al-Qaida number 2 killed

[BigRob]

Yes, it is my interpretation, which has since been supported by the invasion of Iraq.

What???

It is some twisted reality in which a groups goals apparently mean something entirely different than stated, and your "evidence" to prove those goals is a war that was waged for entirely different reasons that you are claiming.

You seriously should think through what you are actually saying here.

 

[PLC1]

What???

It is some twisted reality in which a groups goals apparently mean something entirely different than stated, and your "evidence" to prove those goals is a war that was waged for entirely different reasons that you are claiming.

You seriously should think through what you are actually saying here.

Are you suggesting that PNAC members and supporters Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq? Really?

 

[BigRob]

Are you suggesting that PNAC members and supporters Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq? Really?

Now you are changing the entire argument...is it PNAC's ideology that is so flawed, or is your argument simply that some (and gloss over all those who were not) people who ascribe to PNAC were in positions of power when the invasion took place?

Not to mention, the arguments made about the reasons for war do not really fall into line with PNAC's stated ideology.

Have you taken the time to read Cheney's and Rumsfeld's books on the matter to glean their perspective on the lead up to the war?

 

[PLC1]

Now you are changing the entire argument...is it PNAC's ideology that is so flawed, or is your argument simply that some (and gloss over all those who were not) people who ascribe to PNAC were in positions of power when the invasion took place?

Not to mention, the arguments made about the reasons for war do not really fall into line with PNAC's stated ideology.

Have you taken the time to read Cheney's and Rumsfeld's books on the matter to glean their perspective on the lead up to the war?

No, as a matter of fact, I haven't. If I did, would I find that invading Iraq was somehow not supported by the PNAC agenda?

 

[BigRob]

No, as a matter of fact, I haven't. If I did, would I find that invading Iraq was somehow not supported by the PNAC agenda?

Here you go with their so-called "agenda" again...there "agenda" has been pretty clearly laid out in this thread numerous times now...

In that "agenda" you will not find preemptive war as a policy, you will not find Iraq specifically targeted...

You will find:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

You are simply attempting to redefine these points in hindsight to fall into your preconceived notions of what you think they mean to other people...that is absurd.

I ask again...why in your mind does modernizing the military somehow equate to preconceived plans to invade Iraq? Why does "challenge regimes hostile to our interests" suddenly mean preemptive attacks? There is no basis for your argument in reality.

 

[PLC1]

Here you go with their so-called "agenda" again...there "agenda" has been pretty clearly laid out in this thread numerous times now...

In that "agenda" you will not find preemptive war as a policy, you will not find Iraq specifically targeted...

You will find:


You are simply attempting to redefine these points in hindsight to fall into your preconceived notions of what you think they mean to other people...that is absurd.

I ask again...why in your mind does modernizing the military somehow equate to preconceived plans to invade Iraq? Why does "challenge regimes hostile to our interests" suddenly mean preemptive attacks? There is no basis for your argument in reality.

I'll not find preemptive war as an agenda?

I already addressed the issue of the PNAC wanting to invade Iraq back in the Clinton Era right here.

From their website again:

There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

"Greater Middle East"? Which country would they have us invade next? If they don't want us to invade anyone, why do we need greater ground forces?

Unfortunately, Sudan's barbarity almost certainly will continue in the absence of effective action and U.S. leadership. The failure of world nations to force Sudan to change its behavior is merely the latest reminder of a fact we should have learned since the end of the Cold War -- in the Balkans, in Rwanda and in Iraq. The United Nations is slow and weak, and the United States, especially when waiting on the United Nations, is itself often too slow to act.

The United States will eventually act on Darfur. After the election President Bush or President Kerry will not sit by and permit the second genocide in Africa in a decade. We will intervene -- belatedly. The question is how belatedly, and how effectively.

"Act on Darfur?" Are we talking about humanitarian aid, perhaps, or some sort of sanctions?

It's obvious that the PNAC favors the US solving the world's problems through military strength. Now, we can debate whether or not that policy is a good idea, but are we really going to try to say that the agenda of the PNAC is not what they've stated that it is?

 

[BigRob]

I'll not find preemptive war as an agenda?

I already addressed the issue of the PNAC wanting to invade Iraq back in the Clinton Era right here.

You can only arrive at that conclusion if you misread the letter....

First, the letter begins that containment of Iraq is failing...that is something that was readily accepted by everyone (including weapons inspectors), and even those "anti-war" Democrats of today.

You also need to look at the context of what is going on around this time. Iraq is almost daily attacking US and UK aircraft on patrol in the no-fly zones.

PNAC argues: "This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."

If anything the letter is advocating that all options must be on the table, and that the United States cannot afford to look "weak" when dealing with dictators like Saddam. (Ironically, Saddam actually cited decades of US policy that made the nation look weak as why he continually ignored UNSC Resolutions etc).

Further, what are "military steps"? That hardly means invasion like you seem to automatically equate it with. It can mean something as simple as an air-strike against Iraqi air defense installations to protect pilots enforcing the no-fly zones..which is actually exactly what happened following the passing of the Iraq Liberation Act this same year which did exactly what this letter stated.

As noted in the letter, the "long term" goal needs to be the removal of Saddam. That in no way equates to immediate invasion to enact regime change, in fact is argues for the opposite.

"Greater Middle East"? Which country would they have us invade next? If they don't want us to invade anyone, why do we need greater ground forces?

"Ongoing missions in the Greater Middle East" somehow means that we are going to start invading everyone in the region? Hardly. It simply means that we have a major commitment of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (especially in 2005 when that testimony occurred) and that to ensure civilian policy makers have the ability to respond globally to other threats while maintaining our commitment to the region we need to expand manpower.

"Act on Darfur?" Are we talking about humanitarian aid, perhaps, or some sort of sanctions?

Well, it certainly is not clear that we are talking about military intervention, which you somehow seem to automatically equate with that statement.

It's obvious that the PNAC favors the US solving the world's problems through military strength.

This is simply false...the PNAC favors maintaining a strong military so that we can combat threats to American interests. That hardly means we go around invading everyone, nor does it mean we don't pursue other avenues.

Now, we can debate whether or not that policy is a good idea, but are we really going to try to say that the agenda of the PNAC is not what they've stated that it is?

Well, their stated agenda is not what you are claiming it is...so yes, it appears we need to have this debate.

The problem here is that your underlying assumptions are flawed, and therefore even if you proceed logically from those assumptions, your conclusion is still wrong. PNAC's goals are what they have stated, and they have not stated that their goal is to invade country after country to impose "make the world America" as it were.

 

[PLC1]

You can only arrive at that conclusion if you misread the letter....

First, the letter begins that containment of Iraq is failing...that is something that was readily accepted by everyone (including weapons inspectors), and even those "anti-war" Democrats of today.

You also need to look at the context of what is going on around this time. Iraq is almost daily attacking US and UK aircraft on patrol in the no-fly zones.

PNAC argues: "This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."

If anything the letter is advocating that all options must be on the table, and that the United States cannot afford to look "weak" when dealing with dictators like Saddam. (Ironically, Saddam actually cited decades of US policy that made the nation look weak as why he continually ignored UNSC Resolutions etc).

Further, what are "military steps"? That hardly means invasion like you seem to automatically equate it with. It can mean something as simple as an air-strike against Iraqi air defense installations to protect pilots enforcing the no-fly zones..which is actually exactly what happened following the passing of the Iraq Liberation Act this same year which did exactly what this letter stated.

As noted in the letter, the "long term" goal needs to be the removal of Saddam. That in no way equates to immediate invasion to enact regime change, in fact is argues for the opposite.



"Ongoing missions in the Greater Middle East" somehow means that we are going to start invading everyone in the region? Hardly. It simply means that we have a major commitment of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (especially in 2005 when that testimony occurred) and that to ensure civilian policy makers have the ability to respond globally to other threats while maintaining our commitment to the region we need to expand manpower.



Well, it certainly is not clear that we are talking about military intervention, which you somehow seem to automatically equate with that statement.



This is simply false...the PNAC favors maintaining a strong military so that we can combat threats to American interests. That hardly means we go around invading everyone, nor does it mean we don't pursue other avenues.



Well, their stated agenda is not what you are claiming it is...so yes, it appears we need to have this debate.

The problem here is that your underlying assumptions are flawed, and therefore even if you proceed logically from those assumptions, your conclusion is still wrong. PNAC's goals are what they have stated, and they have not stated that their goal is to invade country after country to impose "make the world America" as it were.

Their stated goals is not merely to have a credible defense, but to be able to use US troops against whoever we see as a problem in the world.

Their goal may not be to "invade country after country", but their idea is that anyone who is doing whatever our government has deemed to be unacceptable would risk seeing its skies full of US warplanes or its cities full of US troops.

And if invasion is not at least a part of the equation, why maintain larger numbers of "boots"?

 

[BigRob]

Their stated goals is not merely to have a credible defense, but to be able to use US troops against whoever we see as a problem in the world.

I have not gotten that from any of their stated goalss

Their goal may not be to "invade country after country", but their idea is that anyone who is doing whatever our government has deemed to be unacceptable would risk seeing its skies full of US warplanes or its cities full of US troops.

I don't think this is exactly true either.

And if invasion is not at least a part of the equation, why maintain larger numbers of "boots"?

To be able to respond globally to any scenario that arises anywhere.

 

[PLC1]

I have not gotten that from any of their stated goalss



I don't think this is exactly true either.



To be able to respond globally to any scenario that arises anywhere.

Respond how and to what? Responding militarily to "any scenario" sounds a lot like the same interpretation I got from reading their website.

 

[BigRob]

Respond how and to what? Responding militarily to "any scenario" sounds a lot like the same interpretation I got from reading their website.

Respond by having all options on the table, and being able to handle rising threats.

If lost our ability to act anywhere in the world in the manner of our choosing, do you think countries would be more or less likely to start actively challenging the US...thus making the world a far more dangerous place.

 

[PLC1]

Respond by having all options on the table, and being able to handle rising threats.

If lost our ability to act anywhere in the world in the manner of our choosing, do you think countries would be more or less likely to start actively challenging the US...thus making the world a far more dangerous place.

I'm not sure. I have noticed, however, that you've shifted from trying to say that the agenda of the PNAC isn't to respond militarily to whatever happens around the globe to defending that agenda.

 

[BigRob]

I'm not sure. I have noticed, however, that you've shifted from trying to say that the agenda of the PNAC isn't to respond militarily to whatever happens around the globe to defending that agenda.

I have simply said all along that PNAC (and myself in this regard) feel that the US should have the option to respond to any crisis that arises...part of that requires having the military option on the table.

That however does not mean that the automatic response is invasion, or something like that.

 

[PLC1]

I have simply said all along that PNAC (and myself in this regard) feel that the US should have the option to respond to any crisis that arises...part of that requires having the military option on the table.

That however does not mean that the automatic response is invasion, or something like that.

No, not necessarily invasion. The goal of the PNAC is to be able to invade whatever nation they think needs invading as a part of responding to any crisis that arises.
As an example, they saw Iraq as a situation that required a military response, which is what they got. The results of that invasion have been a blow to the agenda of the PNAC, or so it seems. No one is anxious to invade any more nations, at least not for a while. Even sending planes to Libya as a part of an international response to human rights abuses has drawn fire.

I would have thought that the Vietnam non war would have been enough to disabuse the US of the idea that military power could be used to force other nations to do our bidding, but perhaps that particular lesson hasn't yet been learned.

We are 5% of the population of the world. We have the ability to protect ourselves. That should be enough, IMO.

 

[BigRob]

No, not necessarily invasion. The goal of the PNAC is to be able to invade whatever nation they think needs invading as a part of responding to any crisis that arises.

I see no problem with ensuring that we have the capability to protect our interests around the world.

As an example, they saw Iraq as a situation that required a military response, which is what they got. The results of that invasion have been a blow to the agenda of the PNAC, or so it seems. No one is anxious to invade any more nations, at least not for a while. Even sending planes to Libya as a part of an international response to human rights abuses has drawn fire.

It has drawn fire because the administration was unable to make any case at all as to why it was in our national interest to participate in Libya. They even admitted that we had no interest there.

In Iraq, I think the Bush Administration made an initial case for why our interests were at stake in Iraq, but it was based on bad intelligence.

I would have thought that the Vietnam non war would have been enough to disabuse the US of the idea that military power could be used to force other nations to do our bidding, but perhaps that particular lesson hasn't yet been learned.

I'm not sure we got involved in Vietnam to "force other nations to do our bidding."

We are 5% of the population of the world. We have the ability to protect ourselves. That should be enough, IMO.

I don't see what our percentage of population of the world has to do with anything....we need the ability to protect our interests at all times, and have a military capable of completing the missions we assign it...regardless of all other factors.