VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:08:09 03/06/04 Sat
Author: Dave Huber
Subject: Re: Aristide and Iraq
In reply to: Cousture 's message, "Aristide and Iraq" on 14:13:17 03/05/04 Fri

>Enjoying this conversation very much by the way, like
>all the political discussions I've had with you in the
>past. The fact we're not doing it privately for once
>means that other people can join in, which makes it
>even more interesting.

Muchas gracias, mon ami, if you don't mind me mixing some Spanish w/French! I agree w/you.

>You see, that's another thing I don't get. A full
>inquiry is made when a president is suspected to have
>lied about having sex with an intern, but when another
>one is suspected of lying about a war (a much more
>serious issue in my opinion, because the whole thing
>cost many lives), there's nothing? What's up with
>that? Wouldn't you like to know once and for all if he
>did indeed lie or not?

You will never get an argument out of me regarding the ridiculous persecution of Pres. Clinton over silly and minor "offenses."

And what do you mean there have been no inquiries into whether Bush lied or not? As I've stated -- and as has been reported many times in the media -- Bush utilized the exact same intel info that his predecessor did on which to base his decisions. It turns out that that info was mostly erroneous, at least in terms of what Saddam possessed regarding WMDs. The better case to be made, IMO, is why Bush went to war if there was even a modicum of doubt about the intel. You may recall that I am on record as opposing the Iraq war because I believe that a policy of "pre-emption" sets a dangerous precedent, and opens the door for other countries to use the same "excuse" if they wish to attack another country.

>My understanding of the climate that existed in the
>USA after 9-11 may be tainted (I am after all looking
>at this from the outside), but it was my understanding
>that after the attack, anyone who would have DARED to
>argue or disagree with the President's desisions would
>have been branded a traitor and would have seen his or
>her political career go up in flames. Is that not
>true? Clearly, for a little while, it did seem that
>the whole country was in the grip of some strange
>paranoia. One simply needs to look at everyone
>over-reacting to France's opposition to the war to see
>that the rules of the game had changed. Thankfully, it
>now seems to have returned to normal.

"Paranoia?" -- when four airliners are used as missiles to attack your largest city and capital? Yes, there were a few extreme nutcases who called folks who disagreed w/the Patriot Act and other things "traitors." And do we want for things to "return to normal" since it was the normal complacency that led, however indirectly, to 9/11?

>Another explanation would be that American politicians
>do not have direct access to intel, they only see what
>the President chooses to let them see, is that not
>correct?

No, that's not correct. Members of the House and Senate Intel Committees are privy to much the same intel info as the president. Why do you think the pres. had to appeal to Congress for authorization for an attack on Iraq? How did he manage to sway so many's opinions? (The vote to authorize military action was overwhelmingly in the president's favor.) Don't you think that reps. and senators would want to have a look at the intel? Sure -- and they did!

>Maybe I have more faith in the US military than you
>do, but I just don't see how an efficient well-oiled
>machine like that with the high tech equipment at
>their disposal could have failed to find them after
>all this time. Besides, as I remember, the Bush
>administration was quite categorical when talking
>about the presence of WMDs. There was no "maybes" or
>"perhaps" about it, the way they went on about it, it
>was an absolute certainty. They even went as far as
>quantifying it, Powell said the Iraqis had "between
>100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents. That is
>enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets". He
>also talked to the UN of mobile labs (with setellite
>photos)... The official transcript of Powell's address
>is here: www.un.int/usa

You are correct in your above assessment. Bush was pretty darn emphatic, as were Powell and others. However, we saw in what a small "spider hole" Saddam was cooped up in, and we've seen [conventional] missiles and rockets unearthed in the desert sand as recently as one month ago. To me, this says that WMD evidence can still definitely be unearthed. After all, Saddam had over a decade to hide 'em.

>Interesting link, thanks. But the fact Clinton made
>the same connection between the two doesn't mean the
>connection is real.

That's true.

>In fact, didn't an American general called Wesley
>Clark come out and declared that right after 9-11, he
>was asked by the White House to invent a connection
>between Al Qaeda and Iraq on television?

No, he says he was called by some member of a "Mid-East think tank" who was based in, ironically enough, Canada. That person claims he never told Clark that he had to make "a connection" between al Qaeda and Saddam. Clark, throughout his brief campaign, was notorious for making claims which could not be verified and were often completely outrageous. This is most likely one of the reasons, despite his initial "favored Democratic candidate" status when he entered the race, for his meteoric drop and consequent departure from the pres. race.

>I also read
>many well-informed and well-researched expert analysis
>over the monthes that say Hussein and Ben Laden
>actually hated each other since Hussein had turned
>Iraq into a secular state and continually persecuted
>the Shiites, which is a documented fact. And they want
>us to believe that these two men who had every reason
>to despise each other suddenly banded together to plan
>9-11? I find that hard to believe.

Ever hear "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

>The guy I'm talking about came out after Bush's state
>of the union speech if I remember well and said that
>there was no evidence of what Bush had said. It's
>fuzzy in my memory, do you know what I'm talking about?

No, sorry.

>Oui, cher ami, absolument. But the US was not acting
>unilaterally in this case, all of the NATO allies
>agreed to act together. Action was clearly necessary,
>I don't remember anyone disagreeing about that at the
>time. Ethnic cleansing was being carried out.

The US was (is) not acting unilaterally in Iraq, now, either!

There is also nothing in the NATO Charter that allowed NATO to intervene in Kosovo/Yugoslavia. NATO is a collective security organization designed for collective defense. How was Kosovo/Yugoslavia/Serbia a threat to any NATO country? It wasn't. Even so, what right does any organization have to defy any nation's sovereignty?

>As for the US bugging out of other nations' internal
>affairs, I agree. Having said that, the USA still has
>a big role to play in international matters and should
>take action (not unilaterally, but along with other
>countries) when atrocities are being committed and
>defenseless populations are being massacred.

See my above. But ultimately, IMO, this is a role for the UN, not NATO or other organizations. Unfortunately, the UN is too often a eunuch when it comes to acting to prevent slaughters like Kosovo's, or worse, Rwanda's. What happens then? What if other organizations like NATO refuse to act? Why shouldn't the US or other nations willing to do so, do it alone? (Again, recall that the US did NOT act alone in the current Iraq conflict.)

>Had happened, yes. Was still happening, no.

Maybe not on the scale of Kosovo's at the time. Besides, which, Kosovo's "genocide" only (and I really do hesitate to say "only," but for the sake of comparison) amounted to some 2000 killed. There were more killed on 9/11.

>The situation in Haiti is quite different. It is not a
>case of ethnic cleansing like Kosovo or Rwanda. This
>was a clash between armed factions, rebels and forces
>loyal to Aristide.

So, killings have to be racially or ethnically motivated to require intervention? If there is "just" a civil war which kills thousands of people, there should be no intervention?

>Ah... so they have actual power in government
>decision-making?

Yes, some. There can be an effective voting bloc in certain cases.

>Have you read it or parts of it?

At this point I've only read about it, from both POVs, and have seen him interviewed on TV about the book.

>Absolutely, and I think it's important to know what it
>is that actually happened, which is why an enquiry is
>necessary.

There've already been several congressional hearings on the matter, and so far it's Aristide's word against everyone in the US government.

>Sure, is this a democracy or not? This is a very
>serious allegation made by the former ruler of another
>country, it can't just be ignored. If the Bush
>administration has nothing to hide, let them just come
>out and say what happened. Shouldn't they own their
>decisions and their consequences? I'm sure they did
>what they felt was the best thing, now let the people
>be the judge of that in the upcoming election. That's
>the way I see it anyways...

The administration has come out and said what happened. Don't worry, however -- there will be more investigations into the matter, since this is an election year!

>Racial politics... your country will always remain a
>strange foreign land to me I'm afraid. Then again, I
>suppose things are similar here but are linguistic
>instead of racial...

Indeed.

>You make a very valid point and you are absolutely
>right of course. But I just wish that the UN would
>receive such a mandate and that it would be allowed to
>intervene in cases where human rights are baffled and
>mass killings are taking place. As Rwanda has shown,
>the current system of international diplomacy and
>everyone looking out for their own (usually financial)
>interests is slow, unefficient and terribly biased.

Ultimately, I would too, as I stated above. And, I believe we traded some ideas about how to reform the UN to make it more effective in dealing w/such tragedies. But no matter what, there will always be dissension about getting involved in another country's affairs depending on strategic importance, economic importance, and/or political importance.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.