more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee tostudy impeachment

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Henrik Brameus <blondino () gmail com>
Date: December 24, 2005 3:06:09 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: 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 impeachment
>
>
>
> > > Frankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in our
>
> > > objectives in either Afghanistan or Iraq
>
>
>
> I 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 PST
>
> > To: <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> > Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select
>
> > committee tostudy impeachment
>
> >
>
> > My source of information did not come from Drudge. I don't read or
>
> > use his trash.
>
> >
>
> > What angers me is that Congressional antagonists (I don't call them
>
> > 'critics' any more - they are far more interested in political
>
> > advantage for the next election and media grandstanding than
>
> > serious or responsible critique of how this war is being waged)
>
> > don't have a clue, and could care less, what it takes to cope with
>
> > the militant 100 year Islamic war aimed at the United States being
>
> > waged by Al Quaeda and its global wanna-be's.  Which is based on
>
> > subversion, clandestine communications, the use of ever more deadly
>
> > and miniaturized weaponry and related technologies (which I warned
>
> > Secretary of Defense McNamara of 40 years ago would be the future
>
> > nature of war) now including encrypted internet, fleeting telephone
>
> > calls and coded messaging many of whose signals between agents in
>
> > two foreign countries technically route through switches in the US.
>
> > Resulting in singular acts of terrorism far more calculated to
>
> > break the will of naive American people through their chosen weapon
>
> > of television than the amount of real destruction.
>
> >
>
> > Frankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in our objectives
>
> > in either Afghanistan or Iraq  and are perfectly willing, starting
>
> > with what is printed in the New York Times in blatantly revealing
>
> > the details of every classified operation the US undertakes.
>
> > Whether or not that directly contributes to the death of more
>
> > Americans or more terrorist strikes or not, either in Iraq or New
>
> > York.
>
> >
>
> > As for my crack about Clinton's use of executive powers, just don't
>
> > forget that the botched intelligence about Iraq and the degree to
>
> > which it had, or was making, WMD, was provided a new President,
>
> > Rumsfeld and Powell, after 9/11 by the incompetent CIA Director
>
> > George 'slam dunk' Tennant whom Clinton selected and over whose
>
> > agency he presided for 8 preceding years, while Al Quaeda grew and
>
> > laid down its long range plans to destroy the infidel - the United
>
> > States.
>
> >
>
> > Clinton and his cabinet was utterly asleep at the foreign
>
> > intelligence and terrorist threat switch, even after Al Quaeda
>
> > started blowing up embassies. And even blew the opportunity to grab
>
> > or kill Osama Bin Laden, who had been identified by the previous,
>
> > Reagan, administration, when he was offered up on a silver plate by
>
> > another country.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dave Hughes
>
> > dave () 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 AM
>
> > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select
>
> > committee tostudy impeachment
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > [Note:  This comment comes from reader Dave Hughes.  This blog
>
> > > item  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 PST
>
> > > > To: <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Congressman Conyers calls for select
>
> > > > committee tostudy impeachment
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Gee, I wonder why the Republicans overlooked the opportunity to
>
> > > > add counts to Clinton's impeachment hearings, since he too
>
> > > > authorized warrentless wiretapping of Americans in the US during
>
> > > > his 8 years.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Dave Hughes
>
>
>
> Weblog 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=ip
>
> Archives 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/