Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 07:24:50 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Henrik Brameus <blondino () gmail com> Date: December 24, 2005 3:06:09 AM EST To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment
Dear Dave, Reading Bob Atkinson's comments below I just realised how much of our actions are later justified with arguments that very seldom hold up to intense scrutiny. I don't mean that as critics of Bob and his opinions, but rather as a reflection on the human mind. Feel free to post this to IP if you feel it's relevant. Otherwise at least I've had a chance to write about it. If the objective truly was to have no WMDs in hostile hands there are two things that you should focus on. Firstly make sure that there are absolutely no WMDs at all, since any type of development by "friendly" forces will sooner or later leak to the hostile forces. It would also make it more difficult to produce some of the WMDs because of difficulties to obtain raw materials. Secondly the natural reaction would be to focus on having fewer hostile forces in the world. And at the moment that is certainly not something the current administration is very good at. On a more specific note, Bob's first point ends up getting incredibly close to newspeak, since the United Nations already had inspectors in Iraq, and although they maybe could have been more efficient at times, I still think they did an excellent job under the circumstances. It was also Mr. Blix's opinion that there were no WMDs and that given time he would be able to prove that. Now the US Military proved him right, in spite of (dis)information on the contrary. On the second point Bob says that it was meant to dissuade other countries to go against the USA, but also concedes that neither Iran nor North Korea have really taken heed. As far as I see it they have all realized that the USA have problems keeping control over Afghanistan and Iraq. Just imagine if they had to occupy Libya, Iran and North Korea as well. On the third point there are already one stable and civil zed democracy in the Middle East. It's called Egypt. And if one really wanted to create another one, wouldn't it have been better to convert states where you have a circle of influence, like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, instead of going into a country already impoverished and weak through long term economic sanctions? Personally I believe that the real objectives lie closer to creating an example by striking at an old nemesis, getting control over and profiting from one of the largest untapped oil resource known, as well as redirect attention from issues closer to home. As a side effect people are more prepared to accept limitations in personal freedom and giving more power to the government. After all, haven't we always been at war with Eurasia? Henrik On 24/12/05, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: "Atkinson, Robert" <rca53 () columbia edu> Date: December 23, 2005 11:22:00 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment Dave: As I understand it, the "real objective" of our involvement in Iraq was and still is to minimize the risk to this country (and allies) that unstable, hostile countries or terrorists could acquire weapons of mass destruction. After 9/11, even the slightest possibility of terrorists or rogue states having WMDs became intolerable. Period. Is "no WMDs in hostile hands" a necessary and worthwhile national security objective? It's hard to think that it isn't; certainly nuclear proliferation isn't good. So, with "no WMDs in hostile hands" as the principal national security objective, the thinking was and is that the invasion of Iraq could help achieve the objective in three ways: 1) By making sure that Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't have WMDs or the capability of developing them (this mission was accomplished quickly: despite expectations to the contrary, no WMDs were found and it is unlikely that the "new Iraq" will ever have WMD capability); 2) By making it clear to other rogue states (such as Libya, Iran, North Korea) that the United States will never permit them to have WMDs, and that they will suffer Iraq's fate (ruination) if they try (this mission was accomplished with respect to Libya; success is less assured with respect to Iran and North Korea and the "lack of will" currently being shown in the United States may mislead Iran and North Korea into thinking they have nothing to fear); and, 3) By establishing a stable, civilized, democratic society in the Middle East in the hope that it will minimize the need for the United States to police the region for the foreseeable future (this mission has not yet been accomplished and might be the most difficult; it will be a long time before any judgment can be made). The Afghan/Iraq actions seem to have reduced the possibility of nuclear war between India andPakistan and they helped to expose the dissemination of nuclear bomb-making know-how to rogue states by A.Q. Khan. These unintended consequences can help achieve the objective of "no WMDs in hostile hands" and are a "bonus." Was the invasion of Iraq the best way or only way to achieve a critical national security objective? Could different things be done? Obviously, there is a lot of debate about that now. But you asked about what is the "real objective," not the means of achieving it. Bob -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:15 PM To: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachmentFrankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in ourobjectives in either Afghanistan or IraqI may give a damn if someone would explain to me what the real objectives of our involment in Iraq? Dave Begin forwarded message: From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Date: December 23, 2005 10:47:55 AM EST To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com [Note: This comment comes from reader Dave Hughes. DLH]From: "Dave Hughes" <dave () oldcolo com>Date: December 21, 2005 8:51:52 AM PSTTo: <dewayne () warpspeed com>Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for selectcommittee tostudy impeachmentMy source of information did not come from Drudge. I don't read oruse his trash.What angers me is that Congressional antagonists (I don't call them'critics' any more - they are far more interested in politicaladvantage for the next election and media grandstanding thanserious or responsible critique of how this war is being waged)don't have a clue, and could care less, what it takes to cope withthe militant 100 year Islamic war aimed at the United States beingwaged by Al Quaeda and its global wanna-be's. Which is based onsubversion, clandestine communications, the use of ever more deadlyand miniaturized weaponry and related technologies (which I warnedSecretary of Defense McNamara of 40 years ago would be the futurenature of war) now including encrypted internet, fleeting telephonecalls and coded messaging many of whose signals between agents intwo foreign countries technically route through switches in the US.Resulting in singular acts of terrorism far more calculated tobreak the will of naive American people through their chosen weaponof television than the amount of real destruction.Frankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in our objectivesin either Afghanistan or Iraq and are perfectly willing, startingwith what is printed in the New York Times in blatantly revealingthe details of every classified operation the US undertakes.Whether or not that directly contributes to the death of moreAmericans or more terrorist strikes or not, either in Iraq or NewYork.As for my crack about Clinton's use of executive powers, just don'tforget that the botched intelligence about Iraq and the degree towhich it had, or was making, WMD, was provided a new President,Rumsfeld and Powell, after 9/11 by the incompetent CIA DirectorGeorge 'slam dunk' Tennant whom Clinton selected and over whoseagency he presided for 8 preceding years, while Al Quaeda grew andlaid down its long range plans to destroy the infidel - the UnitedStates.Clinton and his cabinet was utterly asleep at the foreignintelligence and terrorist threat switch, even after Al Quaedastarted blowing up embassies. And even blew the opportunity to grabor kill Osama Bin Laden, who had been identified by the previous,Reagan, administration, when he was offered up on a silver plate byanother country.Dave Hughesdave () oldcolo com----- Original Message ----- From: "Dewayne Hendricks"<dewayne () warpspeed com>To: "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:35 AMSubject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for selectcommittee tostudy impeachment[Note: This comment comes from reader Dave Hughes. This blogitem might provide some clarity to Dave's comment: <http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/>. DLH]From: "Dave Hughes" <dave () oldcolo com>Date: December 20, 2005 5:11:56 PM PSTTo: <dewayne () warpspeed com>Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Congressman Conyers calls for selectcommittee tostudy impeachmentGee, I wonder why the Republicans overlooked the opportunity toadd counts to Clinton's impeachment hearings, since he tooauthorized warrentless wiretapping of Americans in the US duringhis 8 years.Dave HughesWeblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as rca53 () columbia edu To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as blondino () gmail com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
-- "If you're right 98% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?" Henrik Brameus - http://www.benitel.com/ - blondino () gmail com.invalid MSN: hbrameus () hotmail com ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 23)
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 23)
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 24)
- more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment David Farber (Dec 24)