Certainly. But if police pull over cars with "Weed is awesome!" stickers more often than "DARE to keep kids of drugs stickers", would you really be surprised?
That's the essence of profiling. I'm somewhat divided on the idea of profiling, I don't like it and I'm sure it's overly applied. But profiling isn't necessarily wilful persecution, that's all I'm saying.
This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense.
If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes?
Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?
Oh, but calling people an idiot is? Oh, and my saying 'LOL' means your personal insults totally didn't happen or something? Oh, and 'LOL' is equal or worse than calling someone an idiot, etc?
Do you really believe that? I mean, do what you like, not that you even need my permission. But if you really want to get somewhere in a conversation, it's best not to initiate that kind of childishness.
I've already acknowledged it, though an airlift versus a ground invasion hardly proves your point.
You weren't acknowledging it in that specific response, but OK fine. Because it actually proves my point - that Bush clearly got us involved in Somalia as an election-time ploy.
...based on the timeline I dug up for you, you made stupid comments like "No election is over for a candidate until all the votes are counted"?
Because it appeared to me you were referring to the entire US involvement in Somalia, and not just the December military increase.
Meanwhile, the facts haven't changed: There was a humanitarian disaster, there was public pressure to do something about it, and both the UN and US did something about it.
Right. And the reality hasn't changed, that it's as near to certain as we can get without being mind-readers that none of the above reasons were what motivated Bush to involve the US in Somalia. Otherwise, as I've already stated and I know you read, we wouldn't have caused humanitaran crises ourselves in Iraq and elsewhere, as we have under *all Presidents* - and SPECIFICALLY in the face of public pressure from within the US, from the UN, and from the world.
The clear mission was the one Bush initiated, which was to provide a secure environment for aid to stop the famine, and it was successful at doing that.
Nope, sorry, that's not a clear mission at all. A clear mission has specific targets and territories - get this guy, remove this government from this area, destroy these facilities. What you're describing is even more vague than our mission in Viet Nam - support a vague "someone" to prevent "people from going hungry".
We're obviously not going to agree on this. So, I just request that you read some works on Viet Nam - "A Bright Shining Lie" comes to mind. As well as some works by Chomsky on the same period you're referencing, with regard to the first Persian Gulf conflict and also Somalia. Both Bush and Clinton come out looking very poorly - what I think might interest you is the reasons why. Which will all be very thoroughly backed up with citations.
Really, so several posts later after demonstrating ignorance about the operation to which I then corrected you with references, and talking about ridiculous claims of "counting the vote" of a month-old election when shown a timeline, you finally decide you have to back up your own claims and this is some extraordinary effort on your part? "LOL!"
You mean, after deciding in a display of maturity that is apparently difficult for you, I agree to meet your nitpick-based evasions on their own level just to attempt to move the argument forward? Yes, : )
Sure, Bush committed US troops to invade once he couldn't be elected any more.
OK, great. Also, you're missing the part where he originally dedicated the US military to the Somali campaign - right before the August Presidential campaign. Would you care to acknowledge that reality?
So if he was so keen on being re-elected, why would he commit troops to a ground invasion after he had lost the election?
For any number of reasons, none of which make any sense as 'humanitarian'. Since, as noted previously, Bush's many actions before and during his presidency don't ever display any concern or interest in humanitarian concerns.
Probably the most likely is, the situation in Somalia was going to fall apart and leave Bush looking extra bad before he handed the mess to Clinton. So, rather than take his lumps like a man, Bush 1 shoved more soldiers in there to run out the clock and leave Clinton to sort out the crap Bush started. Which is exactly what happened.
I did respond, with the metaphor of bank robbers. You apparently didn't get my response.
Sorry, I see it now. I don't know what happened, but now that I see it, I'll respond here:
Jesus. Thank you. Please also notice how I'm not going to call you an idiot or insult your reading comprehension.
And you actually follow politics? It happens a lot that there's political pressure to take action to correct some wrong, the action is taken and we get some gory stories of soldiers dying, because that tends to happen in military actions, and then there's political pressure to withdraw. This is one of the reasons why the UN is so ineffective.
Soooooo.....which part of that proves me wrong?
And to claim the reason was "bogus" because Bush wanted to get elected, while ignoring the motivations for the UN, ignoring the actual humanitarian disaster, the media coverage, and the actual good that was done when action was taken, or that the real military intervention occurred after Bush had lost the election, is to have blinders on.
Sorry, I don't see how acknowledging the real-world motivations of leaders who have proven themselves to not be humanitarian, is having blinders on.
The "more importantly" is entirely the point. We're talking about actual facts on the ground, and what action any President of the United States should have taken.
Yes, and we're talking about the difference between "should" and reality. And the reality is that no US President of any party has *EVER* committed US military resources on any meaningful scale for purely humanitarian reasons. Ever. Otherwise Ford would have stopped the invasion of East Timor, Clinton would have stopped Rwanda, and Bush II would have stopped Darfur.
This is reality.
Was there a humanitarian disaster? There was.
Yes. And I"m sure there 5 others happening in other areas around the globe at the same time. Not to mention the disaster we had intentionally just left in Iraq, in the vain hopes it would topple Saddam for us. So to suggest Bush involved us in this conflict in August of an election year for purely humanitarian reasons, is just simple nonsense.
LOL! So, I can't blame Bush for Bush's own actions. But you can
Hey, updating. You're right, he didn't send the troops in August. He militarily involved the US in August. So, consider my sentence rephrased with "involved our troops with" instead of "sent troops into".
Yes, it really is. To have to go and post reality that you should already be aware of, but are being extremely resistant to.
An airlift is not the same as a military invasion, which did not happen until "after he had lost the election to Bill Clinton".
And? Perhaps you're nitpicking some earlier statement of mine?. Hey, fine. If I earlier said "invasion" rather than some more precise word like "intervention", then I concede I used the wrong word. Sure, Bush committed US troops to invade once he couldn't be elected any more. That doesn't change the timing of his initial involvement, or the most likely reasons behind it. The fact remains that this entire official excuse of militarily involving the US for humanitarian reasons is pure nonsense.
And you still haven't responded to the argument of "no good reason": regardless as to who was in the office, was there a good reason for the President of the United States to take action in Somalia?
I did respond, with the metaphor of bank robbers. You apparently didn't get my response. So, I'll make it plainer for you. Sure, in hypothetical unicorn-land there'd be any number of good reasons for a President to invade. That doesn't change the fact that, in the real world, any one of those reasons was almost certainly bogus nonsense - or we would have stayed until we fixed the problems.
You can't blame Bush for escalating the mission from a protection of aid to going after Aidid.
LOL! So, I can't blame Bush for Bush's own actions. But you can blame Clinton for the results of Bush's actions. How does that make sense?
"In August 1992, as the U.S. presidential election campaign was beginning, President Bush ordered the U.S. military to begin a humanitarian relief airlift to Somalia."
^ Oh, look at that. How interesting.
"In November 1992, after he had lost the election to Bill Clinton, President Bush asked the State Department for recommendations with respect to the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Somalia. The Department recommended that the United State propose a UN-led military enforcement operation to open the way for food deliveries, without the use of American troops, but with the logistical support of U.S. military airlift. The Pentagon expressed the view that it would take at least six months for the United Nations to mount such an operation, and only the United States military had the capability of moving quickly.
On the basis of these recommendations, President Bush ordered a U.S.-led military operation to stop the starvation, provided that (1) the Security Council agreed, (2) there were troops of other countries to accompany U.S. forces, and (3) the United Nations take over the relief operation within six months......The American-led relief operation was turned over to United Nations control in May 1993, as originally planned. U.S. forces were reduced to 2,500 troops serving in a reserve capacity. Boutros-Ghali appointed retired American Admiral Jonathan Howe to head up the entire operation. With relief supplies flowing and agriculture revived, the UN operation became one of working to restore governmental institutions and basic security.
"
^ Oh, look at that. It looks like the decisions you blame on Clinton were actually made by Bush, when Bush was no longer accountable via reelection.
Again, please read carefully, and do some critical thinking as well. The election was over, not just by poll numbers, but by the actual result.
Physician, heal thyself. Because you are refusing to even consider the obvious possibilities that Bush actually invaded Somalia. And that shows a clear unwillingness to critically question your own theories and biases. No election is over for a candidate until all the votes are counted - and as we saw in 2000, not even then.
No, you don't fucking get it at all. When you make a claim about there being "for no good reason", there's a strong implication that there is no good reason at all, not just whatever personal motivations Bush had.
Yes, there is that strong implication. And that strong implication is in reality, whether or not that fits with what you'd like to believe. Those reasons stated for the invasion are, quite frankly, utterly bogus. Otherwise, the US and the other nations involved in the Somalia action would have stayed and fixed Somalia's problems *regardless* of Clinton, Blackhawk Down, or anything else.
It doesn't even matter what his motivations were if it was the right thing for him to do as President of the United States.
No, you're completely wrong. It absolutely matters what his motivations were. Otherwise, people could just do anything and we would have to believe their stated reasons, no matter what their clear intentions AND their results. If someone robbed a bank and claimed it was "to free all that money, and release it into the economy while giving the tellers the day off", would you believe them? More importantly, would those possible good reasons excuse the action?
That is why I mentioned the UN and have backed it up with other sources to indicate why Bush's decision may have been a good one.
OK, and I understand that's why you mentioned the UN. I'm just not accepting that as something that excuses Bush's venture, because it seems completely obvious that was not his intention.
I don't see how you can be following what I wrote and not already get the gist of what I'm saying.
Oh, I get what you're saying completely. I just disagree with it, because I think it's unfounded in fact. That's why I asked if you have any nonpartisan sources to back it up.
When you originally stated, "Bush 1 started the Somalia conflict. For no good reason [..]", it's completely bullshit to ignore the actual good reasons there were for intervening.
No, it's complete bullshit for you to pretend those mentioned reasons actually matter - especially as in your next comment you assert that whatever Bush's actual reasons are, are besides the point?? I mean, what??
Whether Bush personally cared or not is besides the point, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself.
Hey, fair enough. I think it is the *essence* of the point. I guess we just disagree.
Thank you for at least starting to provide details and sources for what Clinton did that was different than what Bush did, OR what Bush would have done. Now that you have, with this link to a chronology, I can at least evaluate your logical basis for blaming the situation that occurred early in Clinton's administration even "80%" on Clinton.
I also found a chronology [pbs.org] that completely invalidates your initial claim that Bush "was looking for a way to shore up his numbers for re-election":
How does that invalidate it? You don't think people do desperate things when they're behind? They're even *more* likely to. Happens all the time. As just one example, McCain's rash selection of Sarah Palin as VP,
Fair enough, I read your comment wrong. I thought you were mentioning the UN to bolster your argument. So since you agree that it was led by the US, than what's your point in mentioning the UN at all? Are you saying that because the UN agreed to it, that automatically means that Bush 1 wasn't pursuing the war for his own purposes? I certainly don't see how that follows at all.
re: nonpartisan analysis, totally fine by me to go by the Wiki link, unless of course it has something specific that is disproved by another reliable nonpartisan source. I just don't see how that wiki article supports this statement:
The fire didn't get bigger. It was smaller, and they wanted to extinguish it completely. It was Clinton's decision how to handle the situation....When it goes wrong and he pulls out amid public outcry, he owns that as well.
There's a lot in that statement that does not follow. Specifically, (1) that Bush's efforts were a near-complete success, that (2) Clinton undermined by doing something Bush would not have done, which then (3) means the entire situation becomes 100% Clinton's fault.
To me, it's on you to prove those points, and they currently are not at all proven. You would have to at least specifically prove that Clinton mishandled the situation in a way that led to Blackhawk Down, AND in a way that might not have happened had Bush 1 remained president If you can show me that by specific citations from the Wikipedia link, or other nonpartisan reliable sources, please do so.
The fire didn't get bigger. It was smaller, and they wanted to extinguish it completely.
OK, well that's not exactly what I've read. Do you have any nonpartisan sources for this analysis?
It was a UN mission led by the US for a good cause. Why would the UN care about Bush's re-election chances?
Oh, come on. It was no more 'led' by the UN than the first US-led response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait How could it be UN-led?? The US takes no orders from the UN, never has and almost certainly never will. We don't even sign pointless feel-good UN resolutions if we don't feel like it.
The US decided it wanted to do something, organized it through NATO, and brought the UN in to make it look nice.
It was Clinton's decision to escalate the mission. He has to own the consequences.
So, Bush 1 starts the fire, hands it over to Clinton, and when the fire gets bigger it becomes all Clinton's fault and not any of it is Bush 1's. For what was, from the beginning, supposedly a stopgap humanitarian mission that the UN would take over any day from.
Then you can blame the UN too.
For invading Bush 1 invading Somalia? No, Bush 1 was a grown man who made his own mistake. The UN hardly forced him to commit the US to that disaster.
And even if you are cynical if Bush really cared or not, the humanitarian reason existed, so you can't claim it was for "no good reason".
Yes I absolutely can - because I am certain that the humanitarian reason was not his real reason - and none of his real reasons were any good.
If you look at who controlled both branches of Congress during those same years (you know, the branch which actually makes the laws and budgets), you'd come to pretty much the opposite conclusion. But everyone is so eager to slice and dice the data until they find a pattern which fits their preconceived conclusions, then espouse that singular slice as if it explains everything.
I did look at who controlled the Congress (you know, the branch that actually makes the laws and the budgets, which you know the President then signs or refuses - and who the President also proposed budgets of his own to.)
So I'm not sure which period you're referring to, but the Democratic party had the Congress and the Senate in Clinton's first term. During which his tax raises were passed, which led directly to the surplus that the GOP tried to squander on unneeded tax cuts. Which Clinton then shut down the government rather than allow.
People like simple answers because they don't like having to think so hard about things. Now think about that.
Sure. Now think about this: what matters are facts. I'm not sure if you're arguing with me directly about anything? But if so, I haven't read anything that directly disproves what I've stated.
From a lot of people on the right I hear no amount of taxes are *small* enough - but no one ever thinks the services they benefit from should be cut. It's always some mythical other person who's getting money they don't deserve - until they need that money too.
The answer there is simple too - they want no taxes. But they still want police, fire departments, safe food, safe water, safe roads, a strong military and jobs - which comes from government regulation providing a playing field, courts enforcing laws and contracts, and an educated workforce. And even there I'm leaving out so many essential services which government provides, far better than private businesses would ever provide it - because if private businesses could do it better, government would never have been able to compete in the first place.
I personally would be fine with a return to Clinton levels of taxation, with the same bracketing also for earnings on investments. As long as corporations are taxes also. It is insane for me that I pay my taxes, and Exxon pays their taxes to every other nation but the US. And they are only one example.
What?? Blackhawk Down, and it ended with our soldiers being dragged through the streets and an eventual pullout of our forces, followed by mass famine due to the warlords that the original action had put a stop to.
That's why I said "military actions that Clinton started".
"No good reason" being a humanitarian disaster. The UN approved, and the plan worked: International aid was getting to where it was supposed to.
Oh yeah. Because Bush 1 was SO concerned about humanitarian disasters. That's why he helped Saint Reagan fund death squads in Nicaragua with the siphoned results from selling arms to Iran. While we were also selling arms publicly to Iraq - which means the US government, in our name, was selling WMD's to both sides in the Iran/Iraq war. After which, any attempts to punish Saddam for war crimes was squashed by the administrations of Reagan and Bush.
Pardon me if I consider Bush 1's stated "humanitarian" reasons for the Somalia action more than a little suspect, due to that previous context.
What happened next was on Clinton's watch, when they wanted to remove a particular warlord who wasn't cooperating.
The loss and withdrawal in Somalia had deep consequences, making America look weak and prompting failure to take action elsewhere. I don't blame Clinton for losing a few forces, but I do blame him for being overly sensitive to poll numbers.
It appears we differ here. I don't see Clinton at fault for stopping support of the Somalia action. I hold Bush and Reagan more at fault for creating the monster of Bin Laden and militarized, Middle-East funded jihadis, and then just tossing them aside when Russia retreated from Afghanistan and we didn't need them any more - thus turning them against us.
Those spending cuts were against Clinton's policies, because they were cutting investment in the poor and middle class. Also, the second shutdown was exactly about the GOP in the Congress wanting to squander the surplus on unneeded and unproductive tax cuts for the rich.
I don't think it's at all wrong to tax someone in a way that works for the country. I don't think the wealthy should be charged more than works, or charged less. I don't think it's difficult at all to know what someone should pay, in that context.
I also disagree utterly that our system makes it impossible to keep money. I just think you have a lot of people who can afford enough lawyers to pay less than they should - and balance the budget on the back of the people who make less than them, and simply can't afford that many lawyers.
No one likes paying taxes, but they're needed. All of the infrastructure that we enjoy today, which helped our country achieve economic success - and which is currently falling apart because we aren't keeping it up - was built when we had a much, much higher rate of taxes on the wealthy.
It's interesting to me how history gets reinterpreted. Clinton did a number of things which were not at all what is typically considered "conservative", and which were responsible for fueling the 1990's boom. This included raising taxes on the wealthy, while cutting taxes on the poor and middle class, while also investing in programs that benefited the poor and middle class.
This didn't happen through some bipartisanship - this happened because of party-line votes and because Clinton was willing to shut down the government, *twice*, rather than sign Republican budgets with different priorities. Such as wanting to squander the Clinton surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy.
But part of this reinterpretation may be due to the slipperiness of the term 'conservative' in American politics. American conservatism in practice is really anything but - it is radical, expansive of government powers and reductive of individual liberties. True conservatism, as in moderate practical and balanced approaches as shown by both Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, appears as radical liberalism when compared to American political conservatism in practice.
I'll take the military actions that Clinton started any day - because they went without *one single US soldier killed in combat* and they ended with full success in less than a year. Honestly, why wouldn't anyone prefer those?
OH, and FYI - Bush 1 started the Somalia conflict. For no good reason, except that the first Iraq invasion was over, he failed to topple Saddam, and he was looking for a way to shore up his numbers for re-election. Thankfully, Bush failed in reelection and we got a competent President. For this, conservatives have never and will ever forgive Bill Clinton.
And honestly, if you are suggesting that the Clinton economy was worse than the Bush I, Bush II or Reagan economies, I don't even know what to say.
Is it really just that hard to admit that Clinton was a better President than either of the Bushes or Reagan? Wouldn't it be easier to just acknowledge reality?
Have you considered the fact that it wasn't just Reagan, it was Cater, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama that have all promised government will help you, and yet we have Black people in the worst shape in three decades? Oh right, because Obama, Clinton and Cater are all (D) and inherited their problems from (R) and the (R)s are all responsible.
So, because government hasn't fixed everything, that totally negates the actual fact that American conservative policy doesn't work?
Because the facts to be considered are that Reagan and Bush 1 did awful things to the economy and the country *and* gave us both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. And that Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity, by following the exact opposite of conservative economic and foreign policies. And that Bush 2 then went back to the standard conservative plan which resulted in 8 years of bad news, culminating in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
It's pretty clear what the deal is: rather than admit that American conservative policy in government is bad, American conservatives would rather say that **all government** is bad.
Which is a pretty clear definition of total immaturity, at best.
The Westboro Baptist Church have a right to be complete assholes and say and do completely assholish things. That's really where it starts and ends.
No matter how good it feels that someone might make them possibly feel even a little bit as shitty as they love to make other *victims* feel. Goddammit. What a bunch of sick fucks. Never protest people when they're up. Never go and spew their shit at an ROTC center, or during a parade. No, it's got to be some funeral, where a bunch of people who are already facing the worst day of their fucking lives and trying to move on now have to deal with the Westboro shit too.
But that's their right, and that's how it has to work.
But I must admit I wouldn't be unhappy, if it turned out that Anonymous were prosecuted for this only after every lost library book in America was tracked down and returned.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly. But if police pull over cars with "Weed is awesome!" stickers more often than "DARE to keep kids of drugs stickers", would you really be surprised?
That's the essence of profiling. I'm somewhat divided on the idea of profiling, I don't like it and I'm sure it's overly applied. But profiling isn't necessarily wilful persecution, that's all I'm saying.
This doesn't seem to be politically motivated, it just seems like common sense. If one group of people tend to hate taxes and think they're unconstitutional and evil, wouldn't it make sense to profile them as more likely to try to dodge taxes? Is it really that crazy for the IRS to look at people who claim to hate taxes, as having a higher likelihood of being tax dodgers?
Repeated interjections of "LOL!" is not mature.
Oh, but calling people an idiot is? Oh, and my saying 'LOL' means your personal insults totally didn't happen or something? Oh, and 'LOL' is equal or worse than calling someone an idiot, etc?
Do you really believe that? I mean, do what you like, not that you even need my permission. But if you really want to get somewhere in a conversation, it's best not to initiate that kind of childishness.
I've already acknowledged it, though an airlift versus a ground invasion hardly proves your point.
You weren't acknowledging it in that specific response, but OK fine. Because it actually proves my point - that Bush clearly got us involved in Somalia as an election-time ploy.
...based on the timeline I dug up for you, you made stupid comments like "No election is over for a candidate until all the votes are counted"?
Because it appeared to me you were referring to the entire US involvement in Somalia, and not just the December military increase.
Meanwhile, the facts haven't changed: There was a humanitarian disaster, there was public pressure to do something about it, and both the UN and US did something about it.
Right. And the reality hasn't changed, that it's as near to certain as we can get without being mind-readers that none of the above reasons were what motivated Bush to involve the US in Somalia. Otherwise, as I've already stated and I know you read, we wouldn't have caused humanitaran crises ourselves in Iraq and elsewhere, as we have under *all Presidents* - and SPECIFICALLY in the face of public pressure from within the US, from the UN, and from the world.
The clear mission was the one Bush initiated, which was to provide a secure environment for aid to stop the famine, and it was successful at doing that.
Nope, sorry, that's not a clear mission at all. A clear mission has specific targets and territories - get this guy, remove this government from this area, destroy these facilities. What you're describing is even more vague than our mission in Viet Nam - support a vague "someone" to prevent "people from going hungry".
We're obviously not going to agree on this. So, I just request that you read some works on Viet Nam - "A Bright Shining Lie" comes to mind. As well as some works by Chomsky on the same period you're referencing, with regard to the first Persian Gulf conflict and also Somalia. Both Bush and Clinton come out looking very poorly - what I think might interest you is the reasons why. Which will all be very thoroughly backed up with citations.
Really, so several posts later after demonstrating ignorance about the operation to which I then corrected you with references, and talking about ridiculous claims of "counting the vote" of a month-old election when shown a timeline, you finally decide you have to back up your own claims and this is some extraordinary effort on your part? "LOL!"
You mean, after deciding in a display of maturity that is apparently difficult for you, I agree to meet your nitpick-based evasions on their own level just to attempt to move the argument forward? Yes, : )
Sure, Bush committed US troops to invade once he couldn't be elected any more.
OK, great. Also, you're missing the part where he originally dedicated the US military to the Somali campaign - right before the August Presidential campaign. Would you care to acknowledge that reality?
So if he was so keen on being re-elected, why would he commit troops to a ground invasion after he had lost the election?
For any number of reasons, none of which make any sense as 'humanitarian'. Since, as noted previously, Bush's many actions before and during his presidency don't ever display any concern or interest in humanitarian concerns.
Probably the most likely is, the situation in Somalia was going to fall apart and leave Bush looking extra bad before he handed the mess to Clinton. So, rather than take his lumps like a man, Bush 1 shoved more soldiers in there to run out the clock and leave Clinton to sort out the crap Bush started. Which is exactly what happened.
I did respond, with the metaphor of bank robbers. You apparently didn't get my response.
Sorry, I see it now. I don't know what happened, but now that I see it, I'll respond here:
Jesus. Thank you. Please also notice how I'm not going to call you an idiot or insult your reading comprehension.
And you actually follow politics? It happens a lot that there's political pressure to take action to correct some wrong, the action is taken and we get some gory stories of soldiers dying, because that tends to happen in military actions, and then there's political pressure to withdraw. This is one of the reasons why the UN is so ineffective.
Soooooo.....which part of that proves me wrong?
And to claim the reason was "bogus" because Bush wanted to get elected, while ignoring the motivations for the UN, ignoring the actual humanitarian disaster, the media coverage, and the actual good that was done when action was taken, or that the real military intervention occurred after Bush had lost the election, is to have blinders on.
Sorry, I don't see how acknowledging the real-world motivations of leaders who have proven themselves to not be humanitarian, is having blinders on.
The "more importantly" is entirely the point. We're talking about actual facts on the ground, and what action any President of the United States should have taken.
Yes, and we're talking about the difference between "should" and reality. And the reality is that no US President of any party has *EVER* committed US military resources on any meaningful scale for purely humanitarian reasons. Ever. Otherwise Ford would have stopped the invasion of East Timor, Clinton would have stopped Rwanda, and Bush II would have stopped Darfur.
This is reality.
Was there a humanitarian disaster? There was.
Yes. And I"m sure there 5 others happening in other areas around the globe at the same time. Not to mention the disaster we had intentionally just left in Iraq, in the vain hopes it would topple Saddam for us. So to suggest Bush involved us in this conflict in August of an election year for purely humanitarian reasons, is just simple nonsense.
LOL! So, I can't blame Bush for Bush's own actions. But you can
Oh, wow. Hey, kudos for the many different ways you test my patience with childish insults.
Hey, updating. You're right, he didn't send the troops in August. He militarily involved the US in August. So, consider my sentence rephrased with "involved our troops with" instead of "sent troops into".
That's some level you have to go to.
Yes, it really is. To have to go and post reality that you should already be aware of, but are being extremely resistant to.
An airlift is not the same as a military invasion, which did not happen until "after he had lost the election to Bill Clinton".
And? Perhaps you're nitpicking some earlier statement of mine?. Hey, fine. If I earlier said "invasion" rather than some more precise word like "intervention", then I concede I used the wrong word. Sure, Bush committed US troops to invade once he couldn't be elected any more. That doesn't change the timing of his initial involvement, or the most likely reasons behind it. The fact remains that this entire official excuse of militarily involving the US for humanitarian reasons is pure nonsense.
And you still haven't responded to the argument of "no good reason": regardless as to who was in the office, was there a good reason for the President of the United States to take action in Somalia?
I did respond, with the metaphor of bank robbers. You apparently didn't get my response. So, I'll make it plainer for you. Sure, in hypothetical unicorn-land there'd be any number of good reasons for a President to invade. That doesn't change the fact that, in the real world, any one of those reasons was almost certainly bogus nonsense - or we would have stayed until we fixed the problems.
You can't blame Bush for escalating the mission from a protection of aid to going after Aidid.
LOL! So, I can't blame Bush for Bush's own actions. But you can blame Clinton for the results of Bush's actions. How does that make sense?
I mean, what?? If you're going to accuse of idiocy, where does your response rate on the scale now? :)
"In August 1992, as the U.S. presidential election campaign was beginning, President Bush ordered the U.S. military to begin a humanitarian relief airlift to Somalia."
^ Oh, look at that. How interesting.
"In November 1992, after he had lost the election to Bill Clinton, President Bush asked the State Department for recommendations with respect to the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Somalia. The Department recommended that the United State propose a UN-led military enforcement operation to open the way for food deliveries, without the use of American troops, but with the logistical support of U.S. military airlift. The Pentagon expressed the view that it would take at least six months for the United Nations to mount such an operation, and only the United States military had the capability of moving quickly. On the basis of these recommendations, President Bush ordered a U.S.-led military operation to stop the starvation, provided that (1) the Security Council agreed, (2) there were troops of other countries to accompany U.S. forces, and (3) the United Nations take over the relief operation within six months... ...The American-led relief operation was turned over to United Nations control in May 1993, as originally planned. U.S. forces were reduced to 2,500 troops serving in a reserve capacity. Boutros-Ghali appointed retired American Admiral Jonathan Howe to head up the entire operation. With relief supplies flowing and agriculture revived, the UN operation became one of working to restore governmental institutions and basic security.
"
^ Oh, look at that. It looks like the decisions you blame on Clinton were actually made by Bush, when Bush was no longer accountable via reelection.
Again, please read carefully, and do some critical thinking as well. The election was over, not just by poll numbers, but by the actual result.
Physician, heal thyself. Because you are refusing to even consider the obvious possibilities that Bush actually invaded Somalia. And that shows a clear unwillingness to critically question your own theories and biases. No election is over for a candidate until all the votes are counted - and as we saw in 2000, not even then.
No, you don't fucking get it at all. When you make a claim about there being "for no good reason", there's a strong implication that there is no good reason at all, not just whatever personal motivations Bush had.
Yes, there is that strong implication. And that strong implication is in reality, whether or not that fits with what you'd like to believe. Those reasons stated for the invasion are, quite frankly, utterly bogus. Otherwise, the US and the other nations involved in the Somalia action would have stayed and fixed Somalia's problems *regardless* of Clinton, Blackhawk Down, or anything else.
It doesn't even matter what his motivations were if it was the right thing for him to do as President of the United States.
No, you're completely wrong. It absolutely matters what his motivations were. Otherwise, people could just do anything and we would have to believe their stated reasons, no matter what their clear intentions AND their results. If someone robbed a bank and claimed it was "to free all that money, and release it into the economy while giving the tellers the day off", would you believe them? More importantly, would those possible good reasons excuse the action?
That is why I mentioned the UN and have backed it up with other sources to indicate why Bush's decision may have been a good one.
OK, and I understand that's why you mentioned the UN. I'm just not accepting that as something that excuses Bush's venture, because it seems completely obvious that was not his intention.
I don't see how you can be following what I wrote and not already get the gist of what I'm saying.
Oh, I get what you're saying completely. I just disagree with it, because I think it's unfounded in fact. That's why I asked if you have any nonpartisan sources to back it up.
When you originally stated, "Bush 1 started the Somalia conflict. For no good reason [..]", it's completely bullshit to ignore the actual good reasons there were for intervening.
No, it's complete bullshit for you to pretend those mentioned reasons actually matter - especially as in your next comment you assert that whatever Bush's actual reasons are, are besides the point?? I mean, what??
Whether Bush personally cared or not is besides the point, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself.
Hey, fair enough. I think it is the *essence* of the point. I guess we just disagree. Thank you for at least starting to provide details and sources for what Clinton did that was different than what Bush did, OR what Bush would have done. Now that you have, with this link to a chronology, I can at least evaluate your logical basis for blaming the situation that occurred early in Clinton's administration even "80%" on Clinton.
I also found a chronology [pbs.org] that completely invalidates your initial claim that Bush "was looking for a way to shore up his numbers for re-election":
How does that invalidate it? You don't think people do desperate things when they're behind? They're even *more* likely to. Happens all the time. As just one example, McCain's rash selection of Sarah Palin as VP,
I said it was led by the US
Fair enough, I read your comment wrong. I thought you were mentioning the UN to bolster your argument. So since you agree that it was led by the US, than what's your point in mentioning the UN at all? Are you saying that because the UN agreed to it, that automatically means that Bush 1 wasn't pursuing the war for his own purposes? I certainly don't see how that follows at all.
re: nonpartisan analysis, totally fine by me to go by the Wiki link, unless of course it has something specific that is disproved by another reliable nonpartisan source. I just don't see how that wiki article supports this statement:
The fire didn't get bigger. It was smaller, and they wanted to extinguish it completely. It was Clinton's decision how to handle the situation....When it goes wrong and he pulls out amid public outcry, he owns that as well.
There's a lot in that statement that does not follow. Specifically, (1) that Bush's efforts were a near-complete success, that (2) Clinton undermined by doing something Bush would not have done, which then (3) means the entire situation becomes 100% Clinton's fault.
To me, it's on you to prove those points, and they currently are not at all proven. You would have to at least specifically prove that Clinton mishandled the situation in a way that led to Blackhawk Down, AND in a way that might not have happened had Bush 1 remained president If you can show me that by specific citations from the Wikipedia link, or other nonpartisan reliable sources, please do so.
The fire didn't get bigger. It was smaller, and they wanted to extinguish it completely.
OK, well that's not exactly what I've read. Do you have any nonpartisan sources for this analysis?
It was a UN mission led by the US for a good cause. Why would the UN care about Bush's re-election chances?
Oh, come on. It was no more 'led' by the UN than the first US-led response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait How could it be UN-led?? The US takes no orders from the UN, never has and almost certainly never will. We don't even sign pointless feel-good UN resolutions if we don't feel like it.
The US decided it wanted to do something, organized it through NATO, and brought the UN in to make it look nice.
It was Clinton's decision to escalate the mission. He has to own the consequences.
So, Bush 1 starts the fire, hands it over to Clinton, and when the fire gets bigger it becomes all Clinton's fault and not any of it is Bush 1's. For what was, from the beginning, supposedly a stopgap humanitarian mission that the UN would take over any day from.
Then you can blame the UN too.
For invading Bush 1 invading Somalia? No, Bush 1 was a grown man who made his own mistake. The UN hardly forced him to commit the US to that disaster.
And even if you are cynical if Bush really cared or not, the humanitarian reason existed, so you can't claim it was for "no good reason".
Yes I absolutely can - because I am certain that the humanitarian reason was not his real reason - and none of his real reasons were any good.
If you look at who controlled both branches of Congress during those same years (you know, the branch which actually makes the laws and budgets), you'd come to pretty much the opposite conclusion. But everyone is so eager to slice and dice the data until they find a pattern which fits their preconceived conclusions, then espouse that singular slice as if it explains everything.
I did look at who controlled the Congress (you know, the branch that actually makes the laws and the budgets, which you know the President then signs or refuses - and who the President also proposed budgets of his own to.)
So I'm not sure which period you're referring to, but the Democratic party had the Congress and the Senate in Clinton's first term. During which his tax raises were passed, which led directly to the surplus that the GOP tried to squander on unneeded tax cuts. Which Clinton then shut down the government rather than allow.
People like simple answers because they don't like having to think so hard about things. Now think about that.
Sure. Now think about this: what matters are facts. I'm not sure if you're arguing with me directly about anything? But if so, I haven't read anything that directly disproves what I've stated.
The answer there is simple too - they want no taxes. But they still want police, fire departments, safe food, safe water, safe roads, a strong military and jobs - which comes from government regulation providing a playing field, courts enforcing laws and contracts, and an educated workforce. And even there I'm leaving out so many essential services which government provides, far better than private businesses would ever provide it - because if private businesses could do it better, government would never have been able to compete in the first place.
I personally would be fine with a return to Clinton levels of taxation, with the same bracketing also for earnings on investments. As long as corporations are taxes also. It is insane for me that I pay my taxes, and Exxon pays their taxes to every other nation but the US. And they are only one example.
What?? Blackhawk Down, and it ended with our soldiers being dragged through the streets and an eventual pullout of our forces, followed by mass famine due to the warlords that the original action had put a stop to.
That's why I said "military actions that Clinton started".
"No good reason" being a humanitarian disaster. The UN approved, and the plan worked: International aid was getting to where it was supposed to.
Oh yeah. Because Bush 1 was SO concerned about humanitarian disasters. That's why he helped Saint Reagan fund death squads in Nicaragua with the siphoned results from selling arms to Iran. While we were also selling arms publicly to Iraq - which means the US government, in our name, was selling WMD's to both sides in the Iran/Iraq war. After which, any attempts to punish Saddam for war crimes was squashed by the administrations of Reagan and Bush.
Pardon me if I consider Bush 1's stated "humanitarian" reasons for the Somalia action more than a little suspect, due to that previous context.
What happened next was on Clinton's watch, when they wanted to remove a particular warlord who wasn't cooperating.
The loss and withdrawal in Somalia had deep consequences, making America look weak and prompting failure to take action elsewhere. I don't blame Clinton for losing a few forces, but I do blame him for being overly sensitive to poll numbers.
It appears we differ here. I don't see Clinton at fault for stopping support of the Somalia action. I hold Bush and Reagan more at fault for creating the monster of Bin Laden and militarized, Middle-East funded jihadis, and then just tossing them aside when Russia retreated from Afghanistan and we didn't need them any more - thus turning them against us.
I don't think it's at all wrong to tax someone in a way that works for the country. I don't think the wealthy should be charged more than works, or charged less. I don't think it's difficult at all to know what someone should pay, in that context.
I also disagree utterly that our system makes it impossible to keep money. I just think you have a lot of people who can afford enough lawyers to pay less than they should - and balance the budget on the back of the people who make less than them, and simply can't afford that many lawyers.
No one likes paying taxes, but they're needed. All of the infrastructure that we enjoy today, which helped our country achieve economic success - and which is currently falling apart because we aren't keeping it up - was built when we had a much, much higher rate of taxes on the wealthy.
This didn't happen through some bipartisanship - this happened because of party-line votes and because Clinton was willing to shut down the government, *twice*, rather than sign Republican budgets with different priorities. Such as wanting to squander the Clinton surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy.
But part of this reinterpretation may be due to the slipperiness of the term 'conservative' in American politics. American conservatism in practice is really anything but - it is radical, expansive of government powers and reductive of individual liberties. True conservatism, as in moderate practical and balanced approaches as shown by both Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, appears as radical liberalism when compared to American political conservatism in practice.
OH, and FYI - Bush 1 started the Somalia conflict. For no good reason, except that the first Iraq invasion was over, he failed to topple Saddam, and he was looking for a way to shore up his numbers for re-election. Thankfully, Bush failed in reelection and we got a competent President. For this, conservatives have never and will ever forgive Bill Clinton.
And honestly, if you are suggesting that the Clinton economy was worse than the Bush I, Bush II or Reagan economies, I don't even know what to say.
Is it really just that hard to admit that Clinton was a better President than either of the Bushes or Reagan? Wouldn't it be easier to just acknowledge reality?
Have you considered the fact that it wasn't just Reagan, it was Cater, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama that have all promised government will help you, and yet we have Black people in the worst shape in three decades? Oh right, because Obama, Clinton and Cater are all (D) and inherited their problems from (R) and the (R)s are all responsible.
So, because government hasn't fixed everything, that totally negates the actual fact that American conservative policy doesn't work?
Because the facts to be considered are that Reagan and Bush 1 did awful things to the economy and the country *and* gave us both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. And that Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity, by following the exact opposite of conservative economic and foreign policies. And that Bush 2 then went back to the standard conservative plan which resulted in 8 years of bad news, culminating in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
It's pretty clear what the deal is: rather than admit that American conservative policy in government is bad, American conservatives would rather say that **all government** is bad.
Which is a pretty clear definition of total immaturity, at best.
There is now.
deceipt (noun): the receipt for a purchased falsehood.
The Westboro Baptist Church have a right to be complete assholes and say and do completely assholish things. That's really where it starts and ends.
No matter how good it feels that someone might make them possibly feel even a little bit as shitty as they love to make other *victims* feel. Goddammit. What a bunch of sick fucks. Never protest people when they're up. Never go and spew their shit at an ROTC center, or during a parade. No, it's got to be some funeral, where a bunch of people who are already facing the worst day of their fucking lives and trying to move on now have to deal with the Westboro shit too.
But that's their right, and that's how it has to work.
But I must admit I wouldn't be unhappy, if it turned out that Anonymous were prosecuted for this only after every lost library book in America was tracked down and returned.
Didn't you just use the word silo in a business context? : )