countries. The simple response to "why they were hiding from inspections" could be that they knew the whole world was watching. A big shiny door with locks all over it will get some attention, even with nothing behind it. As will "attempts" to deceive inspectors.
I was pointing out that an opportunity for Saddam and terrorists to work together existed, just as it exists between other countries today. You can quote me all the news articles showing links between this terrorist group and this country, but in general, established governments distance themselves from terrorists. They don't want to give the world a geographical target to aim for against terrorism.

 

[96firephoenix]

Nobody forgot about it.

Is 9/11 becoming just another calendar date? - USATODAY.com
Forgetting 9/11 | Psychology Today

I don't know rambone. :shakeheadinshame:

 

[dross]

A couple days ago you were making a compelling argument against taking action based on what "everyone knows", without tangible evidence to prove the claims.

Apples and orangutans. I was NOT arguing against taking action based on a best guess, that's the way the world works. Most important decisions, in fact all decisions must be made without all the information you need. If you have all the information you need, it's probably not really a decision.

My point is not that we should have thought they had weapons because everyone "knew" it, my point was that any reasonable person at that time believed there was at least a good possibility he did. There was no good evidence to say he didn't.

Anyone who said with certainty what was going on in Iraq at that time would be just as wrong as the certainty that Cain is a harasser, or for that matter, is not a harasser.

I would think the standard for going to war should be higher than protecting a politician's public image.

Strawman. I didn't argue that point. By cutting and pasting selectively and then arguing a straw man you give the impression to those who won't read upthread that I argued that. That's a slimy tactic.

Not cooperating with the loathsome U.N. isn't the worst quality to hope for in a leader. Doesn't prove anything, just like it wouldn't prove guilt if I declined a cop's request to search my vehicle.

I don't like the U.N. either. If you start a war, however, and then you get beaten back, and you're about to be invaded and deposed and you agree to let the "loathsome U.N." in to inspect and then you deceive them and finally throw them out, that isn't some principled stand. Take a look at the way you're arguing. You argue like a leftist, not like a libertarian. When did the end start justifying the means in the way you make your points?

You bring up some good points, but it didn't really want to argue whether or not Iraq had WMDs, I think our differences lie in the link between terrorists and established countries. The simple response to "why they were hiding from inspections" could be that they knew the whole world was watching. A big shiny door with locks all over it will get some attention, even with nothing behind it. As will "attempts" to deceive inspectors.
I was pointing out that an opportunity for Saddam and terrorists to work together existed, just as it exists between other countries today. You can quote me all the news articles showing links between this terrorist group and this country, but in general, established governments distance themselves from terrorists. They don't want to give the world a geographical target to aim for against terrorism.

So, by your logic we should have known he wasn't going to work with terrorists based on conjecture? Ignoring that he'd paid money to help some terrorists groups, given other groups sanctuary and training, and in fact his senior people had met with senior people from Al Quaida? Instead we should have just sat down and figured out that there was no way he'd support terrorists?

You have a lot more confidence your speculation than I'd want in a leader.

 

[langb29]

So, by your logic we should have known he wasn't going to work with terrorists based on conjecture? Ignoring that he'd paid money to help some terrorists groups, given other groups sanctuary and training, and in fact his senior people had met with senior people from Al Quaida? Instead we should have just sat down and figured out that there was no way he'd support terrorists?

You have a lot more confidence your speculation than I'd want in a leader.

No, based on history. Based on facts about the hundreds of different terrorists groups out their, their motivations, their alliances, their history. It's really not that hard. What if Saddam was supporting a terrorist group who were enemies with Al Queda? If nothing else, at least Saddam was keeping his own borders secure from terrorists getting in and out, finding sanctuaries, places to train. The borders are less secure now than they were 10 years ago.

 

[dross]

No, based on history. Based on facts about the hundreds of different terrorists groups out their, their motivations, their alliances, their history. It's really not that hard. What if Saddam was supporting a terrorist group who were enemies with Al Queda? If nothing else, at least Saddam was keeping his own borders secure from terrorists getting in and out, finding sanctuaries, places to train. The borders are less secure now than they were 10 years ago.

It's very hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

You seem to have a lot of confidence that Saddam wouldn't have aided our enemies against us. I don't have that confidence and what's more, even if I did I think it would be a mistake to credit that confidence in the face of such high stakes.

I think a little different than most folks. As I've written here, I thought we should and would invade Iraq. I thought it as I was watching the dust cloud on 911.

 

[jeremy]

The answer I get most often is that he would have stood on the sidelines waiting for Congress to declare war first.

You mean just like G.W. Bush did...

Not sure I follow.

Contrary to what some believe here, all POTUS (at least in our time) have had to await Permission to go to War from Congress...

The caveat is the POTUS has to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.
*War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR")

 

[jeremy]

No, based on history. Based on facts about the hundreds of different terrorists groups out their, their motivations, their alliances, their history. It's really not that hard. What if Saddam was supporting a terrorist group who were enemies with Al Queda? If nothing else, at least Saddam was keeping his own borders secure from terrorists getting in and out, finding sanctuaries, places to train. The borders are less secure now than they were 10 years ago.

You show that you really do not understand the Political Reality of the Middle East...

 

[88GT]

Contrary to what some believe here, all POTUS (at least in our time) have had to await Permission to go to War from Congress...

The caveat is the POTUS can (and they have) send US Forces anywhere without Congressional Permission for 72 Hours, however at Hour 73 the Forces must be back on US Soil...

At no time in our history has Congress taken the initiative to declare war without first receiving a request from the sitting president. The question is not what would Paul do. The question is would Paul make the request. And I find it interesting that every single response given in terms of the Constitutional mandate for a declaration of war has Paul waiting for Congressional action. Not asking for it. Not seeking it. Not making a case. But waiting.



What's your source for the 72 hours?

 

[jeremy]

What's your source for the 72 hours?

JAG...