New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 23, 2005

Has the Bush adminstration gone realist? Or has it just finally rolled its point in the great foreign-policy-philosophy crapshoot? Michael Young investigates.

Comments

|9.23.05 @ 2:43PM|#

"If the United States succeeds in ousting Assad (and even if it does not), it has adopted a strategy that is almost the exact opposite of the Iraqi one."

and how much do you want to bet that the left (namely M1EK and joe) will be the first to critisize it. SO it begs the question if you don't want to remove tyrants from power using ANY stratagy then doesn't this essentially mean that you support tyrants???

|9.23.05 @ 2:48PM|#

"SO it begs the question if you don't want to remove tyrants from power using ANY stratagy then doesn't this essentially mean that you support tyrants???"

Not that I'm much of one to defend Joe and M1EK, but: No. It could only mean that if by opposing wealth re-distribution it means that you support infant mortality caused by poverty. It's called creating a logical fallacy to argue with, and it really doesn't accomplish anything as far as meaningful discussion is concerned. So let's avoid creating straw-men, and address the actual issue, if it is ever raised.

Phil|9.23.05 @ 2:54PM|#

and how much do you want to bet that the left (namely M1EK and joe) will be the first to critisize it. SO it begs the question if you don't want to remove tyrants from power using ANY stratagy then doesn't this essentially mean that you support tyrants???

Spot the logical fallacies! Play along at home!!

1. "the left" = two guys? Neither of whom is even particularly leftist and are pretty much mainstream Democrats?

2. Shitting on them for opinions neither one of them have ever stated the hold is both mindreading and stupid.

3. joe has, in fact, stated his preferred means of hastening tyrants from their thrones -- at least as regards Hussein -- right here on H&R.

4. It is entirely, logically possible both 1) that each despot's methods and circumstances are unique and require individual methods of being dealt with, and 2) that we have chosen wrongly in the cases of both Saddam and Assad, and thus criticizing both situations would be not only not wrong, but completely logical.

|9.23.05 @ 2:59PM|#

Democrats aren't the left?

|9.23.05 @ 3:00PM|#

"It's called creating a logical fallacy to argue with, and it really doesn't accomplish anything as far as meaningful discussion is concerned. So let's avoid creating straw-men, and address the actual issue, if it is ever raised."

I don't know...i am having a problem with this whole strawman thing...i have even used it against other people as you have used it against me...but isn't every argument a strawman argument? Do we hae to make assumptions about another person or idiology in order to counter it?

Anyway i really don't think Joe and M1EK are for Tyrants or even the left in general...but they are agianst Bush no matter what he does. All i am doing is pointing out possible conflicts with this stance.

TallDave|9.23.05 @ 3:01PM|#

No, they really believe the Sharansky doctrine of universal human freedom. And that will be U.S. policy till 2008, come Iraqi hell or New Orleans high water.

God bless 'em.

Shannon Love|9.23.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Labels like "realist" are post-hoc descriptions slapped on others usually by academicians. The labels don't have any predictive value in deciding how a given will react to events.

I have always found the idea that real-world decision makers are governed by overarching ideologies to be at variance with reality. Whether in government or business, decision makers usually just grab whatever tool they think will work best in a particular circumstance. They seldom reject a particular tool because it doesn't fit some ideological mold.

Real world decision making is a process akin to whitewater rafting down an uncharted river. Decisions must be made quickly using incomplete information. Any label we subsequently slap on such a process will be a cartoonish description at best.

The only way to truly understand the decision making process of others is to understand their causality models. When people disagree about a course of action it is usually because they have fundamentally different models of how events will work out. Strangely, it is common in political debates to judge the actions of others based on the idea that they have the exact same causality model as the critic.

|9.23.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Shannon,
Taht people's decisions are more complicated than the simplistic labels that are used to categorize them is a truism, a label, such as 'realist', categorizes someone as tending to believe in one set of values and assumptions over others. Realists take a relatively narrow view of national interest, and are relatively ambivalent about the methods attempting to realize those interests.

|9.23.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Shannon - This is at least the 3rd or 4th time you've come through with actual insightful analysis that is germaine to the discussion rather than staking out some tired piece of the talking points landscape.

If you keep intruding with common sense and actual anlysis on threads where a good squalling match is underway, then I'm afraid thoreau may lose his title as the only sensible person posting here.

Disrupting an established flow of posts in which the writers are rhetorically bashing each other over the head with true gusto isn't something you should do very often, tho, or it will lower the number of entertaining pratfalls on these boards.

|9.23.05 @ 3:59PM|#

Here you go Rob:

"In working through the United Nations Security Council (which in September 2004 adopted Resolution 1559 demanding a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon), in coordinating closely with France and other allies, in avoiding the use of force and even UN sanctions, in feeding off mass democratic protests in Lebanon after Hariri's killing, and in backing a UN investigation into the assassination that might lead to the creation of some sort of international court�in doing all those things, the Bush administration has not only navigated well within the norms set by hardcore multilateralists and international law, it has participated in an almost ideal model of how the UN can alter state behavior without violence."

Of course we all know that's impossible after Bush's go-it-alone approach ended any chance of the US being able to work within the international community effectively. I was certain I'd heard this sort of thing would be the first casualty of the Iraq war somewhere from someone, at some time...

|9.23.05 @ 4:00PM|#

Here you go Rob:

"In working through the United Nations Security Council (which in September 2004 adopted Resolution 1559 demanding a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon), in coordinating closely with France and other allies, in avoiding the use of force and even UN sanctions, in feeding off mass democratic protests in Lebanon after Hariri's killing, and in backing a UN investigation into the assassination that might lead to the creation of some sort of international court�in doing all those things, the Bush administration has not only navigated well within the norms set by hardcore multilateralists and international law, it has participated in an almost ideal model of how the UN can alter state behavior without violence."

Of course we all know that's impossible after Bush's go-it-alone approach ended any chance of the US being able to work within the international community effectively. I was certain I'd heard this sort of thing would be the first casualty of the Iraq war somewhere from someone, at some time...

(Also, the servers still aren't working.)

|9.23.05 @ 4:06PM|#

"The Bush Doctrine" does not refer to regime changin' and democracy spreadin'. The Bush Doctrine - the only one written into the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002 - refers to the the waging of pre-emptive war against nations that could be developing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

As much as chastened hawks might want to shove that document down the memory hole, Google never forgets.

|9.23.05 @ 4:07PM|#

JDM - That was a response to me how? Hey, I agree with you on this one...

Oh, wait, you were contributing to actual discussion - that's why it's a response to me. Now I get why it was a response to me! (Sorry, I'm in a bit of a hze today.)

|9.23.05 @ 4:11PM|#

But we can always count on joe to come along and point to something totally peripheral, like how much he dislikes the idea that a nation might choose to strike pre-emptively before another nation carries out it's plan of attack.

I wonder if joe thinks it would have been wrong to attack the Japanese fleet off the islands of Hawaii before they attacked Pearl Harbor...

|9.23.05 @ 4:11PM|#

rob,

Actually, I was expecting to stir up some rhetorical gusto for you with that. Forgot to paste in the relevant quote from you.

|9.23.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Mr. Corning,

In fact, I have repeatedly urged that such strategies be adopted as our foreign policy. For my trouble, people like you have dismissed my arguments as "pie in the sky" - despite the ongoing catastophe your preferred alternative is creating in Iraq.

Thank you, Phil.

TallDave, virtually everyone believes in the universality of human freedom. The trouble comes when we discuss how to get from A to B.

Shannon, I think that you are right, for the most part. But the behavior of this administration in regards to Iraq - from the small number of troops used to the certainty that Ahmed Chalabi will be swept into power to the dismissal of the State Department's "Future of Iraq Project" to the creation of the "Office of Special Plans" to refute the CIA intelligence that just HAD to be wrong to the staffing of the CPA with wholly-unqualified political appointees based on their partisan and ideological loyalty marks the Iraq endevor as an exception to the general rule. This was, quite possibly, the most ideological foreign policy adventure in our lifetimes.

|9.23.05 @ 4:19PM|#

rob, "...like how much he dislikes the idea that a nation might choose to strike pre-emptively before another nation carries out it's plan of attack."

You misunderstand. Pre-emptive strikes against nations preparing to attack us has always been a part of our, and every nation's, national security doctrine. Neither I, nor Dennis Kucinich, nor Ralph Nader, objects to such a policy.

The Bush Doctrine goes well beyond this, and states that we will wage pre-emptive war on nation's that COULD plan to attack us at some time in the future, based on their efforts to acquire unconventional weapons. It's the difference between being quicker on the draw in a gunfight, and shooting a guy because he has a gun.

|9.23.05 @ 4:29PM|#

Well, shooting a guy because he has a gun, and he's a prick.

|9.23.05 @ 4:30PM|#

joe,

The Bush Doctrine discusses "preventative war."

Shannon Love,

I have always found the idea that real-world decision makers are governed by overarching ideologies to be at variance with reality.

I've always found that they are in fact governed by overarching ideologies but that such ideologies aren't exactly rigid either. Then again, I believe that memes exist and you apparently don't.

Decisions must be made quickly using incomplete information.

Those decisions are in turn plugged into the mental framework of the particular individuals in charge.

|9.23.05 @ 4:32PM|#

joe - I'm not sure that we're going to agree that your interpretation is what the so-called "Bush Doctrine" actually advocates.

What you write sounds like this: "For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack."

Which is further elaborated as this: "The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world�s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather."

It even goes on to say "We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
� build better, more integrated intelligence
capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
� coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
� continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.

The purpose of our actions will always be to
eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."

All of the quotes come from "The National
Security Strategy of the United States of America," 2002.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf)

Doesn't sound much like shooting someone for woning a gun (or a nation for having a military) but more like a sensible approach to recent threat changes.

|9.23.05 @ 4:39PM|#

rob,

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats...

From the standpoint of theory that is not pre-emption though. This is indeed preventative war, something which has generally not found support in the writings of internationa law scholars like Grotius.

|9.23.05 @ 4:42PM|#

'The Bush Doctrine discusses "preventative war."'

Yes, it does. And try as I might to point out the distinction, its supporters, like rob, always run themselves ragged blurring the distinction.

rob,

Whether it represents and intelligent policy or not is a discussion for another time. And, of course, every government is going to describe its policies in the most favorable sounding terms, like promising that our preventive actions will be wise and multilateral, or saying that we will not "always" start these preventive wars, or by burying a radical change in a "Yet" statement that appears immediately after a statement of the policy's dangers.

Nonetheless, my two points remain. 1) "The Bush Doctrine" refers to this policy of pre-emptive/preventative war, not to regime-change-for-the-sake-of-univeral-freedom-democray-and-a-pony. 2) This doctrine represents a change in foreign policy from our long-existing policy of pre-emption, to include "emerging" and "gathering" threats.

|9.23.05 @ 4:44PM|#

BTW, I know you are all going to scream at me for suggesting it, but you should read Richard Tuck's The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant for a pretty thorough discussion of these issues. :)

|9.23.05 @ 4:46PM|#

To get back to Young's original point, I think some of Bush's second term diplomacy has been fairly deft. I'm thinking of his stances towards Lebanon and Ukraine.

Condi Rice is a much better Sec. of State than she was a National Security Advisor.

|9.23.05 @ 5:05PM|#

Hakluyt - I didn't see any reason to point that out, since joe and I were talking about the same subject: the so-called "Bush Doctrine" regarding pre-emptive/preventative war.

I've noticed that people tend to poke me in the eye (figuratively!) if I point out that the technical term and the widely accepted term dont exactly mean the same thing.

joe - Your point seemed to me to be "that we will wage pre-emptive war on nation's that COULD plan to attack us at some time in the future, based on their efforts to acquire unconventional weapons" (at 04:19 PM) not that the doctrine has changed "to include 'emerging' and 'gathering' threats" (at 04:42 PM).

While I agree with the second depiction, I didn't agree with the first - and still don't.

I think that your second description of the "Bush Doctrine" is both more accurate, less bellicose, and nothing like your claim that it is the "difference between being quicker on the draw in a gunfight, and shooting a guy because he has a gun."

|9.23.05 @ 5:11PM|#

rob, I gotta say, the difference between a preventive war and a pre-emptive war is hell of a lot bigger than the difference between "an emerging threat" and "nations that COULD plan to attack us at some time in the future."

|9.23.05 @ 5:16PM|#

Yep. And I gotta say that one is actually part of the national security strategy of the United States, and one is simply the misunderstanding of national secuirty strategy that seems to be touted frequently by people with an ideological axe to grind.

Shannon Love|9.23.05 @ 5:24PM|#

Joe,

"his was, quite possibly, the most ideological foreign policy adventure in our lifetimes."

Horsefeathers. Anyone of any era who is caught up in the politics of the moment always believe that their opposition represents some historically unique level of badness. I have been listening to refrains of "this administration is worst ever at X" for 25+ years. The refrain never changes. Even if you want to get into specifics is it really plausible to say that Bush is more ideological than say Reagan or JFK?

Moreover, ideological implies driven by ideals. What ideals do you think control Bush's foreign policy? I am betting that anything you could come up with would be so generic as to be applicable to any conceivable American administration.

|9.23.05 @ 5:25PM|#

In other news, I can't believe I actually typed "preventative." Sheesh.

|9.23.05 @ 5:36PM|#

Shannon Love,

Moreover, ideological implies driven by ideals.

Untrue. Ideology refers to ideas, beliefs, etc. about the way we live. The notion that decision-makers don't think inside a specific set of beliefs, etc. about how the world works is just downright dumb Shannon. Indeed, its as dumb as a bag of rocks.

|9.23.05 @ 5:50PM|#

"Strangely, it is common in political debates to judge the actions of others based on the idea that they have the exact same causality model as the critic."

I am not so sure i agree with this...i am perfectly capable of holding another persons "causality model" in my head and compare and contrast my own model against it...I guess I just don't see a differnce between a causality model and personal philosophy or a political idiology...what is the difference?

|9.23.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Joe

"regime-change-for-the-sake-of-univeral-freedom-democray-and-a-pony."

I am confused as to why this can't be included..or why can't supporters of such actions support bush...I mean why is this even an important point. I still get my regime change and pony despite what is written in some document called "the bush doctrine". Can't support an action for my own reasons? Or do i have to do it for what you say those reasons are?

Shannon Love|9.23.05 @ 6:11PM|#

Hakluyt,

Yes, people have ideal. beliefs etc but the ideals, beliefs etc of different decision makers within the US government don't differ to any significant degree. Decision makers tend to make similar decisions in similar circumstance regardless of their presumed ideologies. The pragmatic considerations of each particular circumstance usually overwhelm any ideological gloss. You have to move across cultural lines or move from say democratic to totalitarian before you find significant divergence.

One of the great advantages of democratic decision making is the fact that it is driven more by pragmatism than ideology. Even if an individual starts out as an ideologue, the need to make real decisions for which the electorate will hold them accountable rationalizes their behavior. Its the same basic mechanism by which the freemarket rationalizes the behavior of businesses.

Only those who have to answer to a narrow elite have the luxury of making decisions based on abstract ideologies. Authoritarian decision makers systemically make poor decisions precisely because their political systems do not rationalize their behavior.

|9.23.05 @ 6:11PM|#

"To get back to Young's original point, I think some of Bush's second term diplomacy has been fairly deft. I'm thinking of his stances towards Lebanon and Ukraine.

Condi Rice is a much better Sec. of State than she was a National Security Advisor."

holy crap joe just said Bush did something right...i guess now i have to say something good about gore and kerry........
......
.....
....
gore did a good job of getting rid of governemnt red tape
.....
.....
...

...


..
Kerry is rich
:)

|9.23.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Shannon, "Anyone of any era who is caught up in the politics of the moment always believe that their opposition represents some historically unique level of badness." I didn't say badness. I said ideology.

"Even if you want to get into specifics is it really plausible to say that Bush is more ideological than say Reagan or JFK?" Do you mean the Reagan who negotiated multiple arms reduction deals with the Soviet Union, pissing off his longtime admirers like Richard Perle? Do you mean the "bear any burden" Kennedy who negotiated for the removal of missiles from Turkey, and who was about to pull the plug on the Vietnam adventure?

joshua, you can support anything for any reasons you like. And, of course, supporters of adventures like the Iraq War can, and do, support Bush. Well, some declining number of them, anyway. My point was simply that the term "Bush Doctrine" refers to a specific policy - that of atttacking countries in order to prevent them from developing WMD arsenals, and not the policy Young attributes to it, the Global Democratic Crusade.

"I mean why is this even an important point." It is somewhat important, in that it is yet another means by which Bush's supporters attempt to exhonorate him of his administration's WMD charade, and thus create a false history. Those who do not learn history...yadda yadda.

Phil|9.23.05 @ 6:34PM|#

Condi Rice is a much better Sec. of State than she was a National Security Advisor.

Unfortunately, that wasn't a very high hurdle to clear.

|9.23.05 @ 6:35PM|#

"Even if you want to get into specifics is it really plausible to say that Bush is more ideological than say Reagan or JFK?"

I suspect Reagan's foreign policy was just as ideologicaly driven as Bush's. ...The difference is competence.

...Not that Reagan never made any strategic blunders. But his overall policy--unlike the Bush Adminsitration's--was sound. ...Reagan didn't go tilting after windmills.

|9.23.05 @ 6:39PM|#

"I mean why is this even an important point." It is somewhat important, in that it is yet another means by which Bush's supporters attempt to exhonorate him of his administration's WMD charade, and thus create a false history. Those who do not learn history...yadda yadda"

I don't know but history does show that one of the reasons for regime change in iraq was democroacy and freedom and a pony...I have been consistant in supporting the action for these reasons...and Bush has been consistant to catoring to the base I belong to...I do not see how this is inconsistant with history.

|9.23.05 @ 6:41PM|#

"It is somewhat important, in that it is yet another means by which Bush's supporters attempt to exhonorate him of his administration's WMD charade, and thus create a false history. Those who do not learn history...yadda yadda." - joe

The sad thing is that joe thinks it's more important to make out that something isn't what it really is (nat'l security policy) because he fears that there may be some knucklehead trying to polish reality to suit himself regarding WMD's. (Pot calling the kettle black, anyone? "yadda yadda yadda.")

Maybe there IS a lot of effort to exonerate bad intel regarding WMD and to create a false history. Maybe I just don't run in those circles because i don't see how bad "Bush Doctrine" claims are any better than nutty "WMD intel" claims.

(Just to prove me wrong, cue someone pointing out all of the claims of Iraqi WMDs from previous administrations. I'm really tired of hearing it - it's just talking points vs. talking points, frankly.)

As Shannon so ably points out, I think that even it were "President joe," he'd have gone the same route that Bush did. (Only the rhetoric would be different.)

I certainly think that the case can be made that Gore would have done essentially the same things, and that Kerry would have handled the same sets of issues similarly. That's not to say that the situation completely dictates the decision, but was there anyone here who could tell the difference between Bush and Gore/Kerry in the electoral debates?

It all struck me the choice between regular vanilla and French vanilla with Gore. With Kerry it was like choosing between poor presentation and naked power-lust.

(Technically - tho sadly - an easier choice, as I'd choose someone who isn't a dynamic personal speaker over someone who will say anything to get their hands on the reins. Still the lesser of two evils.)

|9.23.05 @ 7:54PM|#

"I suspect Reagan's foreign policy was just as ideologicaly driven as Bush's."

No way! Reagan was of the anti-detente, hardliner school of Republican foreign policy thought. And then he turned around and stabbed his comrades (heh) in the back and got all snuggly with Gorbachev.

You know rob, we actually have a statement of our country's national security policy. It's called the National Security Strategy of the United States. Why don't you be a dear, look through the link you provided earlier, and find the part about starting wars in order to replace dictatorships with democratic regimes, mm-kay? You could perhaps look in the chapter titled "ii. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity" or maybe "vii. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies
and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy," except that neither of chapters mentions the use of military force in the lists of practices to be used to advance those goals. I can only references to the use of force in the chapters that deal with WMDs and terror groups.

But they must be in there somewhere. I sure hope you don't quote them and humiliate me! Boy, would I ever look like an ass if you did that - if you found a statement in there stating that we would 1) start wars 2) in order to change nasty regimes into democratic ones. So why don't you do that? I double dog dare you.

Unless your yella. Buk buk ba-kak!

|9.23.05 @ 7:58PM|#

Rob,

What is interesting about the "bad intel, false history line" is that as you point out, Bill Clinton and Al Gore made the very same claims prior to operation desert fox in 1998. Bill Clinton made a great case for war based on Saddam having WMDs back in 1998 and lobed more than a few JDAMS and killed more than a few Iraqis based on it. Funny, I never seem to hear Joe have much to say about what a lier Clinton was and how killed a bunch of innocent Iraqis as a result. Moreover, Saddam bluffed the world and did everything he could do to convince the world that he had them. Now Bush is a criminal and a lier for taking Saddam Hussein, someone who thought nothing of gassing Kurds and Iranians, at his word.

The truth is that nearly everyone believed that Saddam had large WMD cashes before the war. Indeed, the anti war types went from argueing that we couldn't invade Iraq because Saddam would create a toxic wasteland killing millions of innocent civilians to argueing that Bush lied about WMDs almost overnight and without missing a beat. That is not one talking point responding to another, that is fact. You can't Monday morning quarterback this stuff. Based on what was known at the time, only people Saddam's payroll seriously believed there were not vast stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq in early 2003.

People who object to the war are always long on criticism and very short on what should have been done in the alternative. Again, like WMDs, the same people who were screaming that the sanctions were immoral and killing a million Iraqi children before the war, now claim that the sanctions were viable and that Saddam could have been contained without an invasion. The truth is that the sanctions were quickly breaking down and they could not go on as they were. I have yet to hear one realistic alternative to invasion other than facing reality, droping the sanctions and letting Saddam back into the international community despite his repeated violations of the cease fire and numorous Security Council Resolutions. Only the most nieve would believe that Saddam unhindered by sanctions would not have been a serious threat to the entire region. Again, its easy to criticize and much harder to offer sollutions.

Had a President Gore invaded Iraq, I have not doubt many people screaming about Bush would have supported Gore and many Bush supporters would have objected to the war. Political opportunism is a constant. The hard left of the Kos Brigade and the Micheal Moore crowd would have crucified Gore. Because of this, Gore would have had an even harder time prosecuting the war than Bush because he would not have had a solid base.

|9.23.05 @ 8:19PM|#

"Indeed, the anti war types went from argueing that we couldn't invade Iraq because Saddam would create a toxic wasteland killing millions of innocent civilians to argueing that Bush lied about WMDs almost overnight and without missing a beat."

Does anyone else remember this one or is he the only one?

...Oh, and what is the anti-war "type"?

"People who object to the war are always long on criticism and very short on what should have been done in the alternative."

People who support the war often ignore the fact that Iraq didn't pose much of a threat under the watchful eye of the coalition.

|9.23.05 @ 8:29PM|#

Tom Crick

I would point you to left wing groups like the Physicians for Social Responsibility who argued in November 2002 that an invastion of Iraq would cause 250,000 civilian casualties and would be equal to atomic war because of Saddam's willingness to use human shields and chemical weapons indesriminately. Interstingly, this report is no longer on their website. Perhaps the anti-war folks have done somekind of vulcan mind wipe on the issue, but I recall the "Saddam is crazy and will kill everyone" being used against the war quite frequently.

People who support the war often ignore the fact that Iraq didn't pose much of a threat under the watchful eye of the coalition

Beatutiful way not to respond to an argument Tom. The point was that Saddam was about to pose a threat because the coalition and the sanctions were breaking down. Saddam was stealing billions in oil for food and the international community was loosing the stomach for the sanctions. That is the point, that situation was not sustainable. The question is what was going to happen when the sanctions ended? No one ever seems to have an answer to that one.

|9.23.05 @ 8:40PM|#

So you're "take", John, is that there was no reason to worry about so many civilian casualties, but, at the same time, Iraq presented an immediate threat so palpable that it had to be bombed, invaded and occupied. ...Do I have that right?

...What do you think more likely, coalition support of the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq or coalition support for continued sanctions? ...And even if the sanctions regime did come down, why would you presume that the coalition would abandon containment?

|9.23.05 @ 9:13PM|#

"What is interesting about the "bad intel, false history line" is that as you point out, Bill Clinton and Al Gore made the very same claims prior to operation desert fox in 1998."

Clinton's statements were true in 1998. In fact, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the 1998 strikes effectively eliminated the last vestiges of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

This would seem to be a rather important distinction.

"Now Bush is a criminal and a lier for taking Saddam Hussein, someone who thought nothing of gassing Kurds and Iranians, at his word." Oh, no. George Bush would never take the word of Saddam Hussein. He told us himself.

"The truth is that nearly everyone believed that Saddam had large WMD cashes before the war." Except for those of us who didn't. It must be a terrible feeling to know that, on the most important national security question of our day, your capacity to discern the truth, and that of the leaders you most admire, falls short of that demonstrated by me, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, and Justin Raimondo. You know, if I'd blown such an important question so severely and so publically, I'd be doing a lot more work with my ears than my mouth on the subject.

"People who object to the war are always long on criticism and very short on what should have been done in the alternative." I was always quite consistent on continuing the coercive inspections - you know, like the ones that eliminated Saddam's WMD arsenal in the 1990s under UN auspices.

"I have yet to hear one realistic alternative to invasion..." Which only goes to demonstrate, yet again, the vast gulf between what is actually being said and done, and your capacity to perceive it.

Tom, the CIA put out an analysis stating that Saddam would not launch a terrorist or WMD attack against us, unless we invaded. But you know those antiwar, hard left, Kos Brigade types at the CIA...

|9.23.05 @ 11:58PM|#

I think Shannon L. is one to something that was also memorably expressed by Harold Macmillan when asked about his greatest problem in politics, he replied �Events, dear boy, events.�

In my household, I voted for Bush and my wife voted for Kerry. But I told her it wasn�t that big of a difference because both sides would end up moving toward the same foreign policy guided by - �Events, dear heart, events.� In our time, the driving dynamic is the jihadis. There exists a militant core of Islamist extremists and until they are defeated or they triumph, their actions will drive Western Politics.

|9.24.05 @ 1:16AM|#

"There exists a militant core of Islamist extremists and until they are defeated or they triumph, their actions will drive Western Politics."

So we should defer to the antics of fearmongers pending the day when terrorism is no longer a threat?

...I'm not willing to wait that long.

|9.24.05 @ 1:30AM|#

Shanoon Love,

What people consider to be pragmatic is an ideology by itself. You need to stop equating ideology with ideals; they are not remotely synonomous.

The pragmatic considerations of each particular circumstance usually overwhelm any ideological gloss.

Quite untrue. The lense that you see the world through helps you ferret out the choices that you make. Indeed, its how we ended up with the groupthink scenarios that led us to invade Iraq on paper-thin and generally erroneous data. Its also one of the reasons why people make really shitty decisions in business. You've got a mental framework and you make decisions based within that framework.

Your problem is that you don't actually understand what ideology means. You're treating it in what one might call its high flautin', academic sense, but ideology is far more than that. My suggestion is this; look up the term on wikipedia and then read Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine.

Phil|9.24.05 @ 9:25AM|#

I would point you to left wing groups like the Physicians for Social Responsibility who argued in November 2002 that an invastion of Iraq would cause 250,000 civilian casualties and would be equal to atomic war because of Saddam's willingness to use human shields and chemical weapons indesriminately

Hey, wait a goddamned minute. For starters, there was all kinds of talk from pro-war people -- which, at the time, included me -- and the Bush Administration saying we had to make sure our soldiers had hazmat suits because Saddam might unleash his arsenal of deadly chemical weapons on them if they got too close to Baghdad.

For another thing, one of the loudest drumbeats in The March To War was, "He Gassed His Own People!"

So, your argument is that Physicians for Social Responsibility were bad people for believing the Administration's arguments that Saddam might use chemical weapons against invaders, and has no problem gassing his own people?

That's hardly fair, is it? I mean, if you're laying a basis that 1) the Administration is not to be trusted and 2) they were lying about the chemical weapons after all, well, OK. But that doesn't seem to be what you're doing. You appear to pulling an Otter: "You screwed up! You trusted us!"

|9.24.05 @ 10:17AM|#

joe - Out of your entire post (at 07:54 PM)I'm still looking for something that makes a point in opposition to what I've written on this thread. Maybe you could explain to me what your point is, how it's in opposition to mine, and why you seem to think that there's anywhere else in the document I linked to that would support your position.

It seems more likely that you're just frantically looking to change the subject. What's a good word for that? Oh, yeah, "yella."

|9.24.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Phil,

the point is that everyone beleived Saddam had chemical weapons and was going to use them. Damn right the military had chem suits in Iraq. The military assumed that they were going to be gassed. The zionist neocon conspiracy Joe is always yapping about apparently didn't let them in on the joke.

Everyone thought Saddam was a threat and had chemical weapons, even the people who opposed the war. Then when it turned out that he only had the capibility but had apparently destroyed the weapons people like you and Joe then comdem Bush believing the very same intelligence that was used to argue against the war. Further, the sanctions were part of the containment. In addition, to contain him required keeping 1000s of troops in Saudi Arabia and putting a bug every Muslim in the world's ass. It just wasn't sustainable. It was a matter of time before the world quit and went home and left Saddam to his own devices.

Joe,

Ralph Nader? Oh yeah, he is on the mainstream. Since Clinton was right, you would have supported invading in 1998? That's a laugh.

|9.24.05 @ 12:08PM|#

"The zionist neocon conspiracy Joe is always yapping about apparently didn't let them in on the joke."

I've read joe's posts on this board for years, and I don't recall him ever yapping about a zionist neocon conspiracy.

"It was a matter of time before the world quit and went home and left Saddam to his own devices."

That isn't clear to me.

I based my opposition to the war on a number of things, but, ultimately, it came down to the value of human life. I didn't think what we were going to get was likely to be worth the price in lives and limbs--both civilian and U.S. military.

Looking back, now that we know the WMD threat was bogus and that there was no collaboration between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda, I know what we got wasn't worth the price we paid. ...especially considering that we had the real threat Hussein presented well contained.

...especially considering that huge swathes of Iraq now seem to present a greater potential terrorist threat to American civilians than Iraq did before we invaded.

|9.24.05 @ 1:29PM|#

"The zionist neocon conspiracy Joe is always yapping about..." Not me, dude. Would you mind not referring to the liberal that live in your head - the one that makes the easily refuted arguments you slice up so easily - by the name "joe?" It gets confusing.

"...apparently didn't let them in on the joke." The supporters of the war, both within and outside the administration, actually did everything they could to convince me, and everyone else, of the threat of Iraqi WMDs. Some of us, like me, noticed that their arguments and evidence were bullshit. Others, like yourself, fell for it hook line and sinker. I was right. You were wrong. Why don't you crack open a nice, cold bottle of STFU, and let the people capable of ascertaining reality take over from here, you pathetic sucker.

John, "Since Clinton was right, you would have supported invading in 1998?" Of course not. You would have to be an fucking idiot to think invading, occupying, and governing Iraq would turn into anything but a disaster. I would, and did, support the limited military action that successfully eliminated Iraq's WMD capabilities. How about yourself? Five gets you ten you were babbling about Monica Lewinsky and wag the dog, as the threat you so eagerly sacrificed thousands of Americans lives for a few years later (when the president was a Republican) was, for real, wiped off the face of the earth without a single American casualty.

|9.24.05 @ 2:14PM|#

There is someone here who does constantly refer to a Zionist conspiracy, though its not joe (i can't recall the poster's nick0. It may just be an issue of confusing two people who otherwise hold fairly similar views on the Iraq war.

|9.24.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Hakuylt, you mean Rick Barton?

Given the stridency with which the hawks have been working to tar their opponents with the charge of anti-semitism, I'm not inclined to believe it was an innocent mistake.

Phil|9.24.05 @ 7:57PM|#

Then when it turned out that he only had the capibility but had apparently destroyed the weapons people like you and Joe then comdem Bush believing the very same intelligence that was used to argue against the war.

No, I condemn Bush for not making a greater effort to ascertain the actual truth, which is that the weapons were in fact all destroyed, and the weapons research programs in shambles, with Saddam being fed crap information by scientists and sycophants who simply told him what he wanted to hear. This, by the way, is all predicated on the idea that all the intelligence we heard about is all the intelligence Bush heard about, which is almost undoubtedly untrue.

In addition, to contain him required keeping 1000s of troops in Saudi Arabia and putting a bug every Muslim in the world's ass.

Whereas since we've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and waged the war on terror in a way that appears to the untrained eye to in fact be a war on Islam, they love us all with a passion heretofore unseen in human history, I guess.

|9.24.05 @ 8:07PM|#

"This, by the way, is all predicated on the idea that all the intelligence we heard about is all the intelligence Bush heard about, which is almost undoubtedly untrue."

For example, the administration stated that a defecting general told us that Saddam still had stockpiles of chem and bio weapons, and an ongoing nuclear program. It was later leaked that said general had told us that the chem and bio weapons had been destroyed, and that the nuclear program had been suspended.

But hey, don't say that Bush lied, or John will write it as one word, and call you pathological.

|9.24.05 @ 11:36PM|#

I have always found the idea that real-world decision makers are governed by overarching ideologies to be at variance with reality. Whether in government or business, decision makers usually just grab whatever tool they think will work best in a particular circumstance. They seldom reject a particular tool because it doesn't fit some ideological mold.

Fair enough. I doubt that many responsible people actually recite ideological mantras when rejecting one option in favor of another. But there's more to ideology than blatantly biased statements. Ideology can serve as the lens through which you view different options, the thing that colors your perception of which one is the best. Or, if you don't like the word "ideology", substitute the phrase "One's set of assumptions".

Consider this: Many people suggest that the media has a liberal bias. Few serious people suggest that reporters actually deliberately suppress stories based on the latest talking points. (Yeah, I know, somebody can probably find an anecdote, but few serious people would allege that such behavior is the norm.) Rather, the argument is that many reporters have a certain predisposition. (And some cite various statistics on voting behavior and/or party affiliation in support of this argument.) No matter how good their intentions might be, the bias effects their perception of which questions are most critical, which leads are most worth investigating.

Now, there's probably at least one person here who would like to argue against that notion of liberal bias. Whatever one might think about that, my point wasn't to make that case, but to present an often-made argument similar to the one that Shannon is rejecting. I'm mostly just curious to hear whether Shannon thinks there is a difference betwen the notion of liberal bias and the notion that ideology affects decision makers.

Also, Shannon, you keep hinting at a fascinating career where you've had exposure to the intelligence business, important policy-makers, and other neat things. I'm genuinely curious to find out something about your background. I realize that if you're in a sensitive job you can't come out and say that you're, say, a CIA operative (that's for Robert Novak to reveal ;-). But maybe you can give us some sort of generality? We know that kwais goes to Iraq and does various heavy but unspecified stuff. What's your schtick?

|9.24.05 @ 11:58PM|#

More specifically, we know that kwais used to be in the Marines, and he's still a federal employee. We know that his job takes him to Iraq, and so far he hasn't suffered any work-related injuries of a permanent nature.

Come on, Shannon, you hint at a fascinating career. Give us something. Anything.

|9.25.05 @ 1:39AM|#

joe is a lot happier acting outraged over John's statements than responding to me. Wonder why that is?

Maybe it's just easier to blast John, who perhaps more closely resembles the neocon that lives in joe's head - the one that makes the easily refuted arguments joe slices up so easily...

It's transparent that joe hasn't any response to the points I've made - which oddly enough have him acting like the kind of guy who believes the left-of-center talking points regarding the evils of the "Bush Doctrine."

Weak...

thoreau - I have no idea what Shannon does for a living, but her analysis is consistently more insightful and thoughtful than the folks who deploy entrenched talking points against one another here.

|9.25.05 @ 9:52AM|#

thoreau - I have no idea what Shannon does for a living, but her analysis is consistently more insightful and thoughtful than the folks who deploy entrenched talking points against one another here.

I agree, that's frequently the case. I'm just curious because, well, for starters this forum is going through a general "getting to know you" phase with meetups and whatnot. And at least some of the time she supplements her analysis with reference to her own experiences. So it would be interesting to know something about her experience. Finally, it just sounds like she's had a very interesting career, and that always makes for a good story.

|9.25.05 @ 11:54AM|#

joe - Out of your entire post (at 07:54 PM)I'm still looking for something that makes a point in opposition to what I've written on this thread. Maybe you could explain to me what your point is, how it's in opposition to mine, and why you seem to think that there's anywhere else in the document I linked to that would support your position.

It seems more likely that you're just frantically looking to change the subject. What's a good word for that? Oh, yeah, "yella."

----Comment by: rob at September 24, 2005 10:17 AM

Maybe joe's busy, or maybe he's simply dismissed you as a troll. Either way, football hasn't started yet and burning ants with a magnifying glass once seemed fun to me in a morbid sort of way.

The sad thing is that joe thinks it's more important to make out that something isn't what it really is (nat'l security policy) because he fears that there may be some knucklehead trying to polish reality to suit himself regarding WMD's. (Pot calling the kettle black, anyone? "yadda yadda yadda.")

...

----Comment by: rob at September 23, 2005 06:41 PM

joe responds directly with:

You know rob, we actually have a statement of our country's national security policy. It's called the National Security Strategy of the United States. Why don't you be a dear, look through the link you provided earlier, and find the part about starting wars in order to replace dictatorships with democratic regimes, mm-kay? You could perhaps look in the chapter titled "ii. Champion Aspirations for Human Dignity" or maybe "vii. Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies
and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy," except that neither of chapters mentions the use of military force in the lists of practices to be used to advance those goals. I can only references to the use of force in the chapters that deal with WMDs and terror groups.

But they must be in there somewhere. I sure hope you don't quote them and humiliate me! Boy, would I ever look like an ass if you did that - if you found a statement in there stating that we would 1) start wars 2) in order to change nasty regimes into democratic ones. So why don't you do that? I double dog dare you.

...

----Comment by: joe at September 23, 2005 07:54 PM

Does rob respond by quoting the National Security Strategy of the United States? ...No. Does rob respond by explaining why what joe's asking him for isn't there? ...No. Rob responds with the following:

joe is a lot happier acting outraged over John's statements than responding to me. Wonder why that is?

Maybe it's just easier to blast John, who perhaps more closely resembles the neocon that lives in joe's head - the one that makes the easily refuted arguments joe slices up so easily...

[Psychologists have a term for this, it's called "projection"]

It's transparent that joe hasn't any response to the points I've made - which oddly enough have him acting like the kind of guy who believes the left-of-center talking points regarding the evils of the "Bush Doctrine."

Weak...

----Comment by: rob at September 25, 2005 01:39 AM

You big troll you. You little ant.

|9.25.05 @ 2:17PM|#

"Does rob respond by quoting the National Security Strategy of the United States? ...No." - TC

I've already quoted the pertinent portion of the document. I fail to see how repeating myself does anything but eat up bandwidth. (You can see where I wrote it for yourself in my post on this thread on September 23, 2005 04:32 PM.) Unlike you, Tom, I don't use repetition to try to convince others of the veracity of my statements.

Here's a hint that may help you in future: no amount of repetition will change the language of a document to match a point you're trying to make. (Which is why your points have been repeatedly demolished by myself and others on HnR.)

"Does rob respond by explaining why what joe's asking him for isn't there? ...No." - TC

Why should I attempt to prove a negative? Brief refresher in basic logic, Tom: The burden of proof falls on joe, who asserts that the policy is what he claims, not that I should prove it isn't.

Since the document lays out national security strategy, why would the writers of the document include every single thing that is NOT strategic policy?

The side making the claim is obligated to provide evidence for its position - that's about as basic as it gets! Since you tried to use documentation with the Abu Ghraib discussion, I think you realize who the burden of proof should fall on. (You failed miserably in that discussion not because you misunderstood the burden of proof, but because the documents don't back you up.) At least you seemed to realize that you were the one making the claim and had to provide something that showed this to be the case. Which is why I think that you're just trying to pull a fast one here. Nice attempt at the burden of proof fallacy... (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).

If joe claims that our policy is "that we will wage pre-emptive war on nation's that COULD plan to attack us at some time in the future, based on their efforts to acquire unconventional weapons," he should be able to point out where that is in the nat'l security strategy documents. He can't, neither can you, and no amount of ad hominem attacks by you can change that any more than your Abu Ghraib flim-flam held up under basic scrutiny by anyone who actually read the documents you repeatedly and erroneously cited.

|9.25.05 @ 2:18PM|#

Oh, one other thing...

"burning ants with a magnifying glass once seemed fun to me in a morbid sort of way." - Tom Crick

That's pretty revealing. I'll only go so far as to make one observation about this: psychologists have a profile for children who are cruel to animals, and it's a sight worse than "projection."

|9.25.05 @ 11:50PM|#

joe,

Maybe it is was Rick Barton. I can't recall.

rob,

Her analysis wasn't very insightful here. I mean really, she's claiming that a very limited aspect of ideology is all that ideology means, which is just, well, stupid.

|9.26.05 @ 2:16AM|#

Hakluyt,

I assure you, I've never used the term "Zionist conspiracy" to describe the neocon machinations that went into lying us into the attack on Iraq. The neocons were chief motivators of the war, and conspiring of a duplicitous nature was certainly a key part of these machinations. Also, these same neocons had long advocated taking out Sadam as something beneficial for the Israeli state and a first step to remaking the Mideast in what they view as a more favorable manner for the Israeli state, with Syria and Iran to follow.

BTW, to blame Jews in general for the neocons' actions in in lying us into the war is racism, primitive and anti-individualistic racism. Also, not all of the neocons who were part of the pro-war drive are Jews, and folks who are Jews have been among those who have exposed and opposed this pro-war conspiracy.

I know of no more valuable resource to follow all aspects of the war and foreign policy in general than the libertarian, Antiwar.com:

http://www.antiwar.com/

Especially helpful are Justin Raimondo's columns

http://antiwar.com/justin/

|9.26.05 @ 2:30AM|#

Many of the lies that came out of the Pentagon's OSP justifying the Iraq war were produced by neocons, including Doug Feith...

(whose office is at the center of the current Israeli government/AIPAC spy scandal)

scandal

...who had earlier written reports for the Israeli government advocating the removal of Sadom
as a first step in a process to make the Mideast more friendly to the Israeli state. Note that Wolfowitz was one of the authors, with a number of neocon biggies, of A Clean Break a 1996 policy advisory written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The advisory advocated the elimination of Saddam Hussein as a primary goal. Baghdad was depicted as the lynch pin in the undermining of both Iran and Syria for the good of the Israeli State. After A Clean Break the neocons start a campaign to put forth those goals laid for the Israeli government as something America must do in its own interest. Fabrication and exaggeration of Saddam's WMD capacity are part of this campaign.

"Only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq . . ." PNAC founder Kristol wrote in a 1997 report. Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine is owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox News

One of PNAC's first goals when it was founded in 1997 was to urge Congress and the Clinton administration to support regime change in Iraq. This was before Rumsfeld was approached by the group.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) sent this letter to President Clinton in January of 1998:

It's signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol, James Woolsey, Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams and others. The letter argues for aggression against Iraq. They lobbied both Clinton and Gingrich to remove former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power using military force and indict him as a "war criminal."

Unsatisfied with Clinton's response, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998, to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott:

"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power..."

9/11 gave pretext for the attack on Iraq, something that the nut balls that currently dominate the Israeli government as well its influential neocon supporters have vociferously advocated.

|9.26.05 @ 2:37AM|#

Rick Barton,

I'll take you at your word. Like I wrote, I can't recall who it was and I don't think I've seen them post here in a while, so...

|9.26.05 @ 2:55AM|#

I condemn Bush for not making a greater effort to ascertain the actual truth, which is that the weapons were in fact all destroyed, and the weapons research programs in shambles, with Saddam being fed crap information by scientists and sycophants who simply told him what he wanted to hear.

That's not what I condemn Bush for.

Saddam did his very best to bluff and make everybody believe he had WMD. Clinton believed it. Even the French believed it.

Bush never bothered to make the case clear. He alluded to intel but never gave anything substantial in support. I condemn him for that, yet I still maintain that believing Saddam had WMDs was not inherently irrational.

I also agree that the international sanctions were on the verge of breaking down. In retrospect, we can imagine now just why that might be....

What I condemn Bush for is not thinking 2 inches beyond the front of his nose. I concede the prospect that Saddam could have been much more dangerous than he turned out to be -- and I am convinced that he would have made himself more dangerous, if given half a chance.

But if bombing somebody in the ME is what you think it takes to clean house (debatable conclusion, I agree), Iraq never impressed me as the biggest fish that deserved bombing.

Iran and Saudi Arabia would both have ranked higher on my list of fish who deserve to be bombed, than Iraq. I have a hard time ranking one of these above the other.

I also condemn Bush for the obviously poor job of thinking ahead in Iraq. In retrospect it's clear he had a piss-poor plan for how to handle the occupation. Nor do I see that he's made much progress on this front since the invasion.


A war of conquest to annex a big fat oil field, now that could have worked if done right. It still could, except --

I am not one who opposes wars of conquest on principle. On contrare, there are numerous instances in history where such wars have led to ultimate goods. But the US is not predisposed to outright conquest, much more so now than even 100 years ago.

Bush should have given this serious consideration before invading Iraq. Because it was clear before we invaded, Iraq would never be quelled by anything short of Machiavellian tactics. Be real. Nowhere in the ME today could be quelled without the use of brutal tactics.

Bush should have folded this into his strategy before dropping the bombs. Just because you rule the richest, most powerful country on earth does not mean that any and all options are open to you. He really should have been smart enough to see this far down the road.

For these things, I condemn Bush.


I've wondered a time or two what Bush would have been like if 9/11 had not happened.

|9.26.05 @ 3:02AM|#

btw, there's a good article over at TCS called "Velvet Revolutions and the Logic of Terrorism", it makes a lot of sense to me.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092005B.html

Makes you think three and four times about what the response to terrorism really ought to be.

|9.26.05 @ 6:55AM|#

Kahn,
I can only pray that Prof. Turner is right when he concludes "It is the last gasp, historically, of the ancient system by which the huge majority of human beings were ruled since the Neolithic agricultural revolution."

Hakluyt,
Shannon's post on September 23, 2005 03:09 PM, is one of the few that actually analyzes the premise of this thread: "Has the Bush administration gone realist? Or has it just finally rolled its point in the great foreign-policy-philosophy crapshoot?"

Everyone else here, myself included, hasn't had much to add in the way of analysis on the subject. What I've written on this thread is merely a counter to certain claims about nat'l security strategy that I think are way off-base.

|9.26.05 @ 9:51AM|#

"The burden of proof falls on joe, who asserts that the policy is what he claims, not that I should prove it isn't."

Er, no, rob. You made a claim that the NSSotUS endorses a certain policy (war for regime change, democracy, and a pony). I stated that it didn't, and asked you for proof. You have been unable to find any, for the simple reason that there is no language in that document that endorses that policy.

I say there is no such language in the document. Proove me wrong. Buk buk buk.

|9.26.05 @ 7:23PM|#

Er, no, joe. I never made that claim. You've obviously got me confused with another poster.

Once again, burden of proof falls on you, since you're the one claiming that nat'l security policy includes "that we will wage pre-emptive war on nation's that COULD plan to attack us at some time in the future, based on their efforts to acquire unconventional weapons."

You made the claim, I pointed out there's no language that supports that claim. The burden of proof is to YOU, joe, not to me. But thanks for playing anyway.

Oh I almost forgot: "buk buk buk."