22-11-2004 00:32									#91
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Define "national interests." It was in our "national interests" to overthrow a democracy in Guatemala and replace it with a serious of the most murderours dictatorships in the history of Latin America. In this case, national interests were narrowly constured to mean, the interests of the United Fruit Company.

I was actually meaning a bit broader interpretation.

	22-11-2004 00:35									#92
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The way I see it, the real reasons for war were changing the ME to the US' advantage (oil, et al.), but the publicised reasons were WMD, etc.

So while the US wanted the millions, they threw pennies at the rest of the world to keep them happy, and now the rest of the world has found out the pennies are fake. Too late now though...

	22-11-2004 00:37									#93
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov You can conclude the administration was disingenuous by their claims of confidence in the evidence they had versus the reality.

On this I am forced to agree. There is no way they could have 100% confidence on the evidence. There is also no way they could say they didn't. A catch-22 for an admin that had already decided to go to war.

	22-11-2004 00:39									#94
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kalius The way I see it, the real reasons for war were changing the ME to the US' advantage (oil, et al.), but the publicised reasons were WMD, etc.

While this is partially true, it is important for other reasons that the US is strong in the ME.

ALL parties agree that a strong US is needed for a lasting peace to emerge. This is the long term benefit sought by the admin's policy in the ME.

	22-11-2004 00:40									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO I was actually meaning a bit broader interpretation.

I know that. My point, however, is that we always claim our national interests are at stake when we go to war or invade someone, even when we are clearly not threatened. I think the last time our national interests were truly at stake was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Then there's also the question of how important the particluar interests are. The CMC involved an existential threat to the U.S., nuclear death from above. The "national interests" at stake in Panama were illegal drugs (if you believe the Administration--the war against Nicaragua and/or the Panama Canal if you don't). The national interests at stake in the invasion of Grenada was the possibility that the Soviets might be able to station MiGs there, as if the MiGs in Cuba weren't really a threat themselves.

	22-11-2004 00:40									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Let me ask you to make an assumption. Assume that it was in the vital interest of the US to go to war in Iraq. How do you get even a tacit international legal basis for doing so? (I know you may not agree with the assumption, but please answer the question as if you do.)

I would echo che...how do you define "vital interest?" It's a very subjective term.

Do you think the answer is to lie? But that's the problem...if you have to lie to your own people to start a war, I think the term "vital interest" doesn't apply. Wars should be undertaken for our defense, not for establishing military/economic footholds in far-away lands.

	22-11-2004 00:43									#97
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Bascially, if our nation is threatened, it isn't necessary to lie to us to get us to defend ourselves. Despite the Red staters opinion of liberals, blue staters have no wish to be murdered. Red staters also seem to forget that it is the blue staters who are always attacked by terrorists, and they might have a better idea of what the real threat is having faced it in person rather than on a tv screen.

	22-11-2004 00:43									#98
	Tired of ads?

Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Administration?

While they may be important and had their own views on the issues, the only statements as to why we did what we did have to come out of the presidents mouth or his speeches. It is clear to me that Republicans speak their mind on issues and are not totally muzzled like we saw in the prior Democrat administration or in the Kerry campaign. Republicans often openly disagree with each other on critical issues. Some have questioned why Bush would put up with this "chaos." But he does, perhaps because he wants independent views from his top people.

But the fact still remains that Bush was very careful on what he said on the issues of war and peace, and publicly admitted when the evidence he relied upon was faulty -- such as the Nigerian yellowcake issue. Bush said Saddam had WMD's because his intelligence servicees told him so. This conclusion was the same conclusion that the UN came to in 1998, that Clinton came to when he was president, and that every other intelligence service in the world came to as well.

	22-11-2004 00:44									#99
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned It is clear to me that Republicans speak their mind on issues and are not totally muzzled like we saw in the prior Democrat administration or in the Kerry campaign.

	22-11-2004 00:46									#100
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Wars should be undertaken for our defense, not for establishing military/economic footholds in far-away lands.

I think that this is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. In order to assure our continued place in the world, and therefore our ultimate security, I believe we should become involved where these particular interests are.


Oh, and for the definition of "national interest", use one that you like. It is not relevant to the question. Your answer?

	22-11-2004 00:47									#101
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by PLATO On this I am forced to agree. There is no way they could have 100% confidence on the evidence. There is also no way they could say they didn't. A catch-22 for an admin that had already decided to go to war.

The problem we have here, Plato, is that when Bush raised the issue of reliability of the evidence of WMD's, he was reassured by Tenet that their presence was a slam dunk. So, if there is fault here, it is not Bush's fault -- except if one were to conclude that Bush should never have relied on a Clinton appointee for anything.

	22-11-2004 00:48									#102
	Put an end to popups!

Ned, are you serious? The Nedaverse becomes stranger and stranger day by day!

Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld--they ARE the administration! Bush isn't the only one who speaks for it (hell, IMO he's a puppet mouthpiece anyway). Why do you think these guys were dispatched to the talk shows to speak about the reasons for invading Iraq? It was to MAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S CASE. They weren't there acting of their own accord, stating their personal opinions. They were speaking for the administration.

The president is responsible for his administration, simple as that. Your attempt to disassociate him from his surrogates is just another unbelievable example of Republican disingenuity!

	22-11-2004 00:49									#103
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned The problem we have here, Plato, is that when Bush raised the issue of reliability of the evidence of WMD's, he was reassured by Tenet that their presence was a slam dunk. So, if there is fault here, it is not Bush's fault -- except if one were to conclude that Bush should never have relied on a Clinton appointee for anything.

Once again Ned, State and NSC had questions. Do you totally disregard them or did you totally disregard my earlier post?

	22-11-2004 00:49									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I know that. My point, however, is that we always claim our national interests are at stake when we go to war or invade someone, even when we are clearly not threatened. I think the last time our national interests were truly at stake was the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Excuse me.

Please tell me what US national security interests were involved in the two wars Clinton conducted in the Balkans?

	22-11-2004 00:51									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by PLATO I think that this is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. In order to assure our continued place in the world, and therefore our ultimate security, I believe we should become involved where these particular interests are.

Note how the right's answer has led to the U.S. doing things like Iran-Contra, installing Pinochet, backing military coups against democratically-elected leaders, etc. If you really think those are in our best interest, keep in mind that it's those things that prompted people to fly planes into the WTC.

quote: Oh, and for the definition of "national interest", use one that you like. It is not relevant to the question. Your answer?

I answered. You even mentioned it above--national interest is defense of the nation. If a lie needs to be made to justify a war, it's not in our vital interest.

	22-11-2004 00:52									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Once again Ned, State and NSC had questions. Do you totally disregard them or did you totally disregard my earlier post?

I addressed that issue earlier. What I said is this. Did Powell or Rumsfeld continue to argue that the evidence was doubtful after Tenet said what he said. The only evidence we have is that they did not.

	22-11-2004 00:53									#107
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Excuse me. Please tell me what US national security interests were involved in the two wars Clinton conducted in the Balkans?

Did you not read what Che wrote? He said the last time was the Cuban Missile Crisis. That would mean the Balkan wars weren't in our vital interests.

Are you so far in the Nedaverse you think che supported Clinton?

	22-11-2004 00:54									#108
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I would echo che...how do you define "vital interest?" It's a very subjective term. Do you think the answer is to lie? But that's the problem...if you have to lie to your own people to start a war, I think the term "vital interest" doesn't apply. Wars should be undertaken for our defense, not for establishing military/economic footholds in far-away lands.

You have got to be kidding. You cannot possibly justify then the wars conducted by Clinton.

	22-11-2004 00:54									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned I addressed that issue earlier. What I said is this. Did Powell or Rumsfeld continue to argue that the evidence was doubtful after Tenet said what he said. The only evidence we have is that they did not.

I haven't seen any evidence that they no longer had questions on weather or not the evidence of Iraqi WMD should have aq100% confidence level...and believe me I have looked. Care to help me out there with a source?

	22-11-2004 00:57									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned You have got to be kidding. You cannot possibly justify then the wars conducted by Clinton.

When did I ever?

	22-11-2004 00:59									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Note how the right's answer has led to the U.S. doing things like Iran-Contra, installing Pinochet, backing military coups against democratically-elected leaders, etc. If you really think those are in our best interest, keep in mind that it's those things that prompted people to fly planes into the WTC. I answered. You even mentioned it above--national interest is defense of the nation. If a lie needs to be made to justify a war, it's not in our vital interest.

To the first point, it isn't just the right. We could also look at Vietnam, Kosovo, or other escapades that the democrats have gotten us involved in.

To the second point, if the only justification for war is the US being attacked then what does it matter what Bush's evidence was. In your eyes nothing short of Sadaam using WMD would have required a response from us.

	22-11-2004 01:01									#112
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Ned, are you serious? The Nedaverse becomes stranger and stranger day by day! Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld--they ARE the administration! Bush isn't the only one who speaks for it (hell, IMO he's a puppet mouthpiece anyway). Why do you think these guys were dispatched to the talk shows to speak about the reasons for invading Iraq? It was to MAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S CASE. They weren't there acting of their own accord, stating their personal opinions. They were speaking for the administration. The president is responsible for his administration, simple as that. Your attempt to disassociate him from his surrogates is just another unbelievable example of Republican disingenuity!

No doubt they were so dispatched. But the top dogs in the Admin would openly disagree with each other and with the president on occasion. See Cheney's views on gay marriage for instance where he states his views and respectfully agrees to disagree with Bush.

Bush said there were WMD's. Some in his admin questioned that evidence. Plato has made reference to those disagreements. So what should we conclude about this? That when Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney and others say something that the left agrees with about Iraq, they are telling the truth and when they are saying something the left disagrees with about Iraq, they can be discounted?

No. The truth is that Bush did not censor his top people or control them like prior administrations. At times they went beyond what Bush was prepared to say, such as when Rummy argued that Saddam's threat was "imminent." Bush never said that. Bush argued that we needed to do something now before the threat became imminent.

	22-11-2004 01:02									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned Please tell me what US national security interests were involved in the two wars Clinton conducted in the Balkans?

If I say that the last time our national interests were at stake was in 1962, why would I then try and justify Clinton's wars?

I'm a communist, Ned, not a Democrat. Despite what you may think, that means I don't support the Democrats or their politicians. Nor do they support me or my views. I opposed Clinton's wars.

I oppose most of America's wars, though not the war in Afganistan. In fact, I am conflicted about Iraq, because despite the fact that we shouldn't have gone in there, it is now in our vital interests to see that Iraq doesn't became what Afganistan was or what Somolia is, a haven for those who would murder us.

	22-11-2004 01:07									#114
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by PLATO I haven't seen any evidence that they no longer had questions on weather or not the evidence of Iraqi WMD should have aq100% confidence level...and believe me I have looked. Care to help me out there with a source?

IIRC, there was a meeting among the top people to discuss the "evidence." This was the meeting where Tenet said what he said. The question is whether Powell and Rummy still maintained their ground on the lack of reliability of the evidence at that or any subsequent meeting with Bush.

Now, if there were such doubts in Defense and State, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Powell and Rummy openly disagreed with Tenet at that meeting. Had they done so, I am sure the press would have been all over those disagreements when the commission or Senate report (I don't recall which one) was issued.

	22-11-2004 01:10									#115
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If I say that the last time our national interests were at stake was in 1962, why would I then try and justify Clinton's wars? I'm a communist, Ned, not a Democrat. Despite what you may think, that means I don't support the Democrats or their politicians. Nor do they support me or my views. I opposed Clinton's wars. I oppose most of America's wars, though not the war in Afganistan. In fact, I am conflicted about Iraq, because despite the fact that we shouldn't have gone in there, it is now in our vital interests to see that Iraq doesn't became what Afganistan was or what Somolia is, a haven for those who would murder us.

Che, as a Commie, I thought you would be overjoyed by the Iraq war. The Communist parties in Iraq sure were.

	22-11-2004 01:11									#116
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

except for the half-assed, under-manned, inadequate endeavor in Afghanistan and the first Saddam asswhooping, America hasn't fought a just war since WW2.

	22-11-2004 01:11									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned IIRC, there was a meeting among the top people to discuss the "evidence." This was the meeting where Tenet said what he said. The question is whether Powell and Rummy still maintained their ground on the lack of reliability of the evidence at that or any subsequent meeting with Bush.

Rummy maintained no ground. In fact, his department was responsible for the worst of the intelligence provided. Powell was never listened to, so it didn't matter what he maintained. He should have resigned in 2001, but felt it his duty to the country to remain.

	22-11-2004 01:13									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Did you not read what Che wrote? He said the last time was the Cuban Missile Crisis. That would mean the Balkan wars weren't in our vital interests. Are you so far in the Nedaverse you think che supported Clinton?

Boris, well I was clearly mistaken about that. My apologies. Also, I was unaware that you too opposed Clinton's several wars. I presume that you opposed them for the reasons you stated: they had nothing to do with the defense of the United States.

	22-11-2004 01:14									#119
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned Che, as a Commie, I thought you would be overjoyed by the Iraq war. The Communist parties in Iraq sure were.

News flash, Ned: commies don't always agree (see the Sino-Soviet conflicts). In any event, what was good for the Communist Parties of Iraq isn't necessarily good for the world. The Iraqi communists have an open space in which to advance their politics (and are doing quite well, as a matter of fact, garnering up to 25% of the vote).

My duty as an American communist, however, is to oppose imperialism, and so I do. Imperialism makes capitalism stronger and perpetuates the rule of capital over the working classes. It also uses the bodies of the sons and daughters of the working classes to advances its interests.

	22-11-2004 01:15									#120
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Sava except for the half-assed, under-manned, inadequate endeavor in Afghanistan and the first Saddam asswhooping, America hasn't fought a just war since WW2.

I thought you would at least approve of Clintons war on Haiti to install a communist president?