Interesting Article...

[Farquar]

http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20050808&s=scoblic080805

The above links to an article on The New Republic's website entitled Moral Hazard: How Conservatism Leaves us Vulnerable to Nuclear Terrorism. Accessing the whole article requires a quick, non-obtrusive registration. I'll post the first paragraph below.

HOW CONSERVATISM LEAVES US VULNERABLE TO NUCLEAR TERRORISM.
Moral Hazard
by J. Peter Scoblic
Post date 07.29.05 | Issue date 08.08.05

Democracy has become George W. Bush's reflexive answer to terrorism. Before the wreckage left by the July 7 bombings in London had even cooled, he broke from the G-8 summit in Scotland to explain how we would defeat the perpetrators of such attacks: "We will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate." Four days later, he elaborated, "Today in the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And, like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated by the unstoppable power of freedom and democracy." This, of course, was not a new interpretation of the war on terrorism for the president, who, in his second inaugural this January, actually elevated democratization to the level of grand strategy, saying, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." A resounding sentiment--one that has provided the president with a powerful foreign policy narrative and convinced voters last November that, despite the tragedies of the Iraq war, he can best protect our national security. Yet the notion that we should defend ourselves chiefly by spreading democracy seems less than reassuring on the heels of the July 7 attack. After all, the four bombers who struck London were British--residents of one of the world's oldest and most stable democracies....

[ElanthianSiren]

It's too bad you can't get the full article without registering.

It's already been said many times that Bush's war on terrorism doesn't make us safer. Like Eisenhower said -- There's no such thing as a preventative war. War begets conditions that beget more war.

There are a few reporters on the BBC and newspapers like that, reporting that Iraq is nearing civil war with its 3 religious factions. Also, if you read international news, generally you see a broader examination of Bush's policies.

I don't know what else to say. You can't make people read news or examine things in a form different from what is most comfortable in their surroundings.

-M

[Back]

An interesting point about all this that I just found out this morning is the Baathists, Saddam’s chosen party, are christian muslims and were the leaders of the pan-Arab movement... the most progressive of the Arab world.

When I hear Bush say spreading Democracy I hear him saying spreading America’s influence and power. While thats all well and good, I don’t think blowing people up helps.

[Landrion]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
It's too bad you can't get the full article without registering.

It's already been said many times that Bush's war on terrorism doesn't make us safer. Like Eisenhower said -- There's no such thing as a preventative war. War begets conditions that beget more war.

There are a few reporters on the BBC and newspapers like that, reporting that Iraq is nearing civil war with its 3 religious factions. Also, if you read international news, generally you see a broader examination of Bush's policies.

I don't know what else to say. You can't make people read news or examine things in a form different from what is most comfortable in their surroundings.

-M

And yet sometimes a war is necessary to bring about change. You dont see us worrying about Nazi aggression or the Japanese Empire.

Demonstrates the importance of how you handle a reconstruction period. Done well like Japan you can construct a future ally. Done badly like Germany post WWI and you give fertile ground for something worse.

Is Bush's war on terrorism going to solve it? I have no idea. Clinton's missle attacks on Afghanistan didnt either. Bush Sr.'s intervention in Kuwait made their lives a lot different though.

I think we're going to continue to draw hate as long as we are seen as Israel's protector. I certainly dont think you can end terrorism by bowing your head and giving into their demands either.

do you deny that democricy has spread since the start of the war backlash?


Originally posted by Backlash
An interesting point about all this that I just found out this morning is the Baathists, Saddam’s chosen party, are christian muslims and were the leaders of the pan-Arab movement... the most progressive of the Arab world.

Proof that this was not a war against Islam then huh?

[Edited on 8-5-2005 by Dave]

[DeV]

"And, of course, it was Bush who said in October 2002 that we needed to confront Iraq lest Saddam Hussein "be in a position to threaten America ... [or] to pass nuclear technology to terrorists." But, if Bush truly understands the significance of the nuclear threat, then why did he focus on Iraq and ignore Iran and North Korea, which, as of late 2002 and early 2003, clearly posed greater nuclear dangers?"

This was a very well written article. It touched on a number of points that have been brought up by anti-war advocates in the past, present, and I'm positive the future will being about its own version of questions that may or may not be answered.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
do you deny that democricy has spread since the start of the war backlash?


Originally posted by Backlash
An interesting point about all this that I just found out this morning is the Baathists, Saddam’s chosen party, are christian muslims and were the leaders of the pan-Arab movement... the most progressive of the Arab world.

Proof that this was not a war against Islam then huh?

[Edited on 8-5-2005 by Dave]
ROFL LMFAO

It would better read, that this is a war not just against Islam but a war against freedom.

Some of the early Baathists were Christian and some of Saddam's Baathist party were Christian but many were Sunni Muslims.



[Edited on 8-5-2005 by xtc]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Dave
do you deny that democricy has spread since the start of the war backlash?


Originally posted by Backlash
An interesting point about all this that I just found out this morning is the Baathists, Saddam’s chosen party, are christian muslims and were the leaders of the pan-Arab movement... the most progressive of the Arab world.

Proof that this was not a war against Islam then huh?

[Edited on 8-5-2005 by Dave]
ROFL LMFAO

It would better read, that this is a war not just against Islam but a war against freedom.

Some of the early Baathists were Christian and some of Saddam's Baathist party were Christian but many were Sunni Muslims.



[Edited on 8-5-2005 by xtc]

Umm yeah the baathist party under saddam was SO unopressive.

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
do you deny that democricy has spread since the start of the war backlash?

No. It was there before we were. But the democracy spreading now is imposed by someone else’s view on what is best for them (in the US’s case whats best for us), not from an uprising from within for themselves.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Landrion

Demonstrates the importance of how you handle a reconstruction period. Done well like Japan you can construct a future ally. Done badly like Germany post WWI and you give fertile ground for something worse.

I think we're going to continue to draw hate as long as we are seen as Israel's protector. I certainly dont think you can end terrorism by bowing your head and giving into their demands either.

I agree with point 1. Reconstruction is INCREDIBLY important. That's why I will often advocate native contractors doing the reconstruction as community effort under the supervision of American contracting companies. IMO it's important to foster a feeling that THEY have rebuilt *their* country. This reaffirms that we are not trying to take over their country.

Also, I won't fault Bush Sr. for Desert Storm/Shield. They were necessary. A recent, undeniable act of aggression was already demonstrated. We pushed Saddam back. He went with his tail between his legs. IMO, that's not a preventative war but a reactive one.

A few people argue that we should have killed him then and there, and in that instance, I would agree. That would have been an appropriate time to end his empire and reconstruct Iraq. Fifteen years later, IMO, is like spanking a child for something they did years ago because they are undeniably no longer your neophyte.

I agree with you about Israel as well. In fact, I may catch hell for this, but I don't think the UN had any business doling out land as reconstruction. Israel/Palestine is an incredibly emotional issue however, as both groups have a very strong, legal claim on the land and valid concern points, and those things intermingle their faith resolutely. It's combining politics and religion, two of the most knee-jerk, emotional issues humans have.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Dave
do you deny that democricy has spread since the start of the war backlash?


Originally posted by Backlash
An interesting point about all this that I just found out this morning is the Baathists, Saddam’s chosen party, are christian muslims and were the leaders of the pan-Arab movement... the most progressive of the Arab world.

Proof that this was not a war against Islam then huh?

[Edited on 8-5-2005 by Dave]
ROFL LMFAO

It would better read, that this is a war not just against Islam but a war against freedom.

Some of the early Baathists were Christian and some of Saddam's Baathist party were Christian but many were Sunni Muslims.



[Edited on 8-5-2005 by xtc]

Umm yeah the baathist party under saddam was SO unopressive.

Not this sad argument again. The US government has had no problem supporting oppressive regimes when it suits their purposes like they did with Saddam in the 80's.