The Ability To Talk
October 27, 2008, Matthew Good When you are the most powerful nation in the world you risk nothing by sitting down and talking with those you consider enemies. Any fool can claim that preconditions have to be met before dialogue can happen, but without dialogue nothing changes without the use of force, and even then change is never assured nor lasting, as has been demonstrated very clearly over the last seven years.
It takes a bigger man to talk than to pull a trigger or order others to do it for them. It takes an individual with vision, determination, and moral fortitude to exhaust every option available before sending young people to their deaths. It is a quality that President Bush completely lacks, as does Vice President Dick Cheney and others, past and present, in the current administration. The foreign policy doctrine adopted after 9/11 erased diplomacy from the American political dictionary, replacing it with unilateralism and preemption. Subsequently, more Americans have died in Iraq than did on September 11th, with tens of thousands more wounded. The real tragedy, of course, is that that is nothing compared to what the people of Iraq have had to endure.
When it comes to the invasion of Iraq, diplomacy was not something that the Bush Administration was ever interested in. In truth, the possibility of sitting down with their once notorious ally was never an option. A permanent military footprint in the region cemented through regime change was the goal of the invasion, rendering diplomacy laughable. It would have been as fruitful for the Iraqis as Chamberlain’s negotiations with Hitler. Despite those negotiations, the German inner circle had already decided on a course of action that no amount of diplomacy was going to alter. And yet, that very same historic example was applied in reverse with regards to the regime of Saddam Hussein – that diplomacy was pointless, even though the Bush Administration set about engineering the appearance that it was attempting to exhaust diplomatic options. What is commonly overlooked though is that those options were direct threats that, if not adhered to, would result in military action that was wholly premeditated. Compounded by the entirely false link between the regime of Hussein and 9/11 spread by the Bush Administration, there was nothing that Iraq could have done to avoid a US invasion. Even if Hussein, his sons, and his closest confidants had either left the country or given themselves up, the United States military still would have ventured onto Iraqi soil, still would have played the leading role in the creation of a new government, and their presence would have still led to the unforeseen uprising that no one at the Pentagon thought a seriously damaging proposition.
During the run up to the invasion the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission under Hans Blix attempted to make headway, but even they were bullied to the point of having to acquiesce to the premeditated determination of the Bush Administration, which also included dealing with British Intelligence’s Rockingham operation.
Over the last seven years we have had front row seats at a show that has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of both threats and force. When Afghanistan was initially invaded how many people would have believed that seven years later negotiations with the Taliban would be seen as a option? How many people have truly paid attention to NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe and seriously considered the ramifications? How many people still labour under the misconception that Iraq is a war that must be won to save face, as all other considerations have been rendered practically implausible? The Iraqi government doesn’t want foreign forces in the country, the majority of Iraqis, no matter their affiliations, don’t want foreign forces in the country, and yet foreign forces, primarily American forces, remain. So what is it about the American psyche that refuses to face reality? If anything it’s rooted in those occurrences in which diplomacy was not attempted prior to military action.
This is certainly not new territory for the United States. During the Vietnam war US forces fought for three years before Hanoi and Washington began dialoguing. It wouldn’t be until 1973 that any definitive agreement was reached, and not until 1975 until US personnel completely left the country. During the majority of that conflict many Americans considered it unfathomable that anything other than complete victory would be the outcome. After yet, after ten years and the deaths of just over 58,000 men, the North Vietnamese prevailed. Not surprisingly, given the outcome of the war, the Vietnam War Memorial that stands in Constitution Gardens was wholly funded by private donations.
Like Iraq, the Vietnam war was one that was a premeditated inevitability. After the assassination of President Kennedy, and the reversal of his decision to begin reducing the number of US military advisors in South Vietnam, the Joint Chiefs finally got what they wanted. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, real or not, provided the pretext that various individuals within the military establishment had been seeking since Kennedy’s last minute decision not to directly support the invasion of Cuba, a covert operation that his administration inherited when he took office – a reason to go to war. Communism was the threat with which they justified it, driven by belief in the Domino Theory which, with regards to South East Asia, was hollow given that the North Vietnamese struggle was nationalist in nature and that the Sino-Soviet split demolished the reality of a global Communist umbrella.
So what would the United States lose by sitting down with anyone from the Iranians to Hamas? Absolutely nothing. In fact, doing so would open vital lines of communication that could work towards solutions rather than impede them. Unfortunately, when preconditions are put into place, the willingness of others to enter into such relationships is severely impeded.
The moral high ground is not something that the United States can claim that it holds, despite the beliefs of those such as John McCain. Ironically, McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam came to an end because of diplomacy, not because of the successful use of military force or diplomacy with precondition. Thus, to claim that preconditions must be met before diplomacy can occur only deters the possibility of its success.
During stump speeches, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has exhaustively repeated that John McCain knows how to win wars. I find such an assertion utterly ignorant being that the United States lost the only war that McCain was ever involved in and that for most of it he was a prisoner of war. How that makes McCain qualified with regards to achieving military successes is quite beyond me, though it does explain his reluctance to sit down with the leaders of countries, such as Iran, without preconditions being met.
Ultimately, diplomacy at gunpoint is not diplomacy, it’s geopolitical extortion. If ever there was an example of the detriment of the lack of diplomatic access, look no further than the Cuban Missile Crisis. While it has since been wholly mythologized as an American political victory over the Soviet Union, the reality is that the roots of the crisis began with US covert actions against Cuba and support for its invasion. After Kennedy refused to allow US forces to directly support the failed invasion, which was undertaken by Cuban exiles, the government of Fidel Castro turned to the Soviet Union to help ensure that his government possessed a deterrent against the possibility of another invasion, perhaps one wholly undertaken by US forces. And so the USSR placed MRBM’s in Cuba, which were ultimately detected by US U2 surveillance, leading to a series of events that brought the world to the brink of global nuclear war.
The Kennedy brothers were smart enough to realize that had US forces openly assisted in the failed invasion of Cuba that the Soviets would have reacted elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the invasion of Cuba, or Operation Zapata, was inherited by the Kennedy administration and sold to them as one in which only Cuban exiles would participate. When things went bad, and the President was faced with the decision of providing air cover for the invading force, he refused. The disaster that resulted is well known, but it also led to the dismissal of prominent, and powerful, US political and military figures, among them CIA Director Allen Dulles, who Kennedy would later claim lied to him about aspects of the operation. That said, Kennedy was guilty of green-lighting Operation Mongoose after the failed invasion, a part of the CIA’s Cuban Project which was a wide ranging aggressive covert operation that’s stated purpose was to help Cubans overthrow the Communist regime. Another operation included in the Cuban Project, which was not adopted, was drafted by the Joint Chiefs and signed by then Chairman General Lyman Lemnitzer. Codenamed Northwoods, it was a false flag operation that outlined the use of CIA and other operatives to kill innocents and commit acts of terrorism within the United States to create public support for an invasion of Cuba.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct result of the failed invasion of Cuba. Rather than attempting to open lines of communication between Washington and Havana, the United States, under two Presidents, opted to isolate it, placing Castro’s government in the position of having to acquire a deterrent to ensure its survival. Being that Cuba is only 90 miles off the coast of Florida, and that US naval and air stations are within 100 miles of Cuban soil, Castro’s decision to turn to the Soviets for help was a forgone conclusion. Thus, the lack of concerted diplomatic efforts from the time that revolutionary forces in Cuba seized power up until the failed invasion played a significant role in what would ultimately result in the most dangerous two weeks the world has ever known.
Had the White House had open lines of communication with Moscow following the detection of Soviet missiles in Cuba, the crisis might never have escalated to the point that it did. But because both the Soviets and the Americans were operating largely in the dark, the situation was one that played out in a slow and dangerous fashion. While the United Nations was used as the pulpit from which both nations preached, it was largely guesswork and the Kennedy Administration’s decision to rely on the contents of the first of two missives sent via teletype from Premier Khrushchev. In that first missive, which may have been the result of backchannel communications between Washington and Moscow brought about by ABC’s John Scali’s relationship with Aleksandr Fomin, the Soviets top spy in the US and a long time friend of Khrushchev, it was evident that Khrushchev understood the gravity of the situation and that a diplomatic solution was required to defuse it. In the end, in exchange for the removal of the missiles from Cuba the United States pledged to remove its missiles along the Turkish-Soviet border within 6 months, a compromise that left both governments in the position of claiming that success had been achieved.
So the question has to be asked, especially given the fact that during that two week period the Joint Chiefs were breathing down Kennedy’s neck to launch air strikes to destroy the missiles and follow them up with a full scale invasion of Cuba, which would have only resulted in the Soviets acting elsewhere and producing a direct conflict between the two super powers – what other course of action was realistically available other than diplomacy and concessions on the part of both the US and the Soviets?
The answer is – none. Because had diplomacy failed, chances are that I would not be sitting here writing this.
Compared to the threat that the West believes that Iran currently poses, the Soviets were in a class far beyond anything the Iranians could ever dream of. And yet diplomacy was the method used to defuse a situation in which this world came the closest it ever has to nuclear war.
In the end, diplomacy is not the art of the weak. In truth, it is the art of hope and progress. And while it may be said that diplomacy is far more affective when your position is backed by significant military force, the truth is that, in most situations, honesty gets you a lot further than threats, and the willingness to talk gets you a lot farther than the willingness to fight. Unless, that is, those that you are talking with have already made up their mind that death and destruction is their goal. But even in such cases, what decent human being can say that by not trying to be civilized before civility is abandoned isn’t what makes us civilized in the first place?
This little symbol lets you @ another comment
Well said. Diplomacy was not a “suitable reaction” or however they’d spin it, to 9-11. Bush was going to kick ass, Texas-style and that all there was to it.
By the way, they just posted a story on CBC about a foiled assassination plot on Obama.
I never quite understood when McCain would talk about this during the debates. He would make fun of Obama for considering diplomacy an option, and it left me very confused. I honestly don’t understand how a man running for the President can be so backwards.
If my neighbour keeps having loud parties, I talk to him about it. I don’t wait for him to go to for groceries and burn his house down or kidnap his dog. Perhaps it’s not the most apt analogy, but I don’t have time to think of a better one.
Nothingman, I thought that analogy was great.
I don’t know if diplomacy is really as effective as you’re making it out to be. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis the US was having a lot of trouble deciding which of Kruschev’s responses to take as real; They had recieved two responses to US messages, one used very hard language and the other much softer and less agressive. This shows that even when one tries to use diplomacy and conversation that the answers are not always clear and easy to follow. In addition, I disagree about wanting to withdraw all troops from the middle east, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular I think, should not be without a military presence. Those nations are so politically unstable that simply leaving them to thier own devices in order to form governments and establish security is ludacris. The unfortunate thing about fighting terror is that you cannot just brandish every person living in a specific region a terrorist, which means that yes, there are a lot of innocent people there living with consequences of other peoples actions. On the other hand however, this works to the advantage of a terrorist group, because anyone can be recruited to the cause, and with a little money, many people are willing to do whatever they can to help thier families, which may mean partaking in terrorist actions. This means then, that if the military presence in those countries was eliminated I think that it would be open season for terrorist recruitment and exectutions of terrorist actions. I do believe that the military presence is doing some good, forcing the terrorist groups to scale back thier activities in fear of being caught.
I apologize for my poor sentance structure here, its been a while since Ive written an essay, im a little out of practise.
True, there were two different messages. They chose to believe the first given analysis of both. The point is, had there been an open line of communication that would not have been necessary.
As for the Middle East, terrorist groups didn’t exist in Iraq prior to the occupation. In fact, they were drawn to Iraq because of it. As for Afghanistan, the world did nothing to remove the Taliban from power prior to 9/11, and the conspiracy itself was hatched by a small group, not a government, and one that still exists - albeit in Pakistan now, where they’ve had roots for some time actually.
wow wow wow…..can i ask what prompted you to write this lengthy post?
Do you think that it is difficult for a country to shift it’s foreign policy from aggression to diplomacy and, more importantly for other countries to believe and trust them? Credibility on the global stage may be hard for the US regain.
OMG, you make me want to be a better writer. Your facts are compelling in support of your argument.
I read an article in the same vein a while back which characterized war as a failure of diplomacy.
The Americans have always thought it best to back their diplomatic policy with a show of military strength. It is encouraging to hear that Collin Powell is backing Obama on his campaign for the presidency, and I hope he will be a trusted advisor. Both are prone to a more cooperative, diplomatic approach to foreign policy, and exploring all alternatives before sending Americans into battle. It takes a lot of guts when you think of it – developing personal relationships with key global leaders, looking at your enemy in the eye, veering from the scripted talking points just for a minute, and exchanging promises of peace. You are totally right – “diplomacy is not the art of the weak”.
That being said, I don’t see this changing radically when Obama is elected President. They have cranked up the fear machine so high that there seems no end in sight to the stupidity. Military supremacy runs deep within American patriotism.
Actually another major cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis was the deployment of US/NATO nukes in Turkey. The Soviets needed to respond and arming (not necessarily using) nukes in Cuba was a legitimate and justifiably necessary move on their part, strategically speaking.
I meant to add, diplomacy regarding that strategy could easily have averted the whole thing, but that was not adequately addressed until SALT.
Whoops, just realized you mentioned the Turkey situation further down. Anyhow if SALT (or some similar strategic arrangement) had existed in 1963 it is doubtful the Soviets would have helped the Cubans obtain nukes. The attitudes of US unilateralism are just as dangerous, US intelligence is much less reliable than many suppose.
How *dare* you compare America to Nazi Germany!
(Typical right-wing straw man / non-sequitor response to Chomsky when he makes similar arguments.)
Anyways, one other thing I remember reading about the Cuban missile crisis that diplomacy helped achieve was that the ‘hotline’ got established between Moscow and Washington… and some US nukes got quietly removed from Turkey (or somewhere close to the USSR, can’t exactly recall for sure).
It’s only been in the last few years that the word diplomacy has been spit out like it tasted as bad as the words liberal and intellectual. It’s an intentional and concerted campaign to remove any and all rationale from political discourse or policy.
Don’t talk about the facts; the facts are in opposition to our short term national interest. Don’t talk to our enemies; our enemies just might present justification for their position. Cowards all.
To seriousbusiness:
Im curious how you think SALT being in place could have prevented any sort of nuclear crisis. Those failed treaties did nothing to limit the amount of nukes in the world, only the number of nuclear weapons that could be placed on a single warhead. They were effectivley a waste of time.
You and Brian both pointed out that the Bush administration had it’s heart set on a specific course of action and nothing was going to change that. Good point.
Who knows why Bush decided to invade Iraq? I really find it hard to believe that he would do it all over 9/11. By the way he reacted to the New Orleans incident, I can’t see him getting all righteous and attacking for moral reasons. It was most likely a hidden agenda of some kind. 9/11 is small potatoes in comparison to the many atrocities that the US have committed over there.
Talk is indeed the answer but I don’t think that anyone in the upper government is looking to end the war anyways. It’s a sad turn of events that’s for sure… I wonder if we should all just start protesting heavily like the flower generation did for Vietnam. I also wonder if doing so would make an inkling of a difference.
Everyone seems to hate all this conflict going on, the people want the war to end, and the world seems to be split between people that are opposed and shocked at what’s happening and ones that are brainwashed into believing that anti-terrorism movements are the answer to all our world’s problems. If you pay attention, the word ‘terror’ is used to a saturated extent and it makes me sick. Sure terrorism is real but something about the gravity of it they portray in the media is oddly exaggerated in almost a desperate attempt to convince the people that war is the only answer. Eventually, I think that the Bush administration hopes to coerse the people into adapting the idea of fighting fire with fire instead of exploring other options. Hell, if that was the case, why don’t I just kill a homeless drug addict because he ripped me off for 10 bucks?
I’m not knowledgeable enough to comment on some of your other points but it’s clear to me that you’re not just an exceptional songwriter but also a very competent writer who expresses words that are compelling and cogent. It makes me smile to know that there are people like you that are able to create some kind of non-violent opposition to the bullshit going on around us. Thank you,
Dustin
dude…that was epic!
Further Saddam
——————
Matt,
I think you should read more Christopher Hitchens. You write very well indeed (better than me certainly) and convincingly. I think you would pick up some interesting arguments to your positions from him.
The irony in the example you use is that Chamberlain believed he had indeed “peace in our time”. That was the irony – not the fact that he ever tried to reason with someone like Hitler.
Look, we ultimately had a second world war for two reasons – Churchill and Hitler. They were both war monger lovers as were both Bush and Saddam. You pick your side. Were young German soldiers killed in the prime of their lives any less tragic than my dead relatives?
Personally I am disgusted by the war and protested the war while in university in 2003 and 2004. I make that disclaimer. As the nightmare unfolded and we learned more about Abu Ghraib and Fallujah I also came to understand more the horrible history of that country. It is certainly the grand failure of the Bush Administration but it is not a text-book history, nor will it ever be – maybe that is the tragedy.
The 1991 war never really ended and it probably started sometime in 1967. The international community had failed Iraq with ‘blood-for-oil’ sanctions. A Rwanda on the Euphrates in a keystone state in the world economy was probably inevitable without some international action. Lest you think Iran or Saudi Arabia or Turkey would’ve adequately handled an imploded post-Saddam state. Abu Nidal and Abu al-Zarqawi are two terrorists who were in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam certainly had us all confused on the WMD question as well – the Niger question remains – lest you think it was entirely neoconservative conspiracy all the way down. Further, you may believe as Bob Woodward does that Bush made the decision to attack Iraq sometime between December 2002 and January 2003. And further that any appearances in the UN was an affront. But that doesn’t change the fact that the UN talks happened and that they were there to ‘talk’.
America may be the global leader in hypocrisy. But those who preach a Da Vinci code of history I think practice the same in some respect. American history is full of both heroes and villains – tragedies and comedies. And those histories are quite opaque to most of us. All our history is ultimately biography. We will never fully understand our shared history as we will never fully understand ourselves.
In all respect,
Brock
Good post Matt; def. a good read.
In reguards to McCain making fun of Obama, it was not diplomacy in general he was making those comments on. He was reffering to Obamas position of being willing to sit down with any leader without preconditions. McCains response (one that I agree with) is that by doing that, you only solidify their agendas, in the case of Iran, wiping Israel off the map. If you sit down with these guys, some of them diplomacy is not much of an option, you only make these claims legitimate and you are likely to go nowhere with talking with them. Now, McCain has said (I think during the debate) that lower levels of diplomacy should be pursued, but to sit down with the President of Iran without any kind of preconditions will do far more harm than good. I believe McCain has the right stance in reguards to this; he is not pursuing a isolationist policy, or one that ignores diplomacy alltogether, just one of careful diplomacy.
In reguards the Iraq war, it astounds me how many people are misled in reguards to this. Everyone seems to think that this was something that Bush himself was hellbent on from the get-go. It wasnt. It was something that Dick Cheney and others wanted to go after, and if you really look at it, something that was inevitable. The US, before invading, were spending millions upon millions a year to enforce no fly zones and other things in reguards to Iraq. It was only a matter of time (in my mind) until the US made the plunge to remove Saddam (someone, who may I remind you, was a ruthless, oppressive dictator). Bush was not the only one to believe that Iraq was a threat. I have quotes I can give you by John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Jay D. Rockfeller, Wesley Clark and other Democrats warning about the dangers of Iraq and Saddam and how they are a threat. To say that the whole Iraq mess was JUST the brainchild of George W is just ludicrous. Yes, he pulled the trigger on it, but to say or believe that it was solely him is quite ignorant. I suppose you also believe that George Bush is stupid, but yet an evil genious as well…..
Im not saying what happened was good and right and smart, nor am I endorsing Bush and what he did do, Im merely pointing out a few things that I think people overlook. Again, good post Matt. I really enjoy readings these entries, even if I do disagree with you, because it really makes you think and gives you something to chew on….
Awesome post! I’m thinking this has been brewing a while, and while lengthy is still only the tip of the iceberg, we could talk about Panama, Chile, Argentina… the list goes on. The thing is everybody assumes that they are the “good guys” and a sad but all too common attitude is that, it’s okay to do bad things as long as it’s the “good guys” are doing it. They never stop to think that just maybe, if you’re doing bad things, you’re the equally the bad guy. It’s this very attitude that allowed the attack in Syria yesterday and will continue to allow them to do as they please. (Just to clarify, by “them” I’m not referring to American people in general, I’m referring to the psychopaths in the top 5% of power and wealth stirring this shit up to begin with.)
On another note, Rand corporation did an interesting study regarding how, statistically, terrorism ends - I strongly recommend reading it.
As soon as those jets crashed into the towers, you knew that somewhere, shortly, U.S. Marines were going to be kicking doors in somewhere. Nobody really wanted to fight at 15,000 feet, so once Special Forces and their hired guns, got done chasing Bin Ladin into Pakistan, a new battle ground was needed.
I hate to say it, but it looks like the U.S. and other troops were put in to act as Bait. If you go there, they will come. A lot of truly bad guys have been killed in Iraq. Most of Al Queda in fact. The idea that Al Queda is rebuilt is not true. They may have gotten new bodies, but they aren’t as well trained as the Old Guys were.
This, like Viet Nam and Asia, ain’t over yet and I fear Obama is just the latest in a long line of puppets for the International Capitalist Society. Didn’t Joe Biden say that Sen. Obama would be tested and that we would not agree with his response? Or didn’t the media even cover that Up North? I fear Obama will become the next President of the United States. In the fullest, best traditions of that office.
“I think you should read more Christopher Hitchens”.
I disagree.
Let’s hold the awful saying “talk is cheap” responsible. There is a lot to be said for diplomacy. It seems to be a lost art.
If we are to go back to the “loud neighbors” analogy - sometimes you cannot talk to them, they may turn out to be threatening psychopaths (personal experience), do you proceed to burn their place then? A third party mediation would be very helpful - bring in a manager, etc. On the world stage this is how things worked, conflicts were resolved directly through ambassadors or if necessary a third party would step in and negotiate an agreement. But I am thinking of almost pre-camp David. Now we have the bickering of the U.N. and nobody else is talking.
Almost forgot, when “leaders” talk in different languages, a LOT can get LOST IN TRANSLATION.
I would love to see Obama in conversation with Ahmadinejad, lawyer vs. electrical engineer.
I personally don’t think that sitting down with these people makes their claims any more legitimate, just as I don’t think that when my professors let an idiot go on a rant in class, they are making his or her opinion any more legitimate. If there happens to be a crazy homeless man that preaches about conspiracies from a street corner, do it make his views more legitimate if I walk down that street? If I acknowledge his existence? If I tell him how he’s incorrect? By simply ACKNOWLEDGING that this different viewpoint exists, am I making it legitimate?
If we cannot even acknowledge that this different viewpoint exists and learn to work around that, how are we supposed to achieve anything? If you ask me, talking to the president of Iran would not legitimize his opinions any more than bombing his nation to oppose them. And personally, I’d much rather see the first one happening than the second one. Legitimacy is completely subjective, and I don’t care if Ahmadinejad thinks his opinion is more legitimate by meeting with Obama. I don’t care which president has the bigger dick; I just want all possibly options exhausted before it comes down to war.
I think that, when we talk about parties/countries/governments/etc. with opposing interests in minds, their claims are just as legitimate as your own precisely because legitimacy is subjective. The important bit is that until you sit down to talk to the opposition, you will not know what their viewpoint is. All your information is coming from secondary sources.
p.s. “I think you should read more Christopher Hitchens”.
Chris Hedges is the one.
I think it’s a strange coincidence you are mentioning the Cuban Missile Crisis today because TODAY @ work a Cuban that fled his country when Castro was elected and took power was speaking on this topic. He believes that if Nixon would have won the Presidential race in 1961 instead of St. John, Cuba would have been invaded by the US and Castro put out of power. My Cuban friend remembers Castro promising “Change” much like Barak Obama. Unfortunately for my friend and Cuba the promised “Change” from Castro changed a flourishing progressive people to a Marxist-Leninist society accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extra-judicial executions.
On the same topic a friend of mine who teaches @ Yale Medical stated that Cuba was very advanced in it’s medical research before Castro became their leader. Since then their medical advancements have diminished.
Just some food for thought…
” I just want all possibly options exhausted before it comes down to war.”
Why do you suppose Ahmadinejad did not try Diplomacy with Jimmy Carter before the Act of War he helped lead in the 1970’s? Ahmaninejad showed a clear disdain for Talking”. I wonder why he feels the U.S. President owes him any courtesy at all?
For me, the issue with these politics comes down to the amount of faith you have in the average person, and humanity. The less faith you have in them, the more control you feel you need, so they don’t fuck up the place. Personally, from watching the news and even people in every day life, I’m rather unimpressed with people, and I don’t trust them to make the best decisions. I will never be shocked by what happens. But it is unfortunate that it does.
“In reguards the Iraq war, it astounds me how many people are misled in reguards to this. Everyone seems to think that this was something that Bush himself was hellbent on from the get-go. It wasnt. It was something that Dick Cheney and others wanted to go after, and if you really look at it, something that was inevitable.”
Um, do you not remember the FIRST Gulf War??? Pretty sure that was Bush Sr….so you see, Iraq has been in the sights of the Bush Administration for longer than just the last eight years or so….So yes, I would say he WAS hellbent on it….gotta finish the job that daddy couldn’t…
I am glad we can all be so agreeable and still disagree on who the best journalists are.
Blogic: Yes, politeness counts. : )
Quoting Robert R - “I wonder why he feels the U.S. President owes him any courtesy at all?”
I don’t think this is about what the US owes to Ahmaninejad. They owe him nothing. It’s about what the US owes to its own people and to the majority of Iranian people, who have done nothing wrong.
Ahmadinejad…I think I spelled it right this time?
Quoting:
PharmingForDissidence Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
“In reguards the Iraq war, it astounds me how many people are misled in reguards to this. Everyone seems to think that this was something that Bush himself was hellbent on from the get-go. It wasnt. It was something that Dick Cheney and others wanted to go after, and if you really look at it, something that was inevitable.”
Um, do you not remember the FIRST Gulf War??? Pretty sure that was Bush Sr….so you see, Iraq has been in the sights of the Bush Administration for longer than just the last eight years or so….So yes, I would say he WAS hellbent on it….gotta finish the job that daddy couldn’t…
I have to say that is a rather flimsy and illogical argument. It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who really pushed hard for an invasion in Iraq; Bush ultimately decided to go to war but it was something of an agenda pushed on him by Cheney and Rumsfeld among others in the administration. Like I said, in my mind it was inevitable at somepoint due to the millions the US were spending keeping an eye on Iraq.
Re: RyanSadler
“On the same topic a friend of mine who teaches @ Yale Medical stated that Cuba was very advanced in it’s medical research before Castro became their leader. Since then their medical advancements have diminished.”
I’m curious where your friend at Yale got that information? From typical USA propoganda, or does she actually somehow know firsthand? Because I’ve always heard Cuba has some of the best doctors in the world..
Oops, propaganda*
RyanSadler Says:
“I think it’s a strange coincidence you are mentioning the Cuban Missile Crisis today because TODAY @ work a Cuban that fled his country when Castro was elected and took power was speaking on this topic. He believes that if Nixon would have won the Presidential race in 1961 instead of St. John, Cuba would have been invaded by the US and Castro put out of power. My Cuban friend remembers Castro promising “Change” much like Barak Obama. Unfortunately for my friend and Cuba the promised “Change” from Castro changed a flourishing progressive people to a Marxist-Leninist society accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extra-judicial executions.
On the same topic a friend of mine who teaches @ Yale Medical stated that Cuba was very advanced in it’s medical research before Castro became their leader. Since then their medical advancements have diminished.”
Wow your work friend must be really old since Castro took power in 1959. Why is he not retired? I’m sure if he stayed in Cuba he at least wouldn’t still have to be working at his age. Did he not mention while he was at it that Castro took power through a MILITARY COUP, not an election? If you think the previous brutal, foreign-interest serving government under Batista was “flourishing and progressive”, maybe you should actually read about it. Since the US supported Batista, I’m sure any government and thus quality of life after a US coup would be pretty much the same as it was with him in power… or worse, if you look at the example we see today in Iraq!
As for your buddy who teaches at Yale… well I guess that says a lot about US universities, or the US anti-socialist propaganda machine at least. Considering that in the 1950’s most of the advancements in medical technology that cubans (and the rest of us) enjoy today had not even been conceived of, I don’t see how it could possibly have diminished. If that was true, nobody would be going to Cuba for medical treatment. Do you have any idea what medicine was like in the 50’s? Let’s put it this way - when you went to the dentist, there was no anaesthetic… just a bottle of hard alcohol, at best. Maybe nobody told your buddy the Yale professor that.
Sorry to come off attacking, this just sounds like a bunch of misinformation with unfonfirmable, and also rather unlikely “knowledgeable sources”. I apologize if that’s not the case.
oops that’s *unconfirmable
RyanSadler:
Very slick, slipping that Palin talking point into the discussion.
Obama is not a socialist. Period.
… not that there would be anything wrong with that.
I think the US would do well to be a little bit more like Canada.
Happily there IS a middle way, as far as Capitalism vs. Communism goes.
“I have to say that is a rather flimsy and illogical argument. It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who really pushed hard for an invasion in Iraq; Bush ultimately decided to go to war but it was something of an agenda pushed on him by Cheney and Rumsfeld among others in the administration. Like I said, in my mind it was inevitable at somepoint due to the millions the US were spending keeping an eye on Iraq.”
Are you fucking kidding me??? So you are saying that this wasnt something that happened before with his father’s administration???? I wasnt disagreeing with you on the fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld, as well as others, weren’t pressuring Bush to send troops to Iraq after 9/11, but was simply stating that this is NOT the first time Iraq has been in the US government’s crosshairs….
that doesnt sound very illogical to me…but thanks for insulting my point anyway….
100% behind you on this one. God you are good, Mr. Good. Diplomacy is the way for civilize people to deal with problems and to make concessions over disputes. It is the best lesson we had from history. Not always easy, but as necessary for mankind as breathing itself. War, is something that happened long before diplomacy was even considered by the human race, on the early stages of natural evolution as a species. There really is no need for the second, ever. History is not a core subject in any educational program across the world, and Ethical education tends to be an option, however Religion can be compulsory in many countries. Perhaps if we put all these ingredients on a balance we can address where the problem lays. Oh! It seems that we already know….
I believe in diplomacy for the discussion of every single issue, and there is something which some may find unconceivable and that is, to include terrorist into diplomatic talks. I heard once a good phrase. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. Lets not close our eyes and pretend to change the world that way, we are certainly too many and we all have firm convictions. The only chance to make it, is to find out the differences and make it work.
My apologies PharmingForDissidence, I guess I read your comment wrong. The way I read it made me think you were saying that Bush wanted to go to Iraq from the get go in order to finish dad’s job, not for other reasons. My mistake.
If Obama is not a socialist he certainly is leaning that way. Unless my definition of the word is off, his tax plan could essentially be called socialistic. It involves the redistribution of wealth (and he has even said so himself so please dont try and say thats untrue)which, correct me if I’m wrong, is a very socialistic principle.