Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

During the last 4T it was the liberals who warned about the nazi threat. The conservatives were the businessmen and others who still advocated detente and trade relations with germany all the way to 1941. The average 1930's conservative probably viewed nazi germany as a nuisance at most and regarded Russia as the real enemy.

Fair enough. My point was that hauntingly similar rhetoric about the supposed harmlessness of the threat was in the air. That rhetoric was wrong in the last cycle and it might be equally wrong this cycle.

Also I distinctly remember intelligence assessments stating that iran would not have a bomb until 2015 or so.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Actually there were pro-american demonstrations in tehran after 9/11. I remember seeing them on the news. The anti-american demonstrations were mostly in the palestinian territories.

Immediately after 9/11 yes. It should be remember, though, that because the Iranians lived under an oppressive and rabidly anti-American regime, the people had long been the most pro US community in the middle east. There were anti-American demonstrations in other muslim nations as well.

But, this had turned sour long before we went into Iraq and middle eastern public opinion actually went up immediately after we toppled Sadam's government. They recognized a liberator when they saw one.

The reality is that public opinion has gone up and down often and for many reasons since 9/11, many of them simply because AQ is so good at PR. Saying that its lower than it was immediately after 9/11 simply because we went into Iraq is a gross oversimplification at best.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Immediately after 9/11 yes. It should be remember, though, that because the Iranians lived under an oppressive and rabidly anti-American regime, the people had long been the most pro US community in the middle east. There were anti-American demonstrations in other muslim nations as well.

But, this had turned sour long before we went into Iraq and middle eastern public opinion actually went up immediately after we toppled Sadam's government. They recognized a liberator when they saw one.

The reality is that public opinion has gone up and down often and for many reasons since 9/11, many of them simply because AQ is so good at PR. Saying that its lower than it was immediately after 9/11 simply because we went into Iraq is a gross oversimplification at best.

I agree that we need a much better PR system in the mideast, however the campaigns in afghanistan and iraq has weakened al-qaeda considerably since 2001. However we need to prevent terrorist reorganization in northwest pakistan.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I agree that we need a much better PR system in the mideast, however the campaigns in afghanistan and iraq has weakened al-qaeda considerably since 2001.

No. Not really.

BTW Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Mid-East.

Originally Posted by stilltim

For the most part, this is an excellent analysis. As for your ultimate conclusions, I think you'll find that - once you get past the rhetoric on both sides of the argument - the vast majority of conservatives don't completely disagree with them. Contrary to liberal propaganda, there is a distinct preference for diplomacy as a solution even among conservative camps, and this is so for many of the reasons you quoted. More aggressive solutions are considered a last resort.

Appreciated. I'll come back to some of the above.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Remember, before we went into Iraq, Saddam had violated something like 17 different UN resolutions.

I'm not sure of the number either, but, yes, it was persistent and significant. I seem to recall that we went in unilaterally ourselves, though, rather than wait for UN blessings.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Moreover, the economic sanctions that we had put in place had utterly failed. In addition to the corrupt deals that Saddam had established with certain Europeans, he was bleeding his country dry to keep his personal wealth and his war machine going.

Except now we are pouring mucho dollars into rebuilding efforts, and the Iraqi economy is more dysfunctional than under Saddam. From percentage of economy shattered by bombs, to hours retailers dare open shops, to percentage of time the electric grid is up, the primary beneficiary of the intervention has been Haliburton, Blackwater and the personal wealth accrued to the Republican war machine.

Originally Posted by stilltim

We were already beginning to face a humanitarian crisis as it looked like we might lose millions of Iraqi poor due to starvation

There is an exodus from Iraq into Jordan, Syria and other nations. While it is spotty and hard to measure, the current economic and humanitarian crisis is non-trivial, and possibly worse than what occurred under Saddam in terms of people in failed economic conditions being required to abandon all they have, including their country.

Originally Posted by stilltim

(and AQ was using the devastation caused by the sanctions as a very effective recruiting tool).

As I understand it, the current situation has improved their recruitment opportunities and membership.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Finally, we were spending millions a year doing flybys on his territory and he had started taking pot shots at us. Was any of this a success by any measure of the word? I don't think so.

There are far more pot shots being taken now, and billions a year being spent.

You quote reasonably valid and certainly non trivial reasons to have supported intervention. None of them were the primary justification used at the time, which was WMDs. The WMD argument was so weak and unconvincing, the administration fabricated, arguably lied. You also are avoiding the human rights argument and the spreading democracy argument, which were used post invasion, though some of the points you did bring up touch upon these.

You also avoided the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" assertion that we ought to deploy troops near oil supplies, creating a New American Century that involves an economic and military zone of influence in the Middle East. You avoided the 'War for Oil' argument. Prudently so. Few who believe this perspective speak of it in public, though the building of the world's largest embassy and permanent bases near oil fields and pipe lines continues. Also, the bulk of the major Democratic candidates for president speak of long term occupation forces. Too few near the top of either party favor abandoning the embassy or bases. While few speak of it, many in Washington are still buying into the neocon desire for a military and economic zone of influence. Given my eight points analysis, I think they are very much in error.

Which means we have to take it beyond saying something like 'yes, Bush sucks, and even many conservatives agree that Bush sucks." Sure, that's a given.

But I care far more for lessons learned than tagging blame. If the next Democratic president goes in embracing the desire for a 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' style oil defending military and economic zone of influence, the lesson has not been learned. We have not the troop strength to suppress the 4GW insurrection. So long as there is even the appearance of economic self interest, insurrection supported by proxy war outside influence will continue. Any attempts to spread political or economic benefit though improved administration, spreading democracy or pumping in rebuilding money has been and is apt to continue being eaten by a bureaucracy of corruption that is producing a magnificent cross cultural synergy between Iraqi and American military industrial complexes.

Meanwhile, if Blackwater thinks it should fire into crowds to protect American diplomats, and American diplomats continue hiring Blackwater, any smiling good will from the days the statue came down will continue to fade into distant memory.

I can sort of forgive the old misguided urges to go in. Given the benefit of 20 20 hindsight, if they knew then what we know now, it might have come out very different. I just am not comfortable that the lessons have been well and truly learned. Yes, conservatives may now more acknowledge that force ought to be a last resort. I believe they understand that now a heck of a lot better than they did before we went in. I am also concerned that in defending the reasons for going in, some conservatives are still in denial about how bad some of the decisions were. In putting the best possible PR spin on their good intentions, they are burying lessons learned, and perpetuating a basically flawed doctrine.

But I care less about setting blame than getting policies changed. That the democratic candidates are speaking of long term commitments is very much problematic. Most people have figured out that Bush sucks. The too small differences in policy between the administration and the democratic front runners is more the problem. If the politicians consider themselves above the wisdom of the voting public, and mistakes keep getting perpetuated, if flawed doctrines get set into doomed dogma, we could easily become that conservative faction that traditionally gets rolled in any given 4T. Colonial imperialism and economic zones of influence are or ought to be dead. No number of micro excuses for perpetuating such policies beyond their time will lead to a happy crisis.

I am a conservative, and we shall triumph in this 4T. All Jacobins and anyone who DARES sympathize with them shall be shot.

Originally Posted by sean '90

I am a conservative, and we shall triumph in this 4T. All Jacobins and anyone who DARES sympathize with them shall be shot.

It is essential that we have the sort of system that deserves respect if we are not to have Jacobin radicals in a position to seize power because angry masses who see the leaders of the extant order as corrupt, incompetent, aloof, and selfish. Conservatism implies something worth preserving -- and class privilege that results only in sybaritic excess for those who own the assets or wield bureaucratic power characterizes a society about to undergo a revolution.

We preserve junkyards only because they are useful; we tolerate monarchs only to the extent that they are useful (paradoxically to a democracy). That's the difference between Wilhelm II and Juan Carlos.

Originally Posted by sean '90

I am a conservative, and we shall triumph in this 4T. All Jacobins and anyone who DARES sympathize with them shall be shot.

Aren't we just a tad self-righteous. As usual.

Never, ever make such a broad sweeping statement about 4Ts. Historically people have moved to more conservative living in 4Ts, but more radical politics. Conservatives did not back a revolution in the 1770s, or the abolition of slavery in the 1860s, or the New Deal in the 1930s. These were all radical ideas.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The anti-american demonstrations were mostly in the palestinian territories.

And were exaggerated, IIRC.

Originally Posted by sean '90

I am a conservative, and we shall triumph in this 4T. All Jacobins and anyone who DARES sympathize with them shall be shot.

American 2Ts and 4Ts coincide with the Liberal/Hamiltonian/Big Government phases of Arthur Schlesinger's cycle of American politics. Pwned.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm not sure of the number either, but, yes, it was persistent and significant. I seem to recall that we went in unilaterally ourselves, though, rather than wait for UN blessings.

Not exactly. The last UN resolution essentially authorized the use of force. We went to them months before we actually went in and made the case that the UN basically had made itself into a joke by refusing to enforce its own resolutions and that if they expected anyone to listen to them ever again, they would have to do something.

It was only when it became clear that they were not going to enforce the latest one either that we finally went in - with the support of about 40 other member states - not exactly unilateral.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Except now we are pouring mucho dollars into rebuilding efforts, and the Iraqi economy is more dysfunctional than under Saddam. From percentage of economy shattered by bombs, to hours retailers dare open shops, to percentage of time the electric grid is up, the primary beneficiary of the intervention has been Haliburton, Blackwater and the personal wealth accrued to the Republican war machine.

OK. Now you need to do some research.

Economy - it's true that oil revenues have struggled to return to pre-Saddam levels - but they're close now. The private sector economy, however, has been going gangbusters at about 20-30% growth a year. People are buying all sorts of stuff that they simply couldn't afford during Sadam's rule. Home prices in certain areas are soaring because there are folks who have the money to buy them. The country is going from a nation that was completely dependent on oil to one that has many sources of income - and that can only be a good thing.

Open shops limited hours - this is only the case in the worst areas - perhaps a couple of neighborhoods in Baghdad. In much of the country, it's business as usual.

The electric gird - the national electric grid actually produces far more electricity now than it did under Sadam's rule. The reconstruction has had some trouble keeping up because - free of Sadam's restrictions - people are now buying more electrical devices. It's now looking like the grid will have to produce more than twice what it did under Sadam's rule to actually fill the country's needs. Also, the story that Iraqi's don't have enough power is a bit out of date. Some areas are now 100%. Baghdad is one of the only areas still having a problem. But since the majority of Americans get their news from reporters who are cowering in their Baghdad hotels rather than actually going out to find the real story, it's not surprising that you don't have it.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There is an exodus from Iraq into Jordan, Syria and other nations. While it is spotty and hard to measure, the current economic and humanitarian crisis is non-trivial, and possibly worse than what occurred under Saddam in terms of people in failed economic conditions being required to abandon all they have, including their country.

There's actually a steady stream of folks coming back. You'd know that if you'd been reading Michael Totten's column. He's currently in Anbar watching folks returning to their homes daily after AQ chased them out months ago.

And, as I stated earlier, your assertion that the economy is failing is simply left wing spin. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. The economy is thriving despite the obstacle created by the war.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

As I understand it, the current situation has improved their recruitment opportunities and membership.

Before we went in, support for AQ among Iraqis was the 40% that is typical of the middle east. Support for the US was about 20% - also typical. In Iraq, those numbers are now reversed and AQ's popularity is still falling.

Outside of Iraq, it goes up and down depending on how well the war is going.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You quote reasonably valid and certainly non trivial reasons to have supported intervention. None of them were the primary justification used at the time, which was WMDs. The WMD argument was so weak and unconvincing, the administration fabricated, arguably lied. You also are avoiding the human rights argument and the spreading democracy argument, which were used post invasion, though some of the points you did bring up touch upon these.

All of these arguments were actually presented at the time we were making the case to go in. And so were these:

+ Sadam openly supported and funded Palestinian terrorism
+ He was harboring some AQ suspects
+ There was at least one AQ affiliated training camp inside Iraq itself.

Of course, he had also attempted to have the president of the United States assassinated, but I don't think we mentioned that one at the time.

WMD - well, yes. That's the one justification of which I was sure you were already aware. The fact of the matter is that - in addition to our own intelligence services - both the British and the French believed that he had them. The Brits have the best intelligence service in the world. I'm sure you would have preferred that we had ignored them, but then, of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You also avoided the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" assertion that we ought to deploy troops near oil supplies, creating a New American Century that involves an economic and military zone of influence in the Middle East. You avoided the 'War for Oil' argument. Prudently so. Few who believe this perspective speak of it in public, though the building of the world's largest embassy and permanent bases near oil fields and pipe lines continues. Also, the bulk of the major Democratic candidates for president speak of long term occupation forces. Too few near the top of either party favor abandoning the embassy or bases. While few speak of it, many in Washington are still buying into the neocon desire for a military and economic zone of influence. Given my eight points analysis, I think they are very much in error.

Hmmm... could it be that we don't speak of that stuff because we don't actually believe it and that these things are merely the inventions of paranoid liberal fantasists?

I'll make it simple for you. The answer is YES.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Which means we have to take it beyond saying something like 'yes, Bush sucks, and even many conservatives agree that Bush sucks." Sure, that's a given.

If you are suggesting that hate rhetoric like "Bush sucks" is not a productive means of debate - regardless of how correct it may or may not be, I would agree with you there.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Not exactly. The last UN resolution essentially authorized the use of force. We went to them months before we actually went in and made the case that the UN basically had made itself into a joke by refusing to enforce its own resolutions and that if they expected anyone to listen to them ever again, they would have to do something.

It was only when it became clear that they were not going to enforce the latest one either that we finally went in - with the support of about 40 other member states - not exactly unilateral.

Here, from a blatantly right-wing web site, is your Coalition of the Willing. Most of the listed countries did virtually nothing, but needed to show support for political (read: economic) reasons of their own. Not stellar by any means.

Originally Posted by stilltim

OK. Now you need to do some research.

Based on that remark alone, I expect to see cites from you as well.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Economy - it's true that oil revenues have struggled to return to pre-Saddam levels - but they're close now. The private sector economy, however, has been going gangbusters at about 20-30% growth a year. People are buying all sorts of stuff that they simply couldn't afford during Saddam's rule. Home prices in certain areas are soaring because there are folks who have the money to buy them. The country is going from a nation that was completely dependent on oil to one that has many sources of income - and that can only be a good thing.

Well, there are certainly war profiteers and a few special sectors (wireless services, for example) making money. But as a whole, the picture isn't bright. The last paragraph says it all.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Open shops limited hours - this is only the case in the worst areas - perhaps a couple of neighborhoods in Baghdad. In much of the country, it's business as usual.

I've heard exactly the contrary, so you can cherry pick, but I doubt the general case holds (see previous cite).

Originally Posted by stilltim

The electric gird - the national electric grid actually produces far more electricity now than it did under Saddam's rule. The reconstruction has had some trouble keeping up because - free of Saddam's restrictions - people are now buying more electrical devices. It's now looking like the grid will have to produce more than twice what it did under Saddam's rule to actually fill the country's needs. Also, the story that Iraqi's don't have enough power is a bit out of date. Some areas are now 100%. Baghdad is one of the only areas still having a problem. But since the majority of Americans get their news from reporters who are cowering in their Baghdad hotels rather than actually going out to find the real story, it's not surprising that you don't have it.

I'll save everyone some time. Here's a great consolidated study by the Brookings Institution. Go to page 40 for electricity. Note: pre-war level of 95,000 MWh has rarely been reached since, even allowing for the massive investment in infrastructure.

Originally Posted by stilltim

There's actually a steady stream of folks coming back. You'd know that if you'd been reading Michael Totten's column. He's currently in Anbar watching folks returning to their homes daily after AQ chased them out months ago.

So, anecdotal evidence trumps the head count of refugees in all countries reporting them.

Originally Posted by stilltim

And, as I stated earlier, your assertion that the economy is failing is simply left wing spin. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. The economy is thriving despite the obstacle created by the war.

See above. No need to repeat what has already been debunked.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Before we went in, support for AQ among Iraqis was the 40% that is typical of the middle east. Support for the US was about 20% - also typical. In Iraq, those numbers are now reversed and AQ's popularity is still falling.

Outside of Iraq, it goes up and down depending on how well the war is going.

You cited these numbers before. Provide a cite or drop this assertion. I can find no credible numbers anywhere.

Originally Posted by stilltim

All of these arguments were actually presented at the time we were making the case to go in. And so were these:

+ Saddam openly supported and funded Palestinian terrorism
+ He was harboring some AQ suspects
+ There was at least one AQ affiliated training camp inside Iraq itself.

Of course, he had also attempted to have the president of the United States assassinated, but I don't think we mentioned that one at the time.

Do we have to debunk this stuff again? OK.

• Saddam supported the Palestinians families of terrorists. So have many Saudis and others. Let's blow the entire area to smithereens
• Name any AQ suspects being harbored by Saddam - with a cite this time.
• The AQ training camp was in the north: the Kurdish area we had under effective control long before we invaded
• I think the half-hearted attempt on GWHB is one of the reasons we went to war.

One for four is pretty bad.

Originally Posted by stilltim

WMD - well, yes. That's the one justification of which I was sure you were already aware. The fact of the matter is that - in addition to our own intelligence services - both the British and the French believed that he had them. The Brits have the best intelligence service in the world. I'm sure you would have preferred that we had ignored them, but then, of course, hindsight is 20/20.

The most up to date information was the UN inspectors who literally screamed that they didn't have any WMD. We even had an American member of the team (Scott Ritter) stand up (At great personal risk) and say so.

Originally Posted by stilltim

Hmmm... could it be that we don't speak of that stuff because we don't actually believe it and that these things are merely the inventions of paranoid liberal fantasists?

I'll make it simple for you. The answer is YES.

Paranoid fantasies I'll grant you. Whose would be an argument.

Originally Posted by stilltim

If you are suggesting that hate rhetoric like "Bush sucks" is not a productive means of debate - regardless of how correct it may or may not be, I would agree with you there.

If you hate the 'Bush sucks' meme, stop supporting the unsupportable.

. . .is a right wing mantra designed to discredit any criticism of Bush, the worst president we have ever had, in advance. It's pathetic.

As a much too gentler poster has been pointing out, every "reason" for invading Iraq--every nasty situation you were worried about--is much worse now. That includes WMD, since countries we have put on the enemies list (like Iran) have an extra incentive to get nukes, now that we have implemented the Bush doctrine and threaten to do so again.

That's what makes a 4T--"solutions" that makes things worse, like Dred Scott or Hoover's budget cuts to try to solve the depression.

HI&RM Kaiser Wilhelm II was a good man. I would love to meet him. Don't swallow Entente propaganda so blindly. I support class privilege, as it is part of the proper moral order of the universe.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That's what makes a 4T--"solutions" that makes things worse, like Dred Scott or Hoover's budget cuts to try to solve the depression.

Yes. You are near the core of the argument in favor of there being an 'arrow of progress.' The conservative faction will still hold to the values that solved the prior crisis. New problems are generally coming to the fore which had not been address in the prior crisis. Thus, energetic attempts to implement and enforce the old values generally blow up big time.

Which doesn't mean the group attempting to replace the old guard will have it squarely right...

Originally Posted by sean '90

HI&RM Kaiser Wilhelm II was a good man. I would love to meet him.

Well, it could be worked out, but, you'd not be able to post here anymore.

Conservatives value common sense. This 'arrow of progress' is a stupid myth. Progress is NOT inherently good. The Holocaust was 'progress' in that it was a far more efficient way of killing large numbers of people, but that SUE AS HELL doesn't make it good, by anyone's definition.


I abhor Big Government, I prefer effective government myself. Big Government just attracts more lobbyists.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Conservatives value common sense.

Common sense isn't always right, indeed, it's rarely right. It's tainted by superstition and parochial social taboos and assumptions, that's why we have Philosophy and Science. 500 years ago Earth being at the center of the Universe was considered "common sense" and many people attacked heliocentrism because it "went against common sense;" now people who believe that are considered kooks or morons. I agree with Einstein when he stated that common sense is the sum of prejudices one has acquired before one's 18th birthday.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think you're talking about "common knowledge," not "common sense."

Gah, you are probably right, though it seems like they are used as synonyms.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Conservatives value common sense.

The same could be said of liberals as well. Nobody has the market on common sense cornered. Further, common sense isn't as common as one might think.

I abhor Big Government, I prefer effective government myself. Big Government just attracts more lobbyists.

Wait, I'm confused, I thought you were a monarchist! What could be bigger than the budget of supporting royals?

Lobbists? LOBBISTS?!?!? What do you call the royal court? Landed gentry and monied influence kissing the king's hind end to influence the trajectory of the nation.

Now, Sean, I've finally taken you off ignore. PLEASE respond to the above with civil, well reasoned words and refrain from thowing damning threats, insults on my character or blanket remarks. Address the above in a manner fit for this forum. I'd like to hear what you have to say, but, if it's a continuation of the verbal slamming my past remarks have received, I'll just put you back on ignore.

Deal?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think you're talking about "common knowledge," not "common sense." I'll have to check for Einstein quotes, but I have a feeling that if that one exists it might have been screwed up in translation.

I think actually you guys might be mincing words. More of that intellectual blowhardism that The Rani so hates on this forum.

In common parlance ( and after all I am a commoner) "common sense" simply means thinking in a practical manner. I don't know anyone who considers common sense to be folklore distilled.

Common knowledge = you turn right on red with caution.

Originally Posted by Odin

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Odin

... I agree with Einstein when he stated that common sense is the sum of prejudices one has acquired before one's 18th birthday.

I think you're talking about "common knowledge," not "common sense." I'll have to check for Einstein quotes, but I have a feeling that if that one exists it might have been screwed up in translation.

Gah, you are probably right, though it seems like they are used as synonyms.

Odin: stick to your guns. You had it right - at least the attribution is correct. No one has that one in writing, as far as I know, but it definitely sounds like something Einstein would have said.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

I think actually you guys might be mincing words. More of that intellectual blowhardism that The Rani so hates on this forum.

In common parlance ( and after all I am a commoner) "common sense" simply means thinking in a practical manner. I don't know anyone who considers common sense to be folklore distilled.

Common knowledge = you turn right on red with caution.

Paraphrasing a definition of common sense I heard once: common sense is a process of makng decisions intuitively and well.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Wait, I'm confused, I thought you were a monarchist! What could be bigger than the budget of supporting royals?

Lobbists? LOBBISTS?!?!? What do you call the royal court? Landed gentry and monied influence kissing the king's hind end to influence the trajectory of the nation.

Royalty is well worth the expense. B/c they "own" the nation and are inevitably going to leave it to their descendants (or some close relation), they have an incentive to leave it in a good condition for their heirs. A democratic system featuring fixed term lengths generally leads to the elected politicians trying to ruin their predecessor's accomplishments (or steal them), and to make things harder for their successors. This is the inevitable result of publicly-owned govt. unless the public keep near-constant tabs on the pols. Of course, We the People have a life, and we can't keep tabs on the pols constantly. Thus, lobbyists fill the gap. And we all know what that produces. The masses can't be politicized either, or the democratic traditions of the U. S. A. will drown under a tidal wave of demagoguery. There would also be an unprecedented loss of independents, as in, none would remain.

People can come to the court as well, it is far more accessible than the White House. I have no problem with the gentry, the aristocracy, the monied classes, or anyone who has a personal, tangible stake in the well-being of the realm visiting the monarch or the local lord. That is an ancient medieval right, in fact. It helps that the king was also the court of last resort, so the king would have to take away his own legal authority to shut the people off from him. Btw, the hands of the monarch are kissed when one receives an office in Their Government. Not the ***. Only perverts do that.