View Full Version : War in Iraq - 3 Years
Piddzilla
03-17-06, 09:14 AM
We used to have very heated discussions about this here on the forum, but for some reason we rarely touch the subject nowadays.
I just realized that the war is almost exactly 3 years old today. I read somewhere that in the period 1961-1965 1864 American soldiers were killed in combat in Vietnam. I decided to check what the number was in Iraq and found out that 1856 American soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq since March 19th, 2003.
What are you thoughts about the future in Iraq? I am aware of that there is a very small possibility that any American government would allow the number of casualties to escalate the way it did in Vietnam after 1965, but does the similarity between the numbers of casualties in the two wars during the "initial years" worry you? What was supposed to be a walk in the park has turned into a much more lengthy operation and today we learn that the US troops has launched the most massive airstrikes since the war begun.
What are your thoughts about the war and the future? Are they optimistic?
chicagofrog
03-17-06, 09:49 AM
what interests me mostly, like you can guess if you know me, is the Kurds.
and unfortunately, Americans always acting in their petty political and economical interests doesn't give much hope:
(from a newspaper) "Washington likely will not endorse the Kurdish strategy fully. Kurdistan faces the dilemma of having its territory spread across four countries -- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey -- each of which has a core interest in repressing their Kurdish minorities to dampen any separatist tendencies. For its part, the United States has complex relations with each of these countries, and so cannot afford to promote the existence of an independent Kurdistan in the region."
always the same discourse.
but Kurds are tough, and like Armenians, won't give up so easily. and i'll be with them.
Piddzilla
03-17-06, 10:58 AM
Well... How do you figure that USA would be able to secure stability in Iraq by favouring one ethnic group while ignoring the others? As for now the most important thing is that all the ethnic and religious groups in Iraq are being represented in the governing of the nation, and the Kurds are having more influence in that than they did before the war started. It's not the Kurds or their struggle for a unified Kurdistan that is the biggest problem right now, you must have noticed that. The Kurds aren't the ones doing the fighting. Sure, I wish the Kurds could have their own country as they desire but let's take one thing at the time. The fact that the Kurds are no longer being discriminated and being treated as 3rd grade citizens in Iraq must be worth something.
Sexy Celebrity
03-17-06, 11:03 AM
What in the world goes on nowadays with that war? I don't keep up with it. There's still a war going on?
chicagofrog
03-17-06, 11:16 AM
Well... How do you figure that USA would be able to secure stability in Iraq by favouring one ethnic group while ignoring the others? (...) It's not the Kurds or their struggle for a unified Kurdistan that is the biggest problem right now, you must have noticed that. The Kurds aren't the ones doing the fighting. Sure, I wish the Kurds could have their own country as they desire but let's take one thing at the time. The fact that the Kurds are no longer being discriminated and being treated as 3rd grade citizens in Iraq must be worth something.
you're right in that last thing, no doubt. nota bene though:
1) i didn't say "favor one group and ignore :rolleyes: the others" - where did you read that? surely *not* in my post. the other groups of course must be respected.
2) i didn't say either that it's the "most important problem right now", just that it's what interests me most. and like everyone, i have a right to be more personally interested in one aspect than in the others.
What are your thoughts about the war and the future? Are they optimistic?
As long as Bush and the Republicans control things, I'm optimistic about very little.
Revenant
03-17-06, 12:40 PM
The way it stands I doubt there will be any resolution to the war anytime soon. Here in Britain just as we're getting some troops home a new lot is being sent out. At the moment we are just curculating our troops and frankly I see no end for a good while as this trend continues. War makes idiots stubborn and Bush and Blair are high up there with stupidity.
As long as Bush and the Republicans control things, I'm optimistic about very little.
The way it stands I doubt there will be any resolution to the war anytime soon. Here in Britain just as we're getting some troops home a new lot is being sent out. At the moment we are just curculating our troops and frankly I see no end for a good while as this trend continues. War makes idiots stubborn and Bush and Blair are high up there with stupidity.
What well-reasoned arguments. :rolleyes:
I remain cautiously optimistic in regards to Iraq. On one hand, there's still plenty of violence, and a number of hurdles to overcome. On the other hand, it's been only 3 years. America took 13 to write and ratify its own constitution, and it devolved into Civil War at one point, but here we are. And yet people talk about these same things in Iraq as if they represented unmitigated failure.
In reality, such judgements are premature; not just by a month or a year, but by a decade. The establishment of any democracy (let alone one in the Middle East) is a momentous accomplishment, and a corresponding level of difficulty should be expected. To think otherwise would be naive. And to think that the accomplishment is not worth the difficulties is, in my opinion, very short-sighted.
History is not kind to bets against individual freedom, so I'll take my chances with the optimists. I have a sneaking suspicion that the freeing of 25 million people will be looked upon favorably a few decades from now, to the point at which people will find it difficult to believe we ever had debates like the one we're having now.
Great thread, by the way, Peter. :)
SamsoniteDelilah
03-17-06, 05:34 PM
This is a bit of a quibble, but my recollection at the start of this was Bush saying that this would be a long conflict, and that he expressed concern that the American people had the fortitude to support a long war. I don't remember it being marketed as a walk in the park.
I still think we are there under false pretenses, and that it is actually an economical interest. I disagree that US economical interests are "petty" - we're the biggest economy on the planet. That doesn't give us the right to enforce our interests at the point of a gun and the cost of lives, but it certainly isn't "petty".
That said, now that we're there, I can't imagine any smart way to wrap things up without actually accomplishing the goals (however decorative) that we've stated in going there. Until there is a democracy established, we can't just withdraw - we'd have accomplished very little if we did.
ash_is_the_gal
03-17-06, 06:02 PM
And to think that the accomplishment is not worth the difficulties is, in my opinion, very short-sighted.
difficulties? what difficulties? i haven't noticed any difficulties being added in my day to day life...oh...oh wait....thats because the war is in Iraq...silly me...
I have the feeling many of us would be singing a different song, if this war actually was anything like the Civil War (which you mentioned in some kind of comparision...)...but for most I am afraid, its a non-exsistent war...people forget about it because it's not in their own backyard...sure they are reminded of it from time to time but most people have more important things to worry about, it seems...I am of course, not exempt from this. I am just as bad as most.
Piddzilla
03-18-06, 12:38 PM
you're right in that last thing, no doubt. nota bene though:
1) i didn't say "favor one group and ignore :rolleyes: the others" - where did you read that? surely *not* in my post. the other groups of course must be respected.
2) i didn't say either that it's the "most important problem right now", just that it's what interests me most. and like everyone, i have a right to be more personally interested in one aspect than in the others.
Sure you do. I just found the fact that it was what you associated the most with the war in Iraq a little unusual.
You didn't say that the other groups would be ignored, but by supporting a full scale Kurdish uprising in all the countries the Kurds are living in while Iraq is on the brink of civil war would be idiocy. And it would consequently be to ignore all other groups since it would irritate not only the Shiites and the Sunnites but also lead to chaos in the entire region.
Great thread, by the way, Peter. :)
Thanks.
This is a bit of a quibble, but my recollection at the start of this was Bush saying that this would be a long conflict, and that he expressed concern that the American people had the fortitude to support a long war. I don't remember it being marketed as a walk in the park.
I still think we are there under false pretenses, and that it is actually an economical interest. I disagree that US economical interests are "petty" - we're the biggest economy on the planet. That doesn't give us the right to enforce our interests at the point of a gun and the cost of lives, but it certainly isn't "petty".
That said, now that we're there, I can't imagine any smart way to wrap things up without actually accomplishing the goals (however decorative) that we've stated in going there. Until there is a democracy established, we can't just withdraw - we'd have accomplished very little if we did.
Well, I think the general impression was that the US Army wouldn't have any difficulties in taking control over Iraq and Bush did proclaim the war being over a couple of months after the invasion had started.
I too think that a withdrawal is not to think of and probably won't be within the next 5 years.
difficulties? what difficulties? i haven't noticed any difficulties being added in my day to day life...oh...oh wait....thats because the war is in Iraq...silly me...
I have the feeling many of us would be singing a different song, if this war actually was anything like the Civil War (which you mentioned in some kind of comparision...)...but for most I am afraid, its a non-exsistent war...people forget about it because it's not in their own backyard...sure they are reminded of it from time to time but most people have more important things to worry about, it seems...I am of course, not exempt from this. I am just as bad as most.
I think that is a very valid point. It's easy to say to the Iraqi people that the cost for freedom is high and hundreds of thousands have to pay with their lives. That's what America did in their civil war. But that was in the 19th century and this is the 21st. I sometimes wonder if it is not possible at this point to achieve goals like this without wars. And the people of Iraq is experiencing more violence than ever... I just feel horrible for them and even if many of the points made in favour of the American presence in the country are right, it angers me that it's such a politically charged issue in USA and Europe while in reality people are dying like flies in Iraq. I think I have discovered that I care less and less about the real reasons for this war which used to upset me like hell (still does really). I just wish the killing would stop.
ash_is_the_gal
03-18-06, 12:52 PM
I think that is a very valid point. It's easy to say to the Iraqi people that the cost for freedom is high and hundreds of thousands have to pay with their lives. That's what America did in their civil war. But that was in the 19th century and this is the 21st.
stress on America...think about it....we didn't have people coming over from different lands fighting our war for us. Everything about the Civil War was created by Americans...suppose if it wasn't? do you think you'd still say it was worth it when you looked back and learned a lot of Americans died for their own freedom at the hands of foreigners, who didn't even really have the right to be here, since it wasn't their war? ;)
allthatglitters
03-18-06, 03:53 PM
I am just going to jump in quickly to say a few things.
As far as false pretenses go, I am sure both sides will be arguing about it for years. The arguments I hear against the war kind of go like this:
1. Bush lied about WMD's.
I think that the people participating in this thread are smart enough to realize that Bush AND most of the Senate AND various Intelligence agencies didn't lie-- they were just wrong. Although, recent documents (yet to be translated, yeah our CIA is really on top of things) that were collected at the start of the war when we infiltrated Saddam's palaces and various offices of state bring up some interesting questions. Stephen Hayes over at The Weekly Standard, which is as most should know, unabashedly conservative has covered this story for quite a while. You can access the US army office of intelligence website which has made some of the documents public at http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq
The Weekly Standard's website, where you can read Hayes numerous articles on the documents is www.weeklystandard.com (http://www.weeklystandard.com/)
What exactly these documents contain is a big question that needs to be answered. Whether they support our pretenses for going into the war or not-- these documents are very important. I myself have only been able to glance at some of them.
more later. . .
Piddzilla
03-19-06, 04:35 PM
stress on America...think about it....we didn't have people coming over from different lands fighting our war for us. Everything about the Civil War was created by Americans...suppose if it wasn't? do you think you'd still say it was worth it when you looked back and learned a lot of Americans died for their own freedom at the hands of foreigners, who didn't even really have the right to be here, since it wasn't their war? ;)
I do think it is a little more complex than that, really. There are extreme tensions between the different groups of people in Iraq and there are fractions that want nothing but chaos in the region. Even if USA has a great responsibility for the security in Iraq (they did in fact eliminate the previous guarantee for security - dictator or not), they can't be blamed for all the reasons for what is looking more and more like a civil war. But, yes, the invasion can indirectly be seen as the trigger. And, yes, there are an awful lot of people dying now and it's only a natural reaction among the Iraqis to look at the foreign troops and wonder if this is what democracy is really like, and then the equally natural consequence is that some will feel that with Saddam in control of things, "we could at least go out at night".
I am just going to jump in quickly to say a few things.
As far as false pretenses go, I am sure both sides will be arguing about it for years. The arguments I hear against the war kind of go like this:
1. Bush lied about WMD's.
I think that the people participating in this thread are smart enough to realize that Bush AND most of the Senate AND various Intelligence agencies didn't lie-- they were just wrong.
They weren't even wrong. I think what they know now is exactly what they knew then. The WMD was a motive, an argument presented to the public in a way to make an invasion appear as absolutely necessary to secure the safety of the American people. As you perhaps remember there was a schism between the Bush administration and the UN inspectors, led by Hans Blix, before the war started. Blix basically said that there was no evidence for existing WMD:s in Iraq but that further inspections were needed before every possibility could be ruled out. This was not what the Bush administration wanted to hear because it didn't serve their official motive to go into Iraq. And they needed that motive desperately to sell the war to the American public.
I think it is a very big mistake to blame the Bush administration of lying. Instead they should be respected for their magnificent skills in strategic media tactics. Not that I think they are incapable of lying, but that, when you think of it, no "evidence" presented by them was ever presented as a fact, and can therefore neither be regarded as a lie. More like deliberate misinformation that could be analyzed in various ways, including the way that Bush et al choose to analyze it and with, for them, desirable results.
The WMD debate is totally absent in War in Iraq discussions of today. It's completely irrelevant. The fact that those who said all the time that they weren't going to find any WMD:s were right makes absolutely no difference. And I think that the Bush administration knew very well that it would not make a difference when the invasion really had become reality. It was a way to get things moving and it worked.
This way of manipulating the public is of course nothing that is typical for the Bush administration, on the contrary. I think in modern democracies this is how all governments make the people think the way the government wants them to think. I guess that the difference between any other issue and the War in Iraq is that we are in fact talking about a war which makes it more serious in the minds of many people.
What well-reasoned arguments. :rolleyes:
I didn't know a 500 word essay was a requirement.
First, on the matter of entering the war under false pretenses. This is how I see the invasion...Bush wanted to invade Iraq and remove or kill Saddam Hussein. But he needed a reason he could sell to Congress and the American people. The "He's a bad guy reason" wasn't sufficient. And that would make it hard to explain why we sat on our asses in the 80s, during the Reagan Administration while Saddam was actually using chemical weapons (that we helped supply) against Iran and his own people. But by Fall of 2002, we were outraged at a leader who would do such a thing. It was a carefully timed outrage.
But as many have said, the reasons for invasion, disingenuous or not, don't matter much now. We're in the hornets' nest, now we need to find a repellant.
Then there's something I'll call "the moderate Islam factor." Prior to our invasion of Iraq, I believe the extreme animosity for the US was relegated to a relatively small number of radical Muslims. And I don't think going to Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban and chasing down bin Laden did anything to change that. We were entitled to pursue those actions. But the invasion of Iraq was a whole different story. That was seen by much of the Muslim world (and much of the rest of the world) as an act of arrogant imperialism. The danger of spreading the extreme animosity from radicals to moderates became very real. I'd rather deal with 1000 terrorists than 10,000 or 100,000. The goal after 911 should have been to reduce the number of terrorists, both by killing existing ones and preventing the creation of new ones through improved relations with Muslim countries. A preemptive attack on a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 911 is not the way to improve relations. It is however, a way to convince moderate Muslims that the US is a dangerous and arrogant aggressor who can't be trusted.
Bringing democracy to Iraq...ya know, I don't ever recall hearing that until the WMD proved nonexistent. I don't recall hearing it until it became obvious we weren't leaving and would remain as occupiers. If that was part of the initial plan back in the Fall of 02 and Spring of 03, George didn't share it with us. The only thing he shared was WMD, ties with al Qaeda and nuclear danger. The sales pitch for invasion was "imminent threat of WMD" not "Democracy for Iraq." George and Company seem to be moving the goal posts.
In the case of Iraq's potential democracy, does the end justify the means? Will a democracy achieved by an invading foreign force be anything like a home grown democracy? Will the invading force be seen as liberators or as unwanted interlopers? And will democracy lead to something we want? Or will it lead to an Iran-like theocracy or a government hostile to the US? My guess is we won't allow either one of those options. So, Iraq is free to have a democracy as long as it's a democracy we approve.
I thought lessons about the folly of imperialism had been learned in the 19th and 20th centuries. Maybe not.
chicagofrog
03-20-06, 10:46 AM
i agree with Yoda on one thing, it's a great thread you created!, whether you think i'm full of idiocy or not. ;)
Piddzilla
03-20-06, 10:50 AM
I don't think you're full of idiocy at all. And thank you! :)
chicagofrog
03-20-06, 11:21 AM
ver saa god! :)
difficulties? what difficulties? i haven't noticed any difficulties being added in my day to day life...oh...oh wait....thats because the war is in Iraq...silly me...
You make a very good point. There is no sacrifice for this war. The only ones sacrficing are those unlucky enough to be in the military while Bush is President.
I'm certainly not in favor of a draft but an all volunteer military gives the Administration the power to do what it wants without complaint from a non-sacrificing public. If there was a draft, I suspect the streets would be flooded with protestors and the climate would be similar to the Vietnam era. But...no pain, no worry.
It was necessary for the pain to hit home in the form of a natural disaster to shake the public out of its' complacency and recognize the incompetency and lack of compassion in this Administration.
It was necessary for the pain to hit home in the form of a natural disaster to shake the public out of its' complacency and recognize the incompetency and lack of compassion in this Administration.
Yeah I know, I am so glad that this diaster happened, I mean all of us complacent Bush lovers would still be buying our SUVs and watching Fox. I just installed a DVD player in my Geo so I can watch CNN reruns whilst I save gas.
Well, everything's gone ballistic as usual... i'm gonna try and split my wee musings into sections for clarity...
Vietnam Parallels
Intriguing parallel you've spotted there Piddy, on the current bodycount front. Like you say, i'm sure the US will do anything to avoid things escalating like before - and the only thing that would cause a body count like that would be all-out war. (Which, unfortunately, is a possibility, in various forms).
Whenever Vietnam is brought up i tend to think of McNamara's point in The Fog of War about how the US had misunderstood their enemy and intervened in a foolish manner. IE The apparent fact that the Vietnamese would have fiercely resisted absorption by Red-China, seeing as China was a long-standing and hated enemy of theirs.
I can't help but feel there's been some comparable mistakes made here... and some new ones too... (the most notable being the apparent pursuit of a 'neocon' multi-fronted invade-and-convert policy)
The Rush to Peace
America took 13 to write and ratify its own constitution, and it devolved into Civil War at one point, but here we are. And yet people talk about these same things in Iraq as if they represented unmitigated failure.
In reality, such judgements are premature; not just by a month or a year, but by a decade.
Well, part of the reason for people jumping on failures is the rush with which the admin has predicted success in the past. There have been verbal predictions from the political 'bandstand', such as...
“I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” – Dick Cheney, May 31 2005.
(And i feel compelled to add... “If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period,” – Dick Cheney, June 23 2005 ;))
The most damning prediction of comparatively swift success was implicit however. It was implicit in the laughable troop numbers which Rumsfeld et al opted for, and the contingent lack of a decent post-war plan.
---
Incidently, i'm not sure the US-nation-building parallel entirely holds true. Iraqis are hardly unified by the 'pioneer spirit' which took all the various emigrees to the Americas in the first place. They haven't escaped the rigid geopolitical 'facts on the ground' of their homelands either. They're still living amongst them. It's a distinct type of dawn, it seems to me.
The establishment of any democracy (let alone one in the Middle East) is a momentous accomplishment, and a corresponding level of difficulty should be expected.
So why the hell wasn't it? :p
On a more constructive note, i do agree that a lasting democracy will be a great achievement, if it happens - but it's incredibly far from established as yet. It's a bit early to be waving the 'momentous accomplishment' flag, don't you think?
Changes on the Ground
1) i didn't say "favor one group and ignore :rolleyes: the others" - where did you read that? surely *not* in my post. the other groups of course must be respected.
The problem there is that any Kurdish movement towards founding a new state will cause aggression from both the rest of Iraq (who won't fancy losing the northern oil fields) and from the bordering countries with Kurdish populations - who will fear internal uprisings and probably increase their own internal Kurdish-repressions as well.
What's more, such a shift towards seperatism may encourage a split between Sunni and Shia - who may then align with countries nearby of the same denomination - or perhaps form their own states. Either way what you looking at is a recipe for war - possibly on multiple fronts.
So... the prob seems to be - is Kurdish separation possible without causing serious repurcussions for both them and others? Currently, it seems pretty unlikely.
The fact that the Kurds are no longer being discriminated and being treated as 3rd grade citizens in Iraq must be worth something.
Ay :yup:
chicagofrog
03-22-06, 09:56 AM
very good post Golgot. here's my thumb up.
I didn't know a 500 word essay was a requirement.
Hell, I probably would've settled for fifty. ;)
First, on the matter of entering the war under false pretenses. This is how I see the invasion...Bush wanted to invade Iraq and remove or kill Saddam Hussein. But he needed a reason he could sell to Congress and the American people.
I'd say he "wanted" to because it made sense. For one, we had every reason in the world to believe Iraq possessed WMDs at the time (despite the surprisingly resilient but ultimately indefensible claim that he knew otherwise). It also made sense, strategically (Iran sits directly between Iraq and Afghanistan).
The fact that it was also the right thing to do, morally, only made the decision easier. We should be glad that morality saw some overlap with national interest, rather than condemnding the fact that national interest played a role.
The "He's a bad guy reason" wasn't sufficient. And that would make it hard to explain why we sat on our asses in the 80s, during the Reagan Administration while Saddam was actually using chemical weapons (that we helped supply) against Iran and his own people. But by Fall of 2002, we were outraged at a leader who would do such a thing. It was a carefully timed outrage.
I'd say it was an overdue outrage, though discussions about motivation involve little more than guesswork and conjecture. Also, Bush was not speaking for every U.S. President in history, so I don't think the "he's a bad guy" reason would have required him to explain anything during the 1980s.
But as many have said, the reasons for invasion, disingenuous or not, don't matter much now. We're in the hornets' nest, now we need to find a repellant.
True. I'm encouraged by the fact that most people agree on this, at the very least.
Then there's something I'll call "the moderate Islam factor." Prior to our invasion of Iraq, I believe the extreme animosity for the US was relegated to a relatively small number of radical Muslims. And I don't think going to Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban and chasing down bin Laden did anything to change that. We were entitled to pursue those actions. But the invasion of Iraq was a whole different story. That was seen by much of the Muslim world (and much of the rest of the world) as an act of arrogant imperialism. The danger of spreading the extreme animosity from radicals to moderates became very real. I'd rather deal with 1000 terrorists than 10,000 or 100,000. The goal after 911 should have been to reduce the number of terrorists, both by killing existing ones and preventing the creation of new ones through improved relations with Muslim countries. A preemptive attack on a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 911 is not the way to improve relations. It is however, a way to convince moderate Muslims that the US is a dangerous and arrogant aggressor who can't be trusted.
Any attempt to confront Islamic radicals was inevitably going to risk angering some borderline Islamic moderates. Not confronting them as a result is little more than veiled appeasement. Also, for all the talk of alienating moderates, I don't know that we've seen any objective confirmation of this. It's the kind of thing that sounds plausible, and may very well be true, but I don't think it makes much of an argument without some kind of independent verification that it's happening, and happening to the degree you're saying.
That said, if the recruitment of radicals is of primary concern, surely that suggests that we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished. For all the people we may have provoked by invading Iraq, I'd imagine it'd be nothing compared to the recruitment we'd see if the insurgents were to break our will there.
Bringing democracy to Iraq...ya know, I don't ever recall hearing that until the WMD proved nonexistent. I don't recall hearing it until it became obvious we weren't leaving and would remain as occupiers. If that was part of the initial plan back in the Fall of 02 and Spring of 03, George didn't share it with us. The only thing he shared was WMD, ties with al Qaeda and nuclear danger. The sales pitch for invasion was "imminent threat of WMD" not "Democracy for Iraq." George and Company seem to be moving the goal posts.
I'll take you at your word that you don't recall hearing about the importance of a democratic Iraq before it became clear we weren't going to find any WMDs. I'm afraid you can't foist your memory lapses off onto Dubya, though:
"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
...
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)" -- George W. Bush - January 28th, 2003 (State of the Union (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html))
"And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind." -- George W. Bush - February 10th, 2003 (Remarks at "Congress of Tomorrow" reception (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210.html))
"Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people." -- George W. Bush - March 16th, 2003 (Press Conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-3.html))
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
...
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you." -- George W. Bush - March 19th, 2003 (Address to the Nation (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html))
"The people who serve in the military are giving their best to this country. We have the responsibility to give them our full support as they fight for the liberty of an oppressed people, for the security of the United States, and for the peace of the world." -- George W. Bush - March 29th, 2003 (Radio Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030329.html))
"As we press on to liberate every corner of Iraq, we are beginning the difficult work of helping Iraqis to build a free and stable country. The immediate tasks involve establishing order, as well as delivering food and water and medicines. We'll help Iraqis to restore electrical power and other basic services. We'll help destroy the former regime's weapons of mass destruction. We'll help the Iraqi people to establish a just and representative government, which respects human rights and adheres to the rule of law. These tasks will take effort, and these tasks will take time. But I have faith in the Iraqi people, and I believe that a free Iraq can be an example of reform and progress to all the Middle East." -- George W. Bush - April 15th, 2003 (Remarks from the Rose Garden (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030415-10.html))
"In the new era that is coming to Iraq, your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building more palaces for Saddam and his sons, free to pursue economic prosperity without the hardship of economic sanctions, free to travel and speak your mind, free to join in the political affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country – Kurds, Shi’a, Turkomans, Sunnis, and others – will be free of the terrible persecution that so many have endured. The nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be over. You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free." -- George W. Bush - April 10th, 2003 (Message to the Iraqi people (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-2.html))
Even if we ignore these quotes (and I don't see how we can), you're essentially proposing that we condemn this President in particular for engaging in public relations, even though we all know it's a part of winning public support in any matter. That would be moving the goal posts.
In the case of Iraq's potential democracy, does the end justify the means? Will a democracy achieved by an invading foreign force be anything like a home grown democracy? Will the invading force be seen as liberators or as unwanted interlopers? And will democracy lead to something we want? Or will it lead to an Iran-like theocracy or a government hostile to the US? My guess is we won't allow either one of those options. So, Iraq is free to have a democracy as long as it's a democracy we approve.
These are perfectly good questions (though I don't see much basis for the cynical conclusion you've come to). The problem is, questions like these have scared us away from confronting dictators like Hussein for decades. We've been choosing the relative stability of dictators over the uncertainty of nation-building and democracy. As you mention earlier in your post, we've sided with them out of convenience out of the past. Clearly, you don't think much of that. But you think even less of siding against them. So what would you have done, exactly? It's easy to point at the action and the suffering that has resulted. It's not as easy to remember that inaction had brought suffering for a decade before that.
I thought lessons about the folly of imperialism had been learned in the 19th and 20th centuries. Maybe not.
There is no reasonable definition of the word "imperialism" that this action would fall under, unless you believe that we do not, in fact, plan to leave, even if and when Iraq's security has improved.
chicagofrog
03-24-06, 09:31 AM
"What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind." -- George W. Bush - February 10th, 2003
There is no reasonable definition of the word "imperialism" that this action would fall under, unless you believe that we do not, in fact, plan to leave, even if and when Iraq's security has improved.
deep argumentation, in the post as a whole.
just two thoughts that occurred to me while reading the whole of it:
1) (about the citation) who's Bush (and any human being) to give himself the right to speak in God's name? (note it'd be the same if he talked in gods' name) and especially, doesn't it ring a bell from earlier times (it does in Europe most of the time, where "ancient" history is present in many people's mind), when the crusaders pretended to be the ones in possession of the only truth, and gave themselves the right to kill in the name of God, actually, just like their enemies did too? and couldn't this sentence, maybe changing God for Allah in order to make it even clearer, be pronounced by those it's supposed to fight against?
2) France left Senegal as an example, but still have more than a word to say when it comes to political decisions in this country, like my Senegalese friends gave me hundreds of examples for. it actually borders foreign control on an ex-colony's decisions. meaning: leaving (army, etc...) is not all. there CAN be neocolonialism without the presence of an army, i'm sure you know that.
1) (about the citation) who's Bush (and any human being) to give himself the right to speak in God's name? (note it'd be the same if he talked in gods' name) and especially, doesn't it ring a bell from earlier times (it does in Europe most of the time, where "ancient" history is present in many people's mind), when the crusaders pretended to be the ones in possession of the only truth, and gave themselves the right to kill in the name of God, actually, just like their enemies did too? and couldn't this sentence, maybe changing God for Allah in order to make it even clearer, be pronounced by those it's supposed to fight against?
I don't think so, because the insurgents are not, by anyone's standard, fighting for freedom. They don't even pretend to.
We can certainly quibble about whether or not America is being as altruistic as it claims, but the goals of the two sides contrast greatly. The insurgents openly target innocent civilians and do not hide the fact that they wish to establish at worst, a dictatorship, and at best, a theocracy.
As for speaking in God's name; it's certainly not the kind of thing I think much of, however invoking God as someone who stands on the side of freedom is a pretty safe bet. No one would be concerned about Bush trying to "speak for God" if he said "God wishes us to be kind." It's when people try to pretend they know what God thinks about things in which He hasn't spoken that we get into murky waters, in my opinion. That's the danger, after all; pretending God is behind an un-Godly cause. I don't think spreading freedom qualifies.
2) France left Senegal as an example, but still have more than a word to say when it comes to political decisions in this country, like my Senegalese friends gave me hundreds of examples for. it actually borders foreign control on an ex-colony's decisions. meaning: leaving (army, etc...) is not all. there CAN be neocolonialism without the presence of an army, i'm sure you know that.
That's a fair point. But I'd have to ask, if this is the worst that happens, isn't that a marked improvement for the Iraqi people? Some vague, non-legal influence that America has, as opposed to the much-publicized rape rooms and torture chambers of the Hussein regime?
chicagofrog
03-24-06, 01:35 PM
It's when people try to pretend they know what God thinks about things in which He hasn't spoken that we get into murky waters, in my opinion.
i'm far from a specialist of the Koran, although i read the beginning. viewed from the other point of view, don't (at least some) Iraqi insurgents believe they really fight after God's words? - isn't it all a question of what side you stand, and finally, a question of what your faith is?
But I'd have to ask, if this is the worst that happens, isn't that a marked improvement for the Iraqi people? Some vague, non-legal influence that America has, as opposed to the much-publicized rape rooms and torture chambers of the Hussein regime
i can agree with you that it may be better for the Iraqi people, that's a fact, but shouldn't we demand more, if we want justice, than the solution of less evil (the impact of this expression here is not what i'm at btw)? at least wish for it and try to find the best solution, if we're honest to our principles?
:)
I'd say he "wanted" to because it made sense.
I'd say he wanted to because the window of opportunity was closing. After 911, the Bush Administration had a limited time when they could launch an attack on Iraq with little resistance... from Congress or the American people. Bush played his two best cards: fear and patriotism. It wouldn't have worked prior to 911 and it may not have worked three years after 911. In fact, a preemptive attack with so little evidence would have been unthinkable.
For one, we had every reason in the world to believe Iraq possessed WMDs at the time (despite the surprisingly resilient but ultimately indefensible claim that he knew otherwise). It also made sense, strategically (Iran sits directly between Iraq and Afghanistan).
Maybe Bush really believed Saddam had WMD. Maybe the intelligence wasn't "fixed", manipulated or cherry picked. Is that still a valid reason for invasion? Consider this for a moment... In a conversation with Bush pal, evangelist Pat Robertson, Robertson expressed concern of "many casualties" if we invaded. Bush replied "Don't worry, there won't be any." Does that sound like a man who is concerned about WMD?
Your second reason is the more likely IMO. Iraq is a strategic location. Iraq has lots of oil. The rush to war over WMD was BS and the current reason of democracy is more BS. But bringing democracy to Iraq is a good explanation for not leaving...until the "job is done." When will the job be done? There are over one billion Muslims with increasing hostility for the West every day. People who kill themselves for a cause (however misguided) won't be giving up any time soon.
The fact that it was also the right thing to do, morally, only made the decision easier. We should be glad that morality saw some overlap with national interest, rather than condemnding the fact that national interest played a role.
I don't condemn national interest. Our national interests were: strategic location, lots of oil and perhaps, a stable democracy in the Middle East. Those weren't the reasons we were given. Because a war wouldn't have been approved for those reasons. So we were given reasons based on fear and revenge. The Administration wanted war and it used disingenuous reasons to get it.
Any attempt to confront Islamic radicals was inevitably going to risk angering some borderline Islamic moderates. Not confronting them as a result is little more than veiled appeasement.
I'm all for confronting the Islamic radicals. Going to Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban (who supported bin Laden) and chasing down al Qaeda was an excellent example of confronting the radicals. A preemptive invasion of a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 911 is not "confronting the radicals." Unless one has a murky image of anyone Bush chooses to fight as a radical and a terrorist.
Also, for all the talk of alienating moderates, I don't know that we've seen any objective confirmation of this.
That's true, I haven't seen objective confirmation either. But I'm guessing that when foreign troops invade a country, kill 30,000 of its people, wound tens of thousands more and cause massive destruction of the infrastructure; more than a few moderates are going to be alienated. And not only moderates in that country but in other countries that share a similar tradition.
That said, if the recruitment of radicals is of primary concern, surely that suggests that we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.
As I said earlier, there are over one billion Muslims. And I suspect the number of radicals will increase with our continued presence in Iraq. If the options are civil war or an indefinite US occupation, what is the choice? Do we stay and remain a part of the daily death and bloodshed or do we leave and leave the fate of Iraq to the Iraqi people? At what point do we say "We got rid of Saddam and helped establish a government, it's up to you now."
My opinion: Bush has no intention of leaving. Iraq might collapse into full blown civil war and that would be failure. Bush can't even admit a simple mistake, let alone a massive failure like Iraq. He intends to pass the mess along to the next President. He'll be Johnson to that President's Nixon.
For all the people we may have provoked by invading Iraq, I'd imagine it'd be nothing compared to the recruitment we'd see if the insurgents were to break our will there.
So where does that leave us? Do you expect the insurgency to stop? They have that same reasoning..."The US is not going to break our will." They have the same refusal to accept defeat as Bush has. So do we fight for the next 50 years like Israel and Palestine?
I'll take you at your word that you don't recall hearing about the importance of a democratic Iraq before it became clear we weren't going to find any WMDs. I'm afraid you can't foist your memory lapses off onto Dubya, though:
"And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)" -- George W. Bush - January 28th, 2003 (State of the Union (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html))
"And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind." -- George W. Bush - February 10th, 2003 (Remarks at "Congress of Tomorrow" reception (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210.html))
"Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people." -- George W. Bush - March 16th, 2003 (Press Conference (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030316-3.html))
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you." -- George W. Bush - March 19th, 2003 (Address to the Nation (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html))
"The people who serve in the military are giving their best to this country. We have the responsibility to give them our full support as they fight for the liberty of an oppressed people, for the security of the United States, and for the peace of the world." -- George W. Bush - March 29th, 2003 (Radio Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030329.html))
"As we press on to liberate every corner of Iraq, we are beginning the difficult work of helping Iraqis to build a free and stable country. The immediate tasks involve establishing order, as well as delivering food and water and medicines. We'll help Iraqis to restore electrical power and other basic services. We'll help destroy the former regime's weapons of mass destruction. We'll help the Iraqi people to establish a just and representative government, which respects human rights and adheres to the rule of law. These tasks will take effort, and these tasks will take time. But I have faith in the Iraqi people, and I believe that a free Iraq can be an example of reform and progress to all the Middle East." -- George W. Bush - April 15th, 2003 (Remarks from the Rose Garden (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030415-10.html))
"In the new era that is coming to Iraq, your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building more palaces for Saddam and his sons, free to pursue economic prosperity without the hardship of economic sanctions, free to travel and speak your mind, free to join in the political affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country – Kurds, Shi’a, Turkomans, Sunnis, and others – will be free of the terrible persecution that so many have endured. The nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be over. You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free." -- George W. Bush - April 10th, 2003 (Message to the Iraqi people (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-2.html))
Even if we ignore these quotes (and I don't see how we can), you're essentially proposing that we condemn this President in particular for engaging in public relations, even though we all know it's a part of winning public support in any matter. That would be moving the goal posts.
The words I see prior to the invasion are "liberty" and "freedom." Not exactly the same as "establishing a democratic government." The thrust becomes closer to "establishing a democracy" AFTER the invasion of March 03.
If you heard "We're going to Iraq to establish democracy there", you heard it differently than me. In the Fall of 02 and early 03, I heard day after day about WMD and nuclear potential. Rice and Powell had much to say about WMD and the spectre of mushroom clouds. I can't recall a thing about democracy.
These are perfectly good questions (though I don't see much basis for the cynical conclusion you've come to). The problem is, questions like these have scared us away from confronting dictators like Hussein for decades. We've been choosing the relative stability of dictators over the uncertainty of nation-building and democracy. As you mention earlier in your post, we've sided with them out of convenience out of the past. Clearly, you don't think much of that. But you think even less of siding against them.
I think less of hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy to align with a brutal dictator, help supply him with weapons, do nothing while he uses them and then become outraged 20 years later.
The immorality of doing nothing in the 80s while Saddam used chemical weapons wasn't really immorality and the "compassion" of confronting Saddam in 2003 wasn't really compassion. Both were political expediency. But it's always a plus when political motive can be dressed up in the guise of compassion.
So what would you have done, exactly? It's easy to point at the action and the suffering that has resulted. It's not as easy to remember that inaction had brought suffering for a decade before that.
There is suffering all over the world. Why Iraq? Why did Iraq open up our floodgates of compassion and prompt a desire to be its savior? Compassion is a wonderful thing but self interest is a stronger thing. I believe the invasion of Iraq was motivated by self interest, disguised as compassion and the whole thing backfired. If there had been more honesty and less deception to begin with, it might never have happened.
There is no reasonable definition of the word "imperialism" that this action would fall under, unless you believe that we do not, in fact, plan to leave, even if and when Iraq's security has improved.
I don't believe Bush plans to leave. Unless prior to the 06 or 08 elections, he hangs a Mission Accomplished sign in the oval office, declares victory and withdraws the troops. And shortly thereafter, there's full scale civil war in Iraq.
But I don't believe that will happen. I don't believe our reason for invasion was WMD or bringing democracy to Iraq. Our reason was a greater self interest than either of those. Whether it's strategic location, oil or making Iraq our easternmost state; this Administration isn't telling.
Monkeypunch
03-24-06, 05:37 PM
I don't believe Bush plans to leave.
He's actually stated as such, that withdrawing troops is for another president to decide. We're in this till at least 2008.
chicagofrog
03-24-06, 06:20 PM
Iraq is a strategic location. Iraq has lots of oil.
A preemptive invasion of a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 911 is not "confronting the radicals."
I don't believe our reason for invasion was WMD or bringing democracy to Iraq. Our reason was a greater self interest than either of those. Whether it's strategic location, oil or making Iraq our easternmost state; this Administration isn't telling.
:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: great post, especially since it's all true, as most people see it in the old world.
bravo.
:up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: great post, especially since it's all true, as most people see it in the old world.
bravo.
Wrong..........yes.............wrong. Hope to chime in more in detail soon, but this is a load of Sh** and excuse me it is also nothing more than hating. :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:
Wrong..........yes.............wrong. Hope to chime in more in detail soon, but this is a load of Sh** and excuse me it is also nothing more than hating. :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:
Needless to say, I'll be looking forward to your input. :D
chicagofrog
03-25-06, 01:33 PM
Hope to chime in more in detail soon, but this is a load of Sh** and excuse me it is also nothing more than hating.
to put myself on your level, what YOU say is a load of *****.
what else is the opposite of the opinions you pretend to contradict, than:
- Iraq doesn't have lots of oil
- Iraq is not a strategic location
- in the 9/11 events, there were no Saoudarabians involved at all, they were all Iraqis
- the US never acts after its own interests
what else than a load of *****? and who's full of hate here (toward anyone not agreeing with your sacred war!)? introspection cannot be sold in pills, a shame for you
Youch, harsh on the last part there froggy.
---
Here's an interesting article from The Economist, looking at the state of Iraq after 3 years:
'Murder is certain' (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5669856)
You can probably tell from the title that their assessment is not entirely favourable, altho it's not entirely damning either. Here are some not-so-tasty quotes that summarise some of the problem areas as they stand...
Lieut-General Peter Chiarelli, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. “For every [insurgent] we pick off the streets, we're creating one to take his place.”
In November, American troops freed 123 famished Sunnis, some of whom had been tortured, from an interior-ministry basement in Baghdad.
Baghdad has 20% less power than a year ago
Iraq is not in the throes of a single insurgency, but three distinct although often overlapping conflicts. One battle is for political power... In two elections and a referendum last year, Iraqis voted along increasingly sectarian lines, in effect giving power to Shia militia leaders, and, to a much lesser degree, to Sunni politicians linked to the insurgency... Iraq's two other conflicts are even more tightly interwoven. The first features disgruntled Sunnis, including many security officials of the old regime, who are fighting foreign occupation and a Shia government, in a vain bid to restore their minority to power. The second fight is that of jihadists aiming to create an Islamist state.
And on that last point, the anecdotal example of an Iraqi linking the Mahdi ("a mythical figure who, it is prophesied, will lead Muslims to conquer the world before the day of judgment") with Muqtada al-Sadr was intriguing. If only coz it actually suggests one way in which Iraqis might form a majority pact, and sense of purpose. (Just not a particularly 'pretty' one.)
---
We used to have very heated discussions about this here on the forum, but for some reason we rarely touch the subject nowadays.
Thought i'd return to this. I think the reasons why we don't discuss it are clear. Because we can't discuss two of its fundamental 'mysteries' IE...
Why the occupation was instigated, and how it will 'end'.
There is no reasonable definition of the word "imperialism" that this action would fall under, unless you believe that we do not, in fact, plan to leave, even if and when Iraq's security has improved.
Successful empires have always sought to expand their market dominance, ensure their security and spread a version of their own culture. The modern US is no different to past empires in these regards.
The fact of the matter, tho, is that 'Imperialism' ain't what it used to be. A dominant power can now achieve a strong hold over other nations without recourse to invasion. Take Chile as the classic example: The US clearly placed Pinochet at the helm and 'directed' Chile's economic policy etc from that point onwards. Why bother with the expense of taking over a country when you can get it to 'reform' itself in this way?
As we've discussed before, there's pros and cons to this - just as every Empire before it, the US provides numerous levels of stability that benefit the countries over which it 'holds sway'. But that doesn't mean that every intervention should be smiled upon, from the more ghostly Chilean affairs, to up-to-the-armpits efforts like Iraq.
That's a fair point. But I'd have to ask, if this is the worst that happens, isn't that a marked improvement for the Iraqi people? Some vague, non-legal influence that America has, as opposed to the much-publicized rape rooms and torture chambers of the Hussein regime?
The influence Froggy described actually negates the idea of of self-determined democracy on many levels. Problematic no? And given that a major issue in the Middle East is a feeling of being unable to determine their own destiny - a Muslim destiny for the most part - you can see how such influence could be highly counterproductive - and make the peace that might accompany a balanced democracy even harder to come by.
And the torture and killing ain't done yet. Let's hope that's achieved, but it's not there yet.
chicagofrog
03-27-06, 08:37 AM
determine their own destiny.
that's exactly the perfect definition of what people like myself struggle for, and what, all over the world, imperialistic states (US the most powerful among them, hence the worst presently, but Russia, China, France in its history till today, Spain and in a minor measure, all the big states, are not much better - difference is, they often don't have the means) aim to not allow to other, smaller, nations.
great post Golgot. :)
Piddzilla
03-27-06, 05:50 PM
"The ony way to put an end to the Iraqi war is to put it on NBC"
- Dave Letterman
;D
what else than a load of *****? and who's full of hate here (toward anyone not agreeing with your sacred war!)? introspection cannot be sold in pills, a shame for you
You win, saying something is bogus, even in colorful terms, means I am full of hate. The situation in Iraq presently and in the past has been a large part of my life directly. I find my time online is dwindling a lot as of late so sorry if my short quip upset you is was not meant to be personal, just my opinion with what time I had at that moment to respond. I wanted to debate some more, but I am out of pills, gotta go get a refill.
that's exactly the perfect definition of what people like myself struggle for, and what, all over the world, imperialistic states aim to not allow to other, smaller, nations.
Heh, i don't know if my idealism stops short of that or goes beyond it ;) (xcuse my patrionisation :)). I think 'self'-expression of that nature is definitely feasible, but can never survive-diverse via the mini-state route which appeals to you ;)
Which is why it's ironic that i batter on Yods's optimistic door, coz really all that annoys me about the Iraq-dance is the ineptness of its conception, not the potential outcome of partial self-representation.
Did my poem make sense?
"The ony way to put an end to the Iraqi war is to put it on NBC"
- Dave Letterman
;D
:D
You win, saying something is bogus, even in colorful terms, means I am full of hate... I wanted to debate some more, but I am out of pills, gotta go get a refill.
Take the red pill, no, the blue, no wait, the...
Come back and talk damn you ;) :)
And even if you don't, i'm loving the new Av in the meantime :) (How long'd you take picking that out? ;))
:EDIT: - Dyammit, you changed it! I may have to punish you with a cat for this...
adidasss
03-27-06, 06:52 PM
is it too foolish to say that the current situation in Iraq is for the most part, the fault of Iraqis themselves? from what i hear on the news every day, it's the Shiites killing the Sunni Muslims and vice versa. the Americans are killing very few innocent Iraqis, comparatively i mean....so, i see nothing but violence in that country in the future, those people are loco man....loco...
oh, also, aside from the oil, i think the other two reasons for the invasion were so it seems Bush is doing something to make the world a safer place for americans ( even though Iraq posed no real threat to america's national security ), and reason number two, the U.S. has a massive weapons industry, those weapons have to be spent somewhere to keep it all moving and earning cash....
also, the man is just plum trigger happy:
Bush "bend over or i'll invade your country"
Saddam "what?? i will not bend over"
Bush "bend over or i'll invade your country"
Saddam "what ever man, i'm not bending over"
Bush ...*invades iraq and leads thousands of americans to their deaths for no valid reason what so ever, just like vietnam*
let the hate fest begin...*runs*
p.s. my eloquence is legendary isn't it?;)
Piddzilla
03-28-06, 05:10 AM
p.s. my eloquence is legendary isn't it?;)
More like non-existent..... ;)
adidasss
03-28-06, 05:16 AM
More like non-existent..... ;)
i know!! it's like, not only am i rude and obnoxious, but i'm also a retard!! oh, my pappa would be so proud if he could see me now....
chicagofrog
03-28-06, 06:41 AM
You win, saying something is bogus, even in colorful terms, means I am full of hate. The situation in Iraq presently and in the past has been a large part of my life directly.
ok, actually, i'm sure you're not a hateful person, but your post was accusing opponents to the war to be hateful, or at least me, so i just threw the grenade back (there's a war goin' on. after all...).
now, if bad things happened to you to cause that response, i'm honestly sorry. i'd just say, if you don't agree with all the statements made or the conclusion drawn, it doesn't mean you cannot recognize some of these statements are true, or at least have a point. and then you can contradict them, but with argumentation. and i do think even pro-war people cannot deny the couple of truths i listed there from the previous post, and which you so vehemently attacked.
and by the way, i'm a big fan of the red pill too ;)
Im currently studying abroad here in New Zealand. Im finding it absolutley amazing how the war is treated in this country. I mean no offense to any New Zealanders, but it's dissapointing how 'flat' everything is. As of yet i have been unable to have one single intellegent conversation about the war. Every point i make is countered with, "All the Americans want is Oil. Oil,Oil,Oil."
"Really? Couldnt it be this? Or maybe its even that!'
"NOPE. All the American's want is oil."
Regardless of what i personally believe, and regardless of what is true, its disheartening to see such a blindness. And then i read the local newspapers, whose only Global news from America deals with A.) Hollywood B.) How many innocents died on account of U.S. troops. Whose fault is that? Their global media is derived from our own national media, which, i believe, is only derived from the American public.
But i realize the folly of making such judgements on such a large scale. I speak mostly with students, who usually know both too much and too little for their own good. Im positive there are a great deal of idealists and think-for-yourself-ers here. My intention is not to smack-talk a country, (I love NZ!) but to bring up a few ideas about how everything is comprehended globally. Im not even sure that those ideas are. Does anyone think that we are directly responsible for how the world is viewing our actions? Like, is it my fault in some way that my 'support our troops' t-shirt is mocked and insulted?
But wow- what a respect i have for an intelligent debate, one point countered by another logical and supported point. I appreciate that particular aspect of MoFos. As long as somebody has the least bit of support, their opinion has a place here, regardless of how hair-brained it may be. Way to go, folks. ;)
http://up4.w6w.net/upload/12-03-2006/w6w_200603120259237940afa5.gif
America is always alleged freedom of speech. America is always claimed raging war was only done to free the world. America’s media always claimed showing the truth.
You know what?!
You’ve always been deceived, and you will remain deceived until you learn what the other side’s views are.
We cannot bring you everything to your door steps, you have to step up to the plate and look for the truth.
However, we can tell you that the Mujahedeen have opened the door for you to learn what the American and British governments are trying to hide away from you.
Follow this link and you’ll know what we’re talking about:
www.press-release.blogspot.com (http://www.press-release.blogspot.com)
Don’t be scared, the page is not going to blow up on you. You can either think with your right mind, or keep Bush and Blair thinking for you, it’s your choice.
adidasss
03-28-06, 07:52 AM
Im currently studying abroad here in New Zealand. Im finding it absolutley amazing how the war is treated in this country. I mean no offense to any New Zealanders, but it's dissapointing how 'flat' everything is. As of yet i have been unable to have one single intellegent conversation about the war. Every point i make is countered with, "All the Americans want is Oil. Oil,Oil,Oil."
"Really? Couldnt it be this? Or maybe its even that!'
"NOPE. All the American's want is oil."
Regardless of what i personally believe, and regardless of what is true, its disheartening to see such a blindness. And then i read the local newspapers, whose only Global news from America deals with A.) Hollywood B.) How many innocents died on account of U.S. troops. Whose fault is that? Their global media is derived from our own national media, which, i believe, is only derived from the American public.
But i realize the folly of making such judgements on such a large scale. I speak mostly with students, who usually know both too much and too little for their own good. Im positive there are a great deal of idealists and think-for-yourself-ers here. My intention is not to smack-talk a country, (I love NZ!) but to bring up a few ideas about how everything is comprehended globally. Im not even sure that those ideas are. Does anyone think that we are directly responsible for how the world is viewing our actions? Like, is it my fault in some way that my 'support our troops' t-shirt is mocked and insulted?
But wow- what a respect i have for an intelligent debate, one point countered by another logical and supported point. I appreciate that particular aspect of MoFos. As long as somebody has the least bit of support, their opinion has a place here, regardless of how hair-brained it may be. Way to go, folks. ;)
well, hows about you sharing your views on the war. enlighten us please.
Piddzilla
03-28-06, 09:06 AM
Im currently studying abroad here in New Zealand. Im finding it absolutley amazing how the war is treated in this country. I mean no offense to any New Zealanders, but it's dissapointing how 'flat' everything is. As of yet i have been unable to have one single intellegent conversation about the war. Every point i make is countered with, "All the Americans want is Oil. Oil,Oil,Oil."
"Really? Couldnt it be this? Or maybe its even that!'
"NOPE. All the American's want is oil."
Even if oil, oil, oil isn't the only factor playing part in why America decided to attack Iraq, I am sure it played an important role.
What are the "this" and "that", according to you? And what do you see in the future of Iraq and what part does America play in that future?
Regardless of what i personally believe, and regardless of what is true, its disheartening to see such a blindness. And then i read the local newspapers, whose only Global news from America deals with A.) Hollywood B.) How many innocents died on account of U.S. troops. Whose fault is that? Their global media is derived from our own national media, which, i believe, is only derived from the American public.
As you're pointing out yourself; the world's view of America is largely being sold to us - by America. Since the national media in non-American countries, and more and more even the public in those countries, are mostly aware of this, the consequence is that the media of "the rest of the world" is often critical and dismissive of American media. Here people tend to view CNN and Fox News a little bit like the Democrats and the Republicans: the one isn't very good but at least it's better than the other. Not saying that it's a fair description, but still.
It is interesting to see an American being on the other side of the fence. What you are experiencing in New Zeeland is probably what every foreigner going to America or speaking to Americans is experiencing. What are the odds that Fox News is covering the appointment of a new Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs? Pretty high*. Then again, why should they be covering it?
For a news medium to cover news from another country it has to be either extraordinary or relevant even for us and our country. Global news value, if you will.
*Even if the fact that Jan Eliasson is also the General Assembly President of UN might bring the odds down slightly.
But i realize the folly of making such judgements on such a large scale. I speak mostly with students, who usually know both too much and too little for their own good. Im positive there are a great deal of idealists and think-for-yourself-ers here. My intention is not to smack-talk a country, (I love NZ!) but to bring up a few ideas about how everything is comprehended globally. Im not even sure that those ideas are. Does anyone think that we are directly responsible for how the world is viewing our actions? Like, is it my fault in some way that my 'support our troops' t-shirt is mocked and insulted?
Well... He he... It depends on how you see it. You put it on yourself, right? ;)
Even if I wouldn't mock or insult you or support those who do I am not surprised that it happens. You would probably be insulted here as well, possibly beaten up if finding yourself in the wrong crowd. "Support our troops" is read as "Support the war" by many and they probably get offended by your t-shirt. This works both ways. People being against the war are being accused of not supporting "the boys", I'm sure. At the same time you get accused for supporting the killings of thousands of civilians.
Slogans like that can be very efficient in one situation but since it's nothing but a simplistic phrase it will get you in trouble just as often...
But wow- what a respect i have for an intelligent debate, one point countered by another logical and supported point. I appreciate that particular aspect of MoFos. As long as somebody has the least bit of support, their opinion has a place here, regardless of how hair-brained it may be. Way to go, folks. ;)
Hair-brained?? I'm brain-haired, thank you very much!!
Way to go, right back at ya!! :)
Piddzilla
03-28-06, 09:08 AM
http://up4.w6w.net/upload/12-03-2006/w6w_200603120259237940afa5.gif
America is always alleged freedom of speech. America is always claimed raging war was only done to free the world. America’s media always claimed showing the truth.
You know what?!
You’ve always been deceived, and you will remain deceived until you learn what the other side’s views are.
We cannot bring you everything to your door steps, you have to step up to the plate and look for the truth.
However, we can tell you that the Mujahedeen have opened the door for you to learn what the American and British governments are trying to hide away from you.
Follow this link and you’ll know what we’re talking about:
www.press-release.blogspot.com (http://www.press-release.blogspot.com)
Don’t be scared, the page is not going to blow up on you. You can either think with your right mind, or keep Bush and Blair thinking for you, it’s your choice.
Let's see if I got this right... Allah is... great??
chicagofrog
03-28-06, 09:31 AM
What you are experiencing in New Zeeland is probably what every foreigner going to America or speaking to Americans is experiencing.
"Support our troops" is read as "Support the war" by many and they probably get offended by your t-shirt.
very good points in your post, ja, det er sant, venen min! : :)
and that with the T-shirt is especially flagrant, i guess it is even more dangerous than my own collection of T-shirts i wear on purpose depending on the country i live in or am visiting: "Free Vèneto", "Free the Corsican political prisoners", "French go home" (written in Breton), "British go home" (written in Scottish Gaelic - i did get arrested at the airport for that one), "Free Savoie", "France is over" (written in Savoyard) and 5 or 6 "Independence" with different flags (for now, i've got the Asturian, Catalan, Basque versions), or even my "Wash your feminine side clean off" (from Fight Club official website)... no, there are limits of danger i wouldn't cross... ;) :p
http://up4.w6w.net/upload/12-03-2006/w6w_200603120259237940afa5.gif
America is always alleged freedom of speech. America is always claimed raging war was only done to free the world. America’s media always claimed showing the truth.
You know what?!
You’ve always been deceived, and you will remain deceived until you learn what the other side’s views are.
We cannot bring you everything to your door steps, you have to step up to the plate and look for the truth.
However, we can tell you that the Mujahedeen have opened the door for you to learn what the American and British governments are trying to hide away from you.
Follow this link and you’ll know what we’re talking about_:
www.press-release.blogspot.com (http://www.press-release.blogspot.com/)
Don’t be scared, the page is not going to blow up on you. You can either think with your right mind, or keep Bush and Blair thinking for you, it’s your choice.
Apart from being completely uninsightful and totally unsubstantive, is this striking anyone else as being vaguely spam-ish?
Piddzilla
03-28-06, 10:46 AM
Apart from being completely uninsightful and totally unsubstantive, is this striking anyone else as being vaguely spam-ish?
I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.
I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic, but if not, I was wondering if "@bush@" signed up only to post their little logo and link, and has no real interest in engaging anyone in discussion.
chicagofrog
03-28-06, 11:56 AM
it did strike me.
bah. spam is everywhere nowadays. not that it's pleasant.
Piddzilla
03-28-06, 12:57 PM
I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic, but if not, I was wondering if "@bush@" signed up only to post their little logo and link, and has no real interest in engaging anyone in discussion.
Christ, man! Don't you know me better?? I was being a little bit sarcastic, yes. :D
Caitlyn
03-28-06, 01:40 PM
Apart from being completely uninsightful and totally unsubstantive, is this striking anyone else as being vaguely spam-ish?
100% Grade F Unapproved SPAM
"Support our troops" is read as "Support the war" by many and they probably get offended by your t-shirt. This works both ways. People being against the war are being accused of not supporting "the boys", I'm sure. At the same time you get accused for supporting the killings of thousands of civilians.
I support the troops. I support them being alive and with all their limbs and use of their faculties. The best way to support the troops is "don't send them into unnecessary battles." And don't lie to them about why they're being sent to battle. The second way to support them is "Get them the hell out of the unnecessary battle as soon as possible."
I've seen a couple of documentaries recently, one with candid conversations with troops in Iraq, the other with wounded Purple Heart recipients. One sentiment that was in both films was "I hate those people." The Iraqis. Not just the insurgents, but the Iraqi people. This from troops who had been wounded or seen their buddies blown to bits. So in a way, it's understandable. And how many of the Iraqis hate us for similar reasons? Those who've been wounded or seen friends or family members blown to bits? What kind of "relationship" are we building here? One of mutual hate? And if we stay, with continued killing and maiming on both sides, will the hate become any less?
So what is the goal here? To build a democracy of people who hate us and who we hate in return? That doesn't quite seem worth it.
adidasss
03-28-06, 02:41 PM
I support the troops. I support them being alive and with all their limbs and use of their faculties. The best way to support the troops is "don't send them into unnecessary battles." And don't lie to them about why they're being sent to battle. The second way to support them is "Get them the hell out of the unnecessary battle as soon as possible."
I've seen a couple of documentaries recently, one with candid conversations with troops in Iraq, the other with wounded Purple Heart recipients. One sentiment that was in both films was "I hate those people." The Iraqis. Not just the insurgents, but the Iraqi people. This from troops who had been wounded or seen their buddies blown to bits. So in a way, it's understandable. And how many of the Iraqis hate us for similar reasons? Those who've been wounded or seen friends or family members blown to bits? What kind of "relationship" are we building here? One of mutual hate? And if we stay, with continued killing and maiming on both sides, will the hate become any less?
So what is the goal here? To build a democracy of people who hate us and who we hate in return? That doesn't quite seem worth it.
that's an exellent point. all this war has acomplished is to further antagonize the muslim world and create yet another breeding ground for terrorists ( you can say what ever you want about Iraq, but that's not what it was under Saddam's regime ).
breeding ground for terrorists ( you can say what ever you want about Iraq, but that's not what it was under Saddam's regime ).
Really? You sure?..... and even if this were so does that mean it is worse for the everyday citizen now? Certainly my thoughts about the war differ from most, but I can tell you for a fact that overall it is largely improved even in the midst of a war, that my friend shows you how bad it was under the former regime.
adidasss
03-28-06, 05:51 PM
Really? You sure?..... and even if this were so does that mean it is worse for the everyday citizen now? Certainly my thoughts about the war differ from most, but I can tell you for a fact that overall it is largely improved even in the midst of a war, that my friend shows you how bad it was under the former regime.
and how exactly would you know that?? you lived there before the war? how can you even say that? yes, right before the war the economic situation was far from good ( caused by the sanctions imposed by the UN mind you, things would have been better if they hadn't decided to make the Iraqi people suffer for the mistakes their dictator made ), but at least they didn't have to fear being killed or blown up on the way to the store.
and don't give me that " oh, we brought freedom to Iraq, that's all we wanted to do, and isn't the world a better place now that Saddam is gone?" bull....benevolance does not govern world politics.
I'd say he wanted to because the window of opportunity was closing. After 911, the Bush Administration had a limited time when they could launch an attack on Iraq with little resistance... from Congress or the American people. Bush played his two best cards: fear and patriotism. It wouldn't have worked prior to 911 and it may not have worked three years after 911. In fact, a preemptive attack with so little evidence would have been unthinkable.
Every conversation I have with someone who is adamantly opposed to the war tends to go exactly like this one. They say they oppose the invasion, are asked why (in some form), and then proceed to detail a list of complaints do not actually describe an opposition to the war at all. They describe an opposition to the Bush administration's PR strategy.
In fact, I'd say the overwhelming majority of the complaints you've listed (in this post and others) are all contingent on you accurately guessing the mindset and motives of the administration. In other words, there's an awful lot of speculation involved, none of which can be independently verified. This is, in my experience, incredibly common among critics of the war, presumably because there's far less to criticize if you stick to established facts and the actual ramifications of the invasion.
Put another way: it sounds like you're trying to convince me not to vote for him. But of course, that's moot now. Even if Bush was entirely disingenuous about the reasons for invading (which you say as if you had some sort of cold hard evidence to support it), that would not effect the wisdom of the invasion. It was either a sound decision in the interest of America and/or the rest of the world, or it wasn't, and it isn't made one or the other based on how speech writers and press secretaries decide to frame it.
Maybe Bush really believed Saddam had WMD. Maybe the intelligence wasn't "fixed", manipulated or cherry picked. Is that still a valid reason for invasion? Consider this for a moment... In a conversation with Bush pal, evangelist Pat Robertson, Robertson expressed concern of "many casualties" if we invaded. Bush replied "Don't worry, there won't be any." Does that sound like a man who is concerned about WMD?
The White House disputes the comment (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq).
The idea that Bush knew they didn't have WMDs just doesn't hold water, for several reasons. First, many politicians on both sides of the aisle in both this administration and the last thought he did (that'd be one hell of a conspiracy). Second, several foreign intelligence agencies thought so, too (the conspiracy grows larger). And third, if they knew it all along, you'd have to believe the administration and all its advisors were inept enough to knowingly hype a threat that they knew wouldn't materialize. Sure doesn't sound like the cold, politically calculating group you've described. And no matter how incompetent you might think they are, they're not stupid enough to play up something that they know doesn't exist. Your average 9th-grader has enough political savvy to avoid that.
I don't condemn national interest. Our national interests were: strategic location, lots of oil and perhaps, a stable democracy in the Middle East. Those weren't the reasons we were given. Because a war wouldn't have been approved for those reasons. So we were given reasons based on fear and revenge. The Administration wanted war and it used disingenuous reasons to get it.
1) We were given many reasons to go to war. You can continue to insist that it was all about the thread of WMDs, but the evidence definitively says otherwise. Repeating it doesn't change that.
2) You say the administration used disingenuous reasons to sell the war, but what evidence do you have of this other than conjecture? What special insight into the pysches of administration officials do you have that allows you to conclude this? You can believe it, even if you have nothing more than a gut feeling, but you can't use that feeling as an argument.
3) Even if the administration emphasized one of the justifications more than another, that's hardly cause for condemnation. The concept of public relations was not invented by this President. Had they sold it as the only reason, you'd have a point, but they clearly and demonstrably did not. What are you expecting, exactly? An equal number of words in each speech devoted to the multiple justifications that exist for the invasion?
I'm all for confronting the Islamic radicals. Going to Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban (who supported bin Laden) and chasing down al Qaeda was an excellent example of confronting the radicals. A preemptive invasion of a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 911 is not "confronting the radicals." Unless one has a murky image of anyone Bush chooses to fight as a radical and a terrorist.
al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but it does not represent all terrorism. War was declared on all terrorist organizations (I'm sure you recall that), and Iraq qualified under any reasonable definition of the word. Iraq harbored one of the bombers of the original WTC bombing in 1993, offered cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President. There are all publicly verifiable and universally accepted facts, and they are all terrorist acts (and some are arguably acts of war in and of themselves).
Moreover, these actions were undertaken by a dictator who, though relatively impotent, postured strength to the point at which some of his own generals (and a good portion of the world) believed he had WMDs.
So how have you concluded that invading Iraq is not "confronting the radicals"? The acts above, and others like them, demonstate that the Iraqi government was being run by "radicals" with a heavily anti-American slant and a history of aggression.
That's true, I haven't seen objective confirmation either. But I'm guessing that when foreign troops invade a country, kill 30,000 of its people, wound tens of thousands more and cause massive destruction of the infrastructure; more than a few moderates are going to be alienated. And not only moderates in that country but in other countries that share a similar tradition.
And I'm guessing that when that same invasion supplants a dicator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and invests a great deal of time and money in helping to rebuild that infrastructure, that most real "moderates" would find their alienation tempered.
I'm also guessing that any confrontation of extremists is, by the very nature of the enemy, going to involve damaging infratructure and harming civilians, to the point at which there is no alternative other than inaction.
These things you speak of that alienate moderates -- killing people and the destruction of infrastructure -- are exactly what suicide bombers specialize in. I don't know what you consider to be a "moderate," but the things that you believe are alienating them are the things that the insurgents do intentionally with startling frequency.
As I said earlier, there are over one billion Muslims. And I suspect the number of radicals will increase with our continued presence in Iraq. If the options are civil war or an indefinite US occupation, what is the choice? Do we stay and remain a part of the daily death and bloodshed or do we leave and leave the fate of Iraq to the Iraqi people? At what point do we say "We got rid of Saddam and helped establish a government, it's up to you now."
Good question. From what Bush has said, we leave when we're confident that the Iraqis can fend for themselves. There is, unfortunately, no way of knowing for sure when this is.
My opinion: Bush has no intention of leaving. Iraq might collapse into full blown civil war and that would be failure. Bush can't even admit a simple mistake, let alone a massive failure like Iraq. He intends to pass the mess along to the next President. He'll be Johnson to that President's Nixon.[/QUOTE]
I don't want to ever vote for someone who shys away from doing something simply because it might take more than 8 years. It's either the right thing to do, or not. The best decision does not always fit into a 4-year window.
So where does that leave us? Do you expect the insurgency to stop? They have that same reasoning..."The US is not going to break our will." They have the same refusal to accept defeat as Bush has. So do we fight for the next 50 years like Israel and Palestine?
I don't expect the insurgency to simply stop; I expect it to lose. And I expect it to become the problem of the Iraqi people at some point. Again, you've got lots of good questions, but -- and this sounds more confrontational than it's meant to -- no answers. And for the decision to have been a mistake, it needs to be demonstrated that there was a better, plausible, alternative.
The words I see prior to the invasion are "liberty" and "freedom." Not exactly the same as "establishing a democratic government." The thrust becomes closer to "establishing a democracy" AFTER the invasion of March 03.
What could "liberty" and "freedom" mean other than some sort of democracy? Did you think "liberty" was code for "anarchy"? I don't see any meaningful distinction.
Also, there's still the "Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people" quote to contend with. And keep in mind these are just a handful of quotes dug up randomly. They're an example of what you can find with just a cursory overview. I'm quite confident that a more thorough look would yield hundreds more.
I think less of hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy to align with a brutal dictator, help supply him with weapons, do nothing while he uses them and then become outraged 20 years later.
And what would you think of someone who aligned with that dictator, supplied him with weapons, did nothing while he used them, and never became outraged?
Basically, you're complaining about the problem, but complaining more when the country responsible for it decides to actually do something meaningful about it. So which is it?
Moreover, the U.S. is not a singular entity. Most of the people involved in invading Iraq were not involved (or not as involved) in aligning with Hussein to begin with. We have different elected officials and even different voters, so who exactly is the hypocrite? Also, isn't the action either wise and unwise, or justified or unjustified, regardless of whether or not it's hypocritical for a specific person? It doesn't become a foolish decision -- or a wise one -- based on who's making it.
There is suffering all over the world. Why Iraq? Why did Iraq open up our floodgates of compassion and prompt a desire to be its savior? Compassion is a wonderful thing but self interest is a stronger thing. I believe the invasion of Iraq was motivated by self interest, disguised as compassion and the whole thing backfired.
Pardon my bluntness, but I don't think you answered the question. What would you have done, if handed the same situation? Would you have left Hussein in power to continue to terrorize? Would you left sanctions in place, effectively starving the Iraqi people? Would you have lifted the sanctions and given Hussein the opportunity to rebuild his weapons program? Asking tough questions isn't a counter-argument, because they exist for all of the options the administration faced. If you say our course of action is wrong, that means you must believe there was a better one. What was it? Criticism like this is hollow if it doesn't come with an alternative.
If there had been more honesty and less deception to begin with, it might never have happened.
What wouldn't have happened; the invasion, or the insurgency?
I don't believe Bush plans to leave. Unless prior to the 06 or 08 elections, he hangs a Mission Accomplished sign in the oval office, declares victory and withdraws the troops. And shortly thereafter, there's full scale civil war in Iraq.
Why is it that Civil War in Iraq is considered a sign of absolute failure? If we all wrack our brains, maybe we can come up with a country that devolved into a bloody, crippling Civil War, but somehow emerged stable and prosperous. Is anyone here a history major?
But I don't believe that will happen. I don't believe our reason for invasion was WMD or bringing democracy to Iraq. Our reason was a greater self interest than either of those. Whether it's strategic location, oil or making Iraq our easternmost state; this Administration isn't telling.
Ok, great. For the sake of argument, I'll accept this. So what? How does this translate into opposition for the invasion? The topic of discussion, I'd thought, was whether or not the war was justified, not whether or not America was behaving altruistically. Though even if that were the topic, you're not offering much to support your claims about their motives other than wild conjecture.
adidasss
03-28-06, 07:56 PM
So how have you concluded that invading Iraq is not "confronting the radicals"? The acts above, and others like them, demonstate that the Iraqi government was being run by "radicals" with a heavily anti-American slant and a history of aggression.
I don't expect the insurgency to simply stop; I expect it to lose. And I expect it to become the problem of the Iraqi people at some point. Again, you've got lots of good questions, but -- and this sounds more confrontational than it's meant to -- no answers. And for the decision to have been a mistake, it needs to be demonstrated that there was a better, plausible, alternative.
What could "liberty" and "freedom" mean other than some sort of democracy? Did you think "liberty" was code for "anarchy"? I don't see any meaningful distinction.
Also, there's still the "Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people" quote to contend with. And keep in mind these are just a handful of quotes dug up randomly. They're an example of what you can find with just a cursory overview. I'm quite confident that a more thorough look would yield hundreds more.
And what would you think of someone who aligned with that dictator, supplied him with weapons, did nothing while he used them, and never became outraged?
Basically, you're complaining about the problem, but complaining more when the country responsible for it decides to actually do something meaningful about it. So which is it?
Moreover, the U.S. is not a singular entity. Most of the people involved in invading Iraq were not involved (or not as involved) in aligning with Hussein to begin with. We have different elected officials and even different voters, so who exactly is the hypocrite? Also, isn't the action either wise and unwise, or justified or unjustified, regardless of whether or not it's hypocritical for a specific person? It doesn't become a foolish decision -- or a wise one -- based on who's making it.
Pardon my bluntness, but I don't think you answered the question. What would you have done, if handed the same situation? Would you have left Hussein in power to continue to terrorize? Would you left sanctions in place, effectively starving the Iraqi people? Would you have lifted the sanctions and given Hussein the opportunity to rebuild his weapons program? Asking tough questions isn't a counter-argument, because they exist for all of the options the administration faced. If you say our course of action is wrong, that means you must believe there was a better one. What was it? Criticism like this is hollow if it doesn't come with an alternative.
What wouldn't have happened; the invasion, or the insurgency?
Why is it that Civil War in Iraq is considered a sign of absolute failure? If we all wrack our brains, maybe we can come up with a country that devolved into a bloody, crippling Civil War, but somehow emerged stable and prosperous. Is anyone here a history major?
Ok, great. For the sake of argument, I'll accept this. So what? How does this translate into opposition for the invasion? The topic of discussion, I'd thought, was whether or not the war was justified, not whether or not America was behaving altruistically. Though even if that were the topic, you're not offering much to support your claims about their motives other than wild conjecture.
of all the things you said, i still don't see a valid reason for the intervention into internal matters of another country. the Iraqis are themselves responsible for who governs their country and noone had the right to make that choice for them. what was the immediate threat to american security? really, i don't know. if it's Iraq's supposed sponsorship of terrorists, you think saudi arabia or other muslim countries don't do that ( even if much more covertly )? also, don't you think that Iraq is now a much better breeding ground for terrorists than it was before?
even if you ignore the completely bogus reasons for the invasion, the result was not the increase of american security, it was just the opposite, even more muslims are now convinced america is the devil state and should be brought down by all means possible.
i still don't understand how and why the majority of american citizens think it was justified to invade another country half way across the world.
In all honesty, this is why I avoid these debates more often than not these days; there's no focused discussion. Just a huge list of one-sentence gripes. Before you even have time to dispute one complaint, there's another, and it's not reasonable to expect me to spend a paragraph trying to rebut what someone casually tossed out there in a single sentence.
of all the things you said, i still don't see a valid reason for the intervention into internal matters of another country. the Iraqis are themselves responsible for who governs their country and noone had the right to make that choice for them.
Are you suggesting that an oppressed people should be faulted for not overthrowing their oppressor? Because I don't think that's always a realistic option. Also, I don't see how we've made any choice for them, except insofar as we've made the choice that they ought to have a choice. Ultimately, though, you can't impose democracy. By definition, it's impossible.
what was the immediate threat to american security? really, i don't know. if it's Iraq's supposed sponsorship of terrorists, you think saudi arabia or other muslim countries don't do that ( even if much more covertly )? also, don't you think that Iraq is now a much better breeding ground for terrorists than it was before?
I don't know if the threat was "immediate" or not. I also don't know if it should have to be completely immediate to be justified. I've already detailed their offenses; do you think we should be in the habit of ignoring such things? How's that worked for us in the past?
But to answer your last question, no, I don't think it's a better breeding ground for terrorists; I think the terrorists have simply decided to make a stand here. The general consensus is not that Iraqis are suddenly strapping bombs to themselves, but that terrorists from quite a few places are all flocking to Iraq to join in the fight.
What I don't think people get is that that's a good thing in many ways. When Bush first declared "war" on the notion of terrorism, he was dismissed as foolish, because terrorism, unlike a state, does not have defined borders or a standing army. That's what makes it so difficult to combat. What we have here is a scenario in which we've coaxed them out into a relatively open confrontation.
even if you ignore the completely bogus reasons for the invasion, the result was not the increase of american security, it was just the opposite, even more muslims are now convinced america is the devil state and should be brought down by all means possible.
As I said above, I've seen no verification that this is actually true, as opposed to a plausible-sounding rhetorical device.
i still don't understand how and why the majority of american citizens think it was justified to invade another country half way across the world.
The fact that Iraqi is half way across the world is irrelevant. Distance clearly doesn't protect us in the manner in which it used to, and many fears relating to Iraq were more about who they might support (and were supporting) than what they might do themselves.
The general consensus is not that Iraqis are suddenly strapping bombs to themselves, but that terrorists from quite a few places are all flocking to Iraq to join in the fight.
Hmm, i don't think that's the consensus view by any means. Note this snippet from the article (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5669856) i posted earlier, for example...
The second fight is that of jihadists aiming to create an Islamist state. Most are Iraqis, with a minority of foreigners among them, including the Jordanian terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
What we have here is a scenario in which we've coaxed them out into a relatively open confrontation.
And again, another repeat quote from the same article...
Lieut-General Peter Chiarelli, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. “For every [insurgent] we pick off the streets, we're creating one to take his place.”
---
I do think you put too much of a rosey glow on some of this stuff.
Not that we can achieve much with all our bickering and speculation anyway - but it'd be nice to be as factual as possible ;)
and how exactly would you know that?? you lived there before the war? how can you even say that? yes, right before the war the economic situation was far from good ( caused by the sanctions imposed by the UN mind you, things would have been better if they hadn't decided to make the Iraqi people suffer for the mistakes their dictator made ), but at least they didn't have to fear being killed or blown up on the way to the store.
and don't give me that " oh, we brought freedom to Iraq, that's all we wanted to do, and isn't the world a better place now that Saddam is gone?" bull....benevolance does not govern world politics.
Yes I have lived there, before and after the first Gulf War.
And my response comes from first hand knowledge of many famlies with whom I am in contact with that I came to know when I was over there. They tell me things are much better, are they lying?:rolleyes:
adidasss
03-28-06, 09:56 PM
Are you suggesting that an oppressed people should be faulted for not overthrowing their oppressor? Because I don't think that's always a realistic option. Also, I don't see how we've made any choice for them, except insofar as we've made the choice that they ought to have a choice. Ultimately, though, you can't impose democracy. By definition, it's impossible.
actually yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.i think these things should be left to develope naturally. the growning disatisfaction with the situation would have eventually forced the Iraqi people ( as i'm sure one of these days it will also become clear to the North Koreans and other oppressed nations ) to overthrow the dictator. and if not, well then, it's their own fault and noone else is to blame for the disaterous situation in which they live ( all of this was directed at your comment " should we have left the Iraqi's to starve" )
I don't know if the threat was "immediate" or not. I also don't know if it should have to be completely immediate to be justified. I've already detailed their offenses; do you think we should be in the habit of ignoring such things? How's that worked for us in the past?
well, i don't see the offenses you stated as a valid reason for an invasion, only a direct attack can merrit such action.
But to answer your last question, no, I don't think it's a better breeding ground for terrorists; I think the terrorists have simply decided to make a stand here. The general consensus is not that Iraqis are suddenly strapping bombs to themselves, but that terrorists from quite a few places are all flocking to Iraq to join in the fight.
What I don't think people get is that that's a good thing in many ways. When Bush first declared "war" on the notion of terrorism, he was dismissed as foolish, because terrorism, unlike a state, does not have defined borders or a standing army. That's what makes it so difficult to combat. What we have here is a scenario in which we've coaxed them out into a relatively open confrontation.
well i disasgree, and i hope your administration does too, it would be foolish to think all the terrorists have flocked to Iraq and there were none to spare. no, i believe the majority of the terrorists in Iraq are Iraqis themselves. you're thinking of the begining of the war when muslims from all over the world came to Iraq to make a stand.
As I said above, I've seen no verification that this is actually true, as opposed to a plausible-sounding rhetorical device.
you don't watch the news? you don't see any increase in anti-american feelings amongst muslims ( and the rest of the world )?
The fact that Iraqi is half way across the world is irrelevant. Distance clearly doesn't protect us in the manner in which it used to, and many fears relating to Iraq were more about who they might support (and were supporting) than what they might do themselves.
then you better invade all of the muslim world and take over their oil reserves and general economy so you can prevent any sort of terrorist funding.
adidasss
03-28-06, 09:59 PM
Yes I have lived there, before and after the first Gulf War.
And my response comes from first hand knowledge of many famlies with whom I am in contact with that I came to know when I was over there. They tell me things are much better, are they lying?:rolleyes:
i don't know. all i can tell you is what i hear on the news, recounts of Iraqis themselves who aren't so enthusiastic as your friends are. and there are a few croatians living there too that also don't support your claims. i don't see how the situation in Baghdad can be better if they don't even have electricity ( at least they had that before the invasion ) and live in absolute chaos.
i don't know. all i can tell you is what i hear on the news, recounts of Iraqis themselves who aren't so enthusiastic as your friends are. and there are a few croatians living there too that also don't support your claims. i don't see how the situation in Baghdad can be better if they don't even have electricity ( at least they had that before the invasion ) and live in absolute chaos.
You are right about Bagdad, but Iraq is a lot more than Bagdad.
Hmm, i don't think that's the consensus view by any means. Note this snippet from the article (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5669856) i posted earlier, for example...
No one disputes that Al-Qaeda has openly sent a presence to Iraq to exacerbate the problems we're having with the insurgency, to the point at which Bin Laden has declared Zarqawi his "deputy in Iraq." And I daresay that one article (or even a dozen) doesn't necessarily shoot down the idea that there's a general consensus. Surely you've read the same things I have: that numerous insurgents have come across the borders from nearby countries. How many, I won't pretend to know, but enough that it's not just us versus the Iraqis.
Every conversation I have with someone who is adamantly opposed to the war tends to go exactly like this one.
I want to respond to your post in more detail but in the meantime, I did a little reading about Paul Wolfowitz...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
Speaking of the 91 Persian Gulf War...
In the aftermath of the war Wolfowitz wrote the Defense Planning Guidance (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_Planning_Guidance&action=edit) to "set the nation’s direction for the next century" that many saw as a "blueprint for U.S. hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony)". At the time the official administration line was one of containment and the contents of Wolfowitz’s highly controversial plan that included calls for preemption and unilateralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateralism) proved unpalatable to the more moderate members of the administration including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman_of_the_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff) Colin Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell) and the President himself, so Cheney was charged with producing the watered-down version that was finally released in 1992.
----------------
Wolfowitz however could not remain completely out of politics for long and in 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997) he became one of the charter members, alongside Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld), Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney), Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush), Richard Perle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle) and others, of the Project for a New American Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century) (PNAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC)). William Kristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol) and Robert Kagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan) founded this neo-conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative) think-tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think-tank) with the stated aim of "American global leadership" through military strength. In 1998 Wolfowitz was one of the signatories of the PNAC open letter to President Bill Clinton (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) that was highly critical of his continued policy of containing Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq). The PNAC advocated preemptive U.S. military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military) intervention against Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) and other "potential aggressor states" to "protect our vital interests in the Gulf". In 2000 the PNAC produced its magnum opus the 90-page report on Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) that advocated the redeployment of U.S. troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect U.S. interests abroad. The Clinton administration however remained unmoved and pressed on with containment.
In the run-up to the controversial 2000 U.S. Presidential Election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_U.S._Presidential_Election), Wolfowitz joined Condoleezza Rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice), Colin Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell) and Richard Perle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle) amongst others on an advisory group known as The Vulcans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vulcans) put together to advise Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party) Presidential candidate (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:U.S._Republican_Party_presidential_nominees&action=edit) George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) on foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy).
Wolfowitz returned to government from 2001-05 under U.S. President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._President) George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) serving as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Deputy_Secretary_of_Defense) reporting to U.S. Secretary of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Secretary_of_Defense) Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld).
Following the terrorist attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks) of 9-11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks) debate began within the White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House) as to the degrees of action to take against Al Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda). Certain members of President Bush's cabinet, led by Wolfowitz, readvocated pre-emptive strikes against Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), alongside those against terror cells in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan). Out of this came the creation of what would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine), centering on pre-emption and a broad-based anti-terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism) campaign, as well as the war on Iraq which the PNAC advocated in their earlier letters. The Bush administration has been accused of "fixing intelligence to support policy" with the aim of influencing congress in its use of the War Powers Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act).
-----------------------------------
Twain: Make of that what you will. To me, it means a policy of preemptive, unilateral attack to protect our interests with permanent bases in strategic locations was on the table long before 911. Many of today's key players were involved...Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Rice, Powell and George W Bush.
Given that history, I think the claim that Bush (and others) wanted to invade Iraq and that WMD, ties with al Qaeda and nuclear material was the smokescreen that made it possible; carries more weight and is not simply "conjecture."
actually yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.i think these things should be left to develope naturally. the growning disatisfaction with the situation would have eventually forced the Iraqi people ( as i'm sure one of these days it will also become clear to the North Koreans and other oppressed nations ) to overthrow the dictator. and if not, well then, it's their own fault and noone else is to blame for the disaterous situation in which they live ( all of this was directed at your comment " should we have left the Iraqi's to starve" )
Well, then I simply disagree, to the point of being a little disturbed at your comments. While I agree with the abstract notion that people are ultimately responsible for their living situation, the people can want change and be willing to fight for it, and still not always get it. While no one else is to blame for their problems, that doesn't mean they are at fault, or are unworthy of our compassion and even assistance.
Surely the Iraqis overthrowing Saddam was the ideal solution to the Hussein problem, but it wasn't likely to happen anytime soon, and people were suffering while we waited for it. We also, you know, already tried it over a decade ago. It didn't work because we abandoned them when things got tough. I hope that rings a few bells today.
well, i don't see the offenses you stated as a valid reason for an invasion, only a direct attack can merrit such action.
Really? If we paid suicide bombers of another nation's enemy, shot at planes over their no-fly zones, harbored terrorists who attacked them, tried to assassinate one of their former President or Prime Ministers, killed the citizens of a neighboring country (along with a couple hundred thousand of our own), and used U.N. resolutions as toilet paper, they wouldn't have any justification in attacking us? What did Hussein have to do, slap Bush in the face with a white glove?
well i disasgree, and i hope your administration does too, it would be foolish to think all the terrorists have flocked to Iraq and there were none to spare. no, i believe the majority of the terrorists in Iraq are Iraqis themselves. you're thinking of the begining of the war when muslims from all over the world came to Iraq to make a stand.
"None to spare"? No. But they've certainly realized that failure in Iraq would set us back a great deal and help their cause more than anything we've done so far, and have assisted the insurgency accordingly.
you don't watch the news? you don't see any increase in anti-american feelings amongst muslims ( and the rest of the world )?
You just tried to berate 7thson for having opinions about Iraq despite not living there (and then finding out that he actually had lived there), and now you're going to trot out "you don't watch the news?" as a defense?
If you want my opinion, there probably has been an increase in anti-American "feeling," but they'd have to be some pretty extreme "feelings" to actually aid and abet terrorism, so until some actual evidence exists to suggest that this negativity has made us less safe, it's not really something you can toss around to make a point.
then you better invade all of the muslim world and take over their oil reserves and general economy so you can prevent any sort of terrorist funding.
It's not just oil reserves that made Iraq dangerous, but their track record of aggression and openly funding causes directly contrary to American interests. We're not talking about mere potential; we're talking about ability and intent. The things we feared Iraqi would do were happening (though to a lesser degree), so it does not follow that this requires us to invade the rest of the Muslim world. Iraq was a unique case, for many reasons.
Though even if reform across the Middle East were necessary, it wouldn't really change my mind about any of this. Edmund Burke said that "nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." Something has to be done about the chaos and the despotism rampant across the Arab world. It has bred extremism for decades. Women have been stoned and dissidents jailed and killed, and we've looked the other way, preferring the relative stability of dictators to the unpredicability of budding democracies. And where did it get us?
I want to respond to your post in more detail but in the meantime, I did a little reading about Paul Wolfowitz...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
Speaking of the 91 Persian Gulf War...
Ah, the PNAC makes its first appearance. Took you long enough. :)
I like how people talk about it as if it's this secret boogeyman organization, when of course Googling it brings up all the pertinent details and no one is denying its relevance or involvement. Ultimate, it's just a statement of principles which are, incidentally, publicly available (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). Have you read it? There's really nothing particularly objectionable in it.
Twain: Make of that what you will. To me, it means a policy of preemptive, unilateral attack to protect our interests with permanent bases in strategic locations was on the table long before 911. Many of today's key players were involved...Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Rice, Powell and George W Bush.
Given that history, I think the claim that Bush (and others) wanted to invade Iraq and that WMD, ties with al Qaeda and nuclear material was the smokescreen that made it possible; carries more weight and is not simply "conjecture."
But it is. If you were claiming the principles that are (openly) stated by the PNAC, then you're right, it wouldn't be conjecture. But you've extrapolated this "smokescreen" claim from that, and it's a complete non-sequitur. How do you go from "this group of people seem to favor preemptive force" to "they fabricated or exaggerated claims to justify it"? Where's the link between those two? You seem to be operating under the principle that if you can demonstrate that someone wanted something, you can safely conclude that they lied to get it.
I don't need to be convinced that most in the administration wanted to overthrow Hussein before 9/11. We know they did, because most of them are on record as saying so. And -- surprise, surprise -- regime change in Iraq was the Clinton administration's official policy, as well, though only as long as it didn't require us to, you know, do anything at all.
i don't know. all i can tell you is what i hear on the news
Not to be sacrosanct, but I rest my case, Well not really, but uh yeah.
Piddzilla
03-29-06, 07:14 AM
Just a few comments...
The idea that Bush knew they didn't have WMDs just doesn't hold water, for several reasons. First, many politicians on both sides of the aisle in both this administration and the last thought he did (that'd be one hell of a conspiracy). Second, several foreign intelligence agencies thought so, too (the conspiracy grows larger). And third, if they knew it all along, you'd have to believe the administration and all its advisors were inept enough to knowingly hype a threat that they knew wouldn't materialize. Sure doesn't sound like the cold, politically calculating group you've described. And no matter how incompetent you might think they are, they're not stupid enough to play up something that they know doesn't exist. Your average 9th-grader has enough political savvy to avoid that.
On March 21nd one of the headline news was that Saddam's former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Naji Sabri, had in fact been working for the CIA. For $100.000 he had sold information to the Agency after that French agents had established the connection to Sabri. Just before the American invasion of Iraq, Sabri informed the CIA of that Saddam did not have any nuclear weapons in his possession and wasn't near developing any or getting any from elsewhere. Sabri did however claim that Saddam possessed over chemical weapons. All according to NBC. On March 22nd Sabri denied having worked for the CIA and said that he was suing NBC.
Working for CIA or not... This is an example of that there must have been a number of indicators of that Saddam didn't have any WMD:s (the result rendered by the UN inspectors was another indicator). These indicators together with the fact that there were no WMD:s being found leads at least me to believe that the Bush administration was very selective in their choice of intelligence material on which they based their decisions on. I have also seen documentaries, although slightly biased documentaries, containing interviews with persons working close to or inside the Bush administrations that were more or less told to get the intelligence data needed for backing up the arguments for an invasion.
But let's say that it was as you described it; that everything was pointing towards Iraq having WMD:s and all intelligence agents agreed on this. Then there must be something fundamentally wrong with the intelligence services or they were incredibly and unbelievably misinformed. I have problems believing that since I imagine the CIA and similar American intelligence organizations, and I say this completely without sarcasm, to be the most competent and far-reaching agencies in the world.
al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but it does not represent all terrorism. War was declared on all terrorist organizations (I'm sure you recall that), and Iraq qualified under any reasonable definition of the word. Iraq harbored one of the bombers of the original WTC bombing in 1993, offered cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President. There are all publicly verifiable and universally accepted facts, and they are all terrorist acts (and some are arguably acts of war in and of themselves).
This definition of what "war on terror" is is kind of vague. It also raises a few questions. And the "war on terror" argument as it was being used as another reason for the invasion was, we have to remember, that Iraq was being accused of having close ties to al-Qaeda, which wasn't correct either. But back to the questions this definition raises... Harboring a terrorist. I believe a large number of countries could be accused of harboring or having harbored a terrorist, including many of America's allies (also in Europe) and America itself. And plotting to assassinate a former president is indeed serious. But let's not forget the actual and in reality executed assassinations of democratically elected presidents or political leaders, such as the removal and killing of Chile's president Allende carried out with the support by US intelligence agents. This example helps to qualify America, using your definition of what war on terror is, as a terrorist organization.
Saddam had to go. Fine. USA have to remain in Iraq for an uncertain period of time. Ok. But the reasons. The arguments. The upholding of democratic and freedom loving values, it just rings falsely in my ears. The argument that Iraq has proven to be a crook state in the past just adds fuel to the fire of those who think "well, so has USA!". Now it's reached a point where even I don't think the reasons for the invasion matter much. It's here, it's queer, get used to it! (sorry couldn't help myself). I started the thread to focus on the future but still the reasons are what people like to debate, so I just had to drop a few comments.
adidasss
03-29-06, 07:57 AM
Well, then I simply disagree, to the point of being a little disturbed at your comments. While I agree with the abstract notion that people are ultimately responsible for their living situation, the people can want change and be willing to fight for it, and still not always get it. While no one else is to blame for their problems, that doesn't mean they are at fault, or are unworthy of our compassion and even assistance.
Surely the Iraqis overthrowing Saddam was the ideal solution to the Hussein problem, but it wasn't likely to happen anytime soon, and people were suffering while we waited for it. We also, you know, already tried it over a decade ago. It didn't work because we abandoned them when things got tough. I hope that rings a few bells today.
well, you will dismiss this comment, but i'll ask you this then. how come you did nothing to help the Kurds some 20 years ago when Saddam was performing a little thing called genocide? where were you when Pol Pot was doing the same little thing some 25 years ago in Kambodia? what about North Korea? people are dying there by the thousands out of starvation because of an insane dictator. the taliban regime was doing all sorts of wonderful things to their own people for years before you decided to do anything about it ( and i would venture a guess that if it hadn't been for the direct link of Al Quaida to Afghanistan, they would have still been doing it )....you're a bit selective when it comes to "helping" people aren't you? the key difference , as always, being oil and other "national" interests.
Really? If we paid suicide bombers of another nation's enemy, shot at planes over their no-fly zones, harbored terrorists who attacked them, tried to assassinate one of their former President or Prime Ministers, killed the citizens of a neighboring country (along with a couple hundred thousand of our own), and used U.N. resolutions as toilet paper, they wouldn't have any justification in attacking us? What did Hussein have to do, slap Bush in the face with a white glove?
they paid suicide bombers? palestinians you mean? regarding Israel or America, because if you're speaking about funding terrorists in Israel.....that's really non of your concern now is it? harbored terrorists? you have proof of that? did Saddams regime do that? harbor terrorists that attacked the US? as i recall it, Saddam offered condolences to the american people and denied any connections to the terrorists. you mean they shot down planes that were flying over their own airspace? when did they kill citizens of a neighbouring country? are speaking of the Kuwait situation? wasn't that some 16 years ago? what UN resolutions did they use as toillete paper? did you have the approval of the UN to go into Iraq? and weren't you the ones trying many times to kill the president of another country? so, you can do it but noone else can?
and yes, for the invasion to be justified, Saddam should have launched some long range WMD at Washington.
You just tried to berate 7thson for having opinions about Iraq despite not living there (and then finding out that he actually had lived there), and now you're going to trot out "you don't watch the news?" as a defense?If you want my opinion, there probably has been an increase in anti-American "feeling," but they'd have to be some pretty extreme "feelings" to actually aid and abet terrorism, so until some actual evidence exists to suggest that this negativity has made us less safe, it's not really something you can toss around to make a point. i was reffering to living in Iraq before and after this invasion, not the Kuwait situation. the man has claimed that the situation is better now than it was before the invasion, which contradicts everything the rest of the world ( apart from america, aparently ) has been told through the news. and if i'm not mistaken, he has lived there prior to and just after the Gulf war, not this war. different situations.
i think you underestimate the dissatisfaction of muslims. just a theory, but it takes only a couple of insane people to perform acts of terrorism, and i think out of hundreds of millions of muslims that are fed with info on how america is evil and trying to take over the world, there will be one or two that will be willing to do something about it, even if it's just attacking someone that is american ( when reffering to the security of americans, i was also reffering to the security of americans travelling across the globe, i think you would agree, americans are not very welcomed in the muslim world right now )
It's not just oil reserves that made Iraq dangerous, but their track record of aggression and openly funding causes directly contrary to American interests. We're not talking about mere potential; we're talking about ability and intent. The things we feared Iraqi would do were happening (though to a lesser degree), so it does not follow that this requires us to invade the rest of the Muslim world. Iraq was a unique case, for many reasons.
Though even if reform across the Middle East were necessary, it wouldn't really change my mind about any of this. Edmund Burke said that "nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." Something has to be done about the chaos and the despotism rampant across the Arab world. It has bred extremism for decades. Women have been stoned and dissidents jailed and killed, and we've looked the other way, preferring the relative stability of dictators to the unpredicability of budding democracies. And where did it get us?
well, lets see you invade any other country in the muslim world. how about Iran or Pakistan? No? why not?
chicagofrog
03-29-06, 08:33 AM
The acts above, and others like them, demonstate that the Iraqi government was being run by "radicals" with a heavily anti-American slant and a history of aggression
so any Anti-American country should be (preemptively) attacked by the US? speak of world domination - that many people here, fortunately, won't accept - and "history of aggression" as if the US didn't have a huge one, Vietnam and all included... :rolleyes:
what makes you so believe, if you could see from another point of view, except that you're American, that your country never did deserve to be attacked, if Iraq and others in your opinion deserved it?
Before you even have time to dispute one complaint, there's another
how many times did i get that feeling myself?
While no one else is to blame for their problems, that doesn't mean they are at fault, or are unworthy of our compassion and even assistance
the sacred mission to bring "civilisation and freedom" to all, even those who don't want it... rings a bell. i could ask why you don't do anything about Tibet and let Turks torture Kurds and Armenians in their dictatorial regime, but hei, that sacred mission only works when there's some money and power to gain from it. that's called hypocrisy. and if it did bring some more freedom to some people in Iraq, accidentally, i still think the reasons behind are of prime essence to the question.
chicagofrog
03-29-06, 08:48 AM
you're a bit selective when it comes to "helping" people aren't you? the key difference , as always, being oil and other "national" interests.
if you're speaking about funding terrorists in Israel.....that's really non of your concern now is it?
so, you can do it but noone else can?
:yup: :yup: :yup:
chicagofrog
03-29-06, 08:50 AM
This example helps to qualify America, using your definition of what war on terror is, as a terrorist organization.
what i said about deserving...
the idea of building a strong, federal, Europe to oppose this kind of imperialism, is now 100 years old
Surely you've read the same things I have: that numerous insurgents have come across the borders from nearby countries.
Yep, of course. But i've also noticed the newer tendency amongst analysts and military personal to ascribe much of the continuing violence to home-grown groups - including groups who are pursuing jihadist-style agendas. I wasn't denying the external influences, i was just pointing out that Iraqis do seem to be 'suddenly strapping bombs to themselves', as you put it.
and if not, well then, it's their own fault and noone else is to blame for the disaterous situation in which they live ( all of this was directed at your comment " should we have left the Iraqi's to starve" )
Surely the Iraqis overthrowing Saddam was the ideal solution to the Hussein problem, but it wasn't likely to happen anytime soon, and people were suffering while we waited for it. We also, you know, already tried it over a decade ago. It didn't work because we abandoned them when things got tough. I hope that rings a few bells today.
I absolutely agree with Yods' response. (Well, with some caveats on the Kuwait-period uprising and the causes of Iraqi suffering).
The UK and the US have meddled in Iraq for over a century and made national self-determination practically impossible. We owe the Iraqis a huge blood-debt which a competant intervention would have gone a long way towards absolving. (And perhaps a concerted engagement still can. We can hope eh? ;))
I feel like listing some of the areas where we're culpable...
-The UK set up Iraq's divide-and-conquer borders (leading to a fragmented nation which needed an iron-hand to rule it).
-The US happily played Iraq and Iran off against eachother during their clashes.
-Bush Snr's incitement to uprising was incredibly poorly thought-out, given that the 'allied' armed forces were in no position to invade Iraq and support it, due to the all-or-nothing Blitzkreig tactics employed to take Kuwait in the first place. Some of the mass Iraqi graves date from this period.
-The US/UK enforced sanctions which targeted civillians are frankly unforgiveable.
So Adi, no way could the Iraqis have risen up on their own, and the US/UK do have a moral-imperative to make things right in Iraq above and beyond many other worthy 'causes'. (Even if the moral-dimension has doubtless got next-to-nothing to do with our reasons for being there).
"nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
"Don't bite off more than you can chew" -- someone's grandmother.
Afghanistan would have been more than enough to be going on with.
There's really nothing particularly objectionable in it. [the PNAC's statement of principles]
There is plenty to object to in their vision of a world actively run by the US, to a large degree, with multiple-invasions being a key tool for obtaining compliance.
Such a vision, altho 'idealistic' in theory, is infused with a huge level of arrogance. The type of arrogance that seems to have led Rumsfeld to believe a small force could cut it in Iraq. (it's worth noting that many military and political figures, from the likes of General Shinseki to Powell himself, recognised the need for a large post-war effort, but they were ignored/over-ruled, and in Shinseki's case, fired)
There's plenty to object to in both the aspirations and the practicalities of PNAC-style ideals.
adidasss
03-29-06, 12:05 PM
I absolutely agree with Yods' response. (Well, with some caveats on the Kuwait-period uprising and the causes of Iraqi suffering).
The UK and the US have meddled in Iraq for over a century and made national self-determination practically impossible. We owe the Iraqis a huge blood-debt which a competant intervention would have gone a long way towards absolving. (And perhaps a concerted engagement still can. We can hope eh? ;))
I feel like listing some of the areas where we're culpable...
-The UK set up Iraq's divide-and-conquer borders (leading to a fragmented nation which needed an iron-hand to rule it).
-The US happily played Iraq and Iran off against eachother during their clashes.
-Bush Snr's incitement to uprising was incredibly poorly thought-out, given that the 'allied' armed forces were in no position to invade Iraq and support it, due to the all-or-nothing Blitzkreig tactics employed to take Kuwait in the first place. Some of the mass Iraqi graves date from this period.
-The US/UK enforced sanctions which targeted civillians are frankly unforgiveable.
So Adi, no way could the Iraqis have risen up on their own, and the US/UK do have a moral-imperative to make things right in Iraq above and beyond many other worthy 'causes'. (Even if the moral-dimension has doubtless got next-to-nothing to do with our reasons for being there).
well this would all be just fine and dandy if altruism or "making things right" had anything to do with the invasion. but it didn't. the brits also have a great deal to do with the current situation in Palestine, but i don't see anyone falling over themselves to help the palestinians ( the poor fellas don't have any oil...whattayougonnado aye? )
How did I end up arguing with 4 people at once?
well, you will dismiss this comment, but i'll ask you this then. how come you did nothing to help the Kurds some 20 years ago when Saddam was performing a little thing called genocide? where were you when Pol Pot was doing the same little thing some 25 years ago in Kambodia? what about North Korea? people are dying there by the thousands out of starvation because of an insane dictator. the taliban regime was doing all sorts of wonderful things to their own people for years before you decided to do anything about it ( and i would venture a guess that if it hadn't been for the direct link of Al Quaida to Afghanistan, they would have still been doing it )....you're a bit selective when it comes to "helping" people aren't you? the key difference , as always, being oil and other "national" interests.
20 years ago, I was in a crib, actually. But if you mean America, it were run by different people who naively thought (to varying degrees) many of the same things you seem to; that if we calmly sit on our side of the Atlantic maybe no one will bother us.
You're really only making my point for me: we've been doing it wrong for decades. I've said as much in earlier posts. The fact that we haven't always intervened in the past is not an argument against intervention now. Quite the opposite, actually.
Even if we fail to get involved until our interests play a stronger role, that still isn't an argument against the invasion, anymore than wanting the reward would be an argument against turning a known criminal in.
they paid suicide bombers? palestinians you mean? regarding Israel or America, because if you're speaking about funding terrorists in Israel.....that's really non of your concern now is it?
Yes, Palestinian suicide bombers. And the idea that that's not our concern is absurd, in my opinion. They're our ally, for one, and every established state is rightly concerned with such acts. "None of our concern"? You think these things don't effect anyone other than the target?
harbored terrorists? you have proof of that? did Saddams regime do that? harbor terrorists that attacked the US? as i recall it, Saddam offered condolences to the american people and denied any connections to the terrorists.
I'm sure I can find some, but it's an established fact that he harbored one of the men responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing. I believe the man in question is Ramzi Yousef.
you mean they shot down planes that were flying over their own airspace?
Yes. It was part of sanctions, I believe. Mostly in the Northern part of the country. To my memory, it had the backing of the international community, as well.
when did they kill citizens of a neighbouring country? are speaking of the Kuwait situation? wasn't that some 16 years ago?
Yep. Didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on mass murder, though.
what UN resolutions did they use as toillete paper?
Resolutions 687, 689, 699, 700, 705, 706, 707, 712, 715, 773, 778, 806, 833, 949, 986, 1060, 1143, 1153, 1154, 1158, 1175, 1194, 1205, 1210, 1242, 1266, 1275, 1280, 1281, 1284, 1293, 1302, 1330, 1352, 1360, 1382, 1409, 1441, 1443, 1447, 1454, 1511, and 1518. That's from 1990 to 2003, and covers Iraq's aggression in the region, their selective willingness to comply with weapons inspectors, and their abuse of the Oil For Food program.
Why do I get the feeling you weren't really asking, though? Seriously, long lists of rhetorical questions are not arguments. I'm not going to spend time answering yours when I don't feel that you're really answering most of mine.
did you have the approval of the UN to go into Iraq?
Nope. For whatever reason, they didn't seem interested in enforcing their own resolutions. If you're arguing that the UN's opinion ought to be sacrosanct, however, you shoot yourself in the foot, because Iraq flaunted them to ridiculous degrees. So either the UN's opinion matters, in which case something had to be done about Iraq, or else it doesn't, in which case this question is moot.
and weren't you the ones trying many times to kill the president of another country? so, you can do it but noone else can?
Only us? No. But then again, there's a world of difference between a country run by its own people, and those run by tyrants. Saying that they should all be able to do exactly the same things with total moral equivalence is like saying to a police officer "you can't arrest that guy for screaming gibberish in the park and waving a gun...oh, so only you get a gun, huh?!"
and yes, for the invasion to be justified, Saddam should have launched some long range WMD at Washington.
I think this is borderline crazy and, frankly, to the point at which I see little value in continuing this discussion. And this coming from someone who really loves to hear himself type.
i was reffering to living in Iraq before and after this invasion, not the Kuwait situation. the man has claimed that the situation is better now than it was before the invasion, which contradicts everything the rest of the world ( apart from america, aparently ) has been told through the news. and if i'm not mistaken, he has lived there prior to and just after the Gulf war, not this war. different situations.
You're mentioning "the news" in an incredibly vague sense. I watch the news everyday and it's simply not telling me the things it appears to be telling you. Maybe you're highly selective in your media sources, but I hear mixed messages from multiple sources (local, national, and international...I prefer Internet news to cable news, generally) on a regular basis. All opinion polls I've seen, for example, show that Iraqis, while not happy with us, are very optimistic about their future. That certainly doesn't jibe with what your broad, sweeping generalizations about how horrible everything is.
Can you provide solid evidence for your repeated claim that "the news" says everything is horrible? And even if you can, what reason do you have to believe that it's more accurate than testimonials from both soldiers and Iraqis themselves?
i think you underestimate the dissatisfaction of muslims. just a theory, but it takes only a couple of insane people to perform acts of terrorism, and i think out of hundreds of millions of muslims that are fed with info on how america is evil and trying to take over the world, there will be one or two that will be willing to do something about it, even if it's just attacking someone that is american ( when reffering to the security of americans, i was also reffering to the security of americans travelling across the globe, i think you would agree, americans are not very welcomed in the muslim world right now )
I don't know that they were ever all that welcomed in the Muslim world. Regardless, vagueries about negative opinions is not an argument against the war. If it was, no war would ever be justified.
well, lets see you invade any other country in the muslim world. how about Iran or Pakistan? No? why not?
First, this isn't really your complaint. You'd be more upset if we invaded Iran and Pakistan, not less. Second, we've been looking into confronting Iran for some time, and it may very well happen; we can't do everything at once, however. Third, Iran may have a nuclear weapons program, whereas with Saddam, we only suspected that one was in progress. That's one of the reasons we chose to confront him; if he were to develop a nuclear weapon, we'd be forced to negotiate with him, the way we have with North Korea. These weapons force us to lend legitimacy to despots.
Also, I don't think you really answered my "where did it get us?" question. It wasn't entirely rhetorical. You're asking every question that pops into your head, apparently, and while I don't find it especially difficult to answer, I think you ought to put your cards on the table: what are you saying we should have done? Are you suggesting isolationism?
chicagofrog
03-29-06, 12:10 PM
There's plenty to object to in both the aspirations and the practicalities of PNAC-style ideals.
American leadership is good both for America and for the world,
so their first installment. :rolleyes: :eek: :sick: :down: :furious:
change that for "German leadership" and "Germany" and you've got what the Nazis had for ideals and principles too,
change that for "French", etc, and you've got the first conscious genocide of history, committed by the French revolutionaries in Vendée and Brittany, and the tortures in Algeria, etc.
that's what makes me wanna buy a very big gun and explosives to fight against such people, and i don't need to be a Muslim to feel so.
so any Anti-American country should be (preemptively) attacked by the US?
I never said that, and you're intelligent enough to know that I didn't. I'm not going to have a discussion with someone who exaggerates to ridiculous extremes before they argue with it.
speak of world domination - that many people here, fortunately, won't accept - and "history of aggression" as if the US didn't have a huge one, Vietnam and all included... :rolleyes:
what makes you so believe, if you could see from another point of view, except that you're American, that your country never did deserve to be attacked, if Iraq and others in your opinion deserved it?
I listed many things which, in conjunction, made Iraq a threat to the region and the world. Having weapons does not make someone a threat in and of itself, just as a military officer or police officer are not a threat to everyone. Having weapons and a track record of abusing them is the problem, and to suggest that Hussein and the U.S. are even on the same plane of existence in that regard is beyond the pale.
the sacred mission to bring "civilisation and freedom" to all, even those who don't want it... rings a bell.
You can't bring freedom to people who don't want it. It's not even possible. If they don't want it, the worst thing that happens is that they vote themselves right back into tyranny. But I don't think that's what they'll choose, and I don't think you think they will, either.
It reminds me of something my brother said. I told him "do what you want" and he said, jokingly, "make me!" You can't force someone into freedom. You can only force them to choose whether or not they want it. And what polls and information we have shows that Iraqis clearly want control of their own desinty.
i could ask why you don't do anything about Tibet and let Turks torture Kurds and Armenians in their dictatorial regime, but hei, that sacred mission only works when there's some money and power to gain from it. that's called hypocrisy. and if it did bring some more freedom to some people in Iraq, accidentally, i still think the reasons behind are of prime essence to the question.
This was already said in an earlier post, and I already responded to it; it's not "hypocriscy" because the United States is not a person. Different people run it at different times. That said, even if it were hypocriscy, that wouldn't be an argument against intervention.
I don't see why this is so difficult for so many people to understand: if ignoring the suffering of others was bad then, then how can it be worse that we didn't this time?
If you say that national interest played a role, well, let's assume for a moment that it did: big deal. We have to gain something before sending thousands of our soldiers to die. How is that scandalous? You're claiming that the United States is not a beacon of pure altruism, and turn that into some sort of criticism. Show me a country that lives up to that standard.
,
so their first installment. :rolleyes: :eek: :sick: :down: :furious:
change that for "German leadership" and "Germany" and you've got what the Nazis had for ideals and principles too
No, what makes the Nazis the Nazis is their desire to rule the world and eliminate races they don't like. The fact that they proposed to lead does not immediately cast doubt on any country in the future who purports to act as a leader. You might as well say that Bush is like Hitler because they both liked tuna fish.
chicagofrog
03-29-06, 12:57 PM
like always, you do have good points in general, but:
I'm not going to have a discussion with someone who exaggerates to ridiculous extremes before they argue with it
i exaggerated *slightly* (that's an inherent part of my style, sorry if you take it word for word), stressing the fact that you used Hussein's anti-americanism as an argument, which it shouldn't even be. supporting terrorism is something else, but it's taking part in such actions, not the ideology, that should justify acting, in this case, attacking a country.
Having weapons and a track record of abusing them is the problem
i do think the US have a long history of abusing their having so powerful weapons, from Hiroshima to more recent history.
That said, even if it were hypocrisy, that wouldn't be an argument against intervention.
if ignoring the suffering of others was bad then, then how can it be worse that we didn't this time?
such a subject always have ramifications extending beyond the simple (yet complicated) question of this particular military intervention - you cannot expect it doesn't raise further questions.
in this case, even if the results are not bad in the end, let's hope!, i think the incentives to cause a war are important, especially when we speak of a government.
If you say that national interest played a role, well, let's assume for a moment that it did
in other posts you don't deny that any government acts principally in its own interests (our disagreeing about the bien-fondé of it is secondary to the question), and yet in this post, you do as if it was just one of my assumptions, while i dare to think it is not, judging by other posts of other people, and before all, things published and generally known about states).
You're claiming that the United States is not a beacon of pure altruism, and turn that into some sort of criticism. Show me a country that lives up to that standard
that all other countries do the same can still be criticized, unless i would say - which i don't - the US are the only one acting like that.
should we always put the ideals apart and not expect more from the institutions that rule us, or less - in the case of hypocrisy??
moreover, if someone/some*thing* acts egoistically and recognizes it, it's still slightly better than someone who does the same but keeps denying it, i.m.o.
chicagofrog
03-29-06, 01:04 PM
No, what makes the Nazis the Nazis is their desire to rule the world and eliminate races they don't like (...) You might as well say that Bush is like Hitler because they both liked tuna fish.
no. as an example, Italian fascism (that copied Nazism *only* after being allied with it) didn't originally have any opinion/ideals on races.
it doesn't make it better that they craved for world domination.
any country that wants that is imperialistic, and as far as ideology is concerned, imperialism (independently of the ideology behind - sure it's what we'll always disagree about) always has been worse and more dangerous than fascism.
(i know, i like tuna fish too... ;) )
well this would all be just fine and dandy if altruism or "making things right" had anything to do with the invasion. but it didn't. the brits also have a great deal to do with the current situation in Palestine, but i don't see anyone falling over themselves to help the palestinians ( the poor fellas don't have any oil...whattayougonnado aye? )
Heh, i said as much on the moral front. My main point to y'good self was that an internal uprising was never gonna happen/succeed, for various reasons.
PS, on the Palestine front i think you'll find that that's one area where the UK diverges from the US, in that we're diplomatically 'hard' on Israel's more dubious actions. But that's about the most help we're in a position to give.
How did I end up arguing with 4 people at once?
I ain't arguing with you so much as correcting you ;)
---
I'd point out that the Bush Snr assassination attempt was never convincingly attributed to Saddam's regime as well, but i've done that before and cannae be bothered to do it again. (There's only so much i can repeat ;)). I'll just say that if there was a strong case to be made, you can bet that any Baathist officials involved would now be being tried for it.
adidasss
03-29-06, 01:09 PM
How did I end up arguing with 4 people at once?
20 years ago, I was in a crib, actually. But if you mean America, it were run by different people who naively thought (to varying degrees) many of the same things you seem to; that if we calmly sit on our side of the Atlantic maybe no one will bother us.
You must be joking. You were sitting calmly on your side of the atlantic? Perhapse before world war one, ever since then you had a hard time keeping your nose out of everyone elses business. From Chile, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos to Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and again, Iraq.
You're really only making my point for me: we've been doing it wrong for decades. I've said as much in earlier posts. The fact that we haven't always intervened in the past is not an argument against intervention now. Quite the opposite, actually.
Even if we fail to get involved until our interests play a stronger role, that still isn't an argument against the invasion, anymore than wanting the reward would be an argument against turning a known criminal in.
Yes , you have been doing it wrong for decades, and continue to do so. The world wide hate for americans and america didn't just come out of nowhere, it was caused precisely by your tendancy to meddle into other peoples business.
Yes, Palestinian suicide bombers. And the idea that that's not our concern is absurd, in my opinion. They're our ally, for one, and every established state is rightly concerned with such acts. "None of our concern"? You think these things don't effect anyone other than the target?
How come you did nothing about the IRA or ETA or the terrorists in the filipines, or in indonesia? Perhapse because it's an internal matter of the aformentioned countries?
I'm sure I can find some, but it's an established fact that he harbored one of the men responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing. I believe the man in question is Ramzi Yousef.
Did he now? Did he hide him in the same place he was hiding the WMDs? Is harboring one man a valid reason for an invasion? Wait, i'll stop with the questions and answer this one myself, no it isn't, otherwise you should have invaded Libia, Syria and god knows how many other countries long ago.
Yep. Didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on mass murder, though.
Ok,but don't forget to invade Turkey for the genocide they did on the Armenians some 100 years ago aye? Selective punishment. :rolleyes:
Resolutions 687, 689, 699, 700, 705, 706, 707, 712, 715, 773, 778, 806, 833, 949, 986, 1060, 1143, 1153, 1154, 1158, 1175, 1194, 1205, 1210, 1242, 1266, 1275, 1280, 1281, 1284, 1293, 1302, 1330, 1352, 1360, 1382, 1409, 1441, 1443, 1447, 1454, 1511, and 1518. That's from 1990 to 2003, and covers both Iraq's aggression in the region, their selective willingness to comply with weapons inspectors, and their abuse of the Oil For Food program.
Nope. For whatever reason, they didn't seem interested in enforcing their own resolutions. If you're arguing that the UN's opinion ought to be sacrosanct, however, you shoot yourself in the foot, because Iraq flaunted them to ridiculous degrees. So either the UN's opinion matters, in which case something had to be done about Iraq, or else it doesn't, in which case this question is moot.
It's interesting how you cite UN resolutions as if they mattered and then say it's ok to stomp on the rules of the UN when it comes to the invasion itself. iIf the reason for the invasion ( or rather agression ) was the breaking of UN's rules and resolutions, wasn't it on the UN to do something about it? They chose not to, you chose to disregard that decision....
Only us? No. But then again, there's a world of difference between a country run by its own people, and those run by tyrants. Saying that they should all be able to do exactly the same things with total moral equivalence is like saying to a police officer "you can't arrest that guy for screaming gibberish in the park and waving a gun...oh, so only you get a gun, huh?!"
No i wouldn't call it the same thing. When you went after Castro you felt it was moraly justified, suddenly when another country tries to do the same thing, you're apalled....that falls under the definition of hypocrisy no?
You're mentioning "the news" in an incredibly vague sense. I watch the news everyday and it's simply not telling me the things it appears to be telling you. Maybe you're highly selective in your media sources, but I hear mixed messages from multiple sources (local, national, and international...I prefer Internet news to cable news, generally) on a regular basis. All opinion polls I've seen, for example, show that Iraqis, while not happy with us, are very optimistic about their future. That certainly doesn't jibe with what your broad, sweeping generalizations about how horrible everything is.
Can you provide solid evidence for your repeated claim that "the news" says everything is horrible? And even if you can, what reason do you have to believe that it's more accurate than testimonials from both soldiers and Iraqis themselves?
All i get every day on the news is "*insert number* Iraqis died today" ( whether it be suicide bombers or americans ) coupled with desperate Iraqis cursing the americans . Based on that information i have come to the conclusion that those people aren't too happy with the current situation. Also, i've watched documentaries ( sorry, can't name them, but lets assume they're either from BBC or some french TV station ) that describe the situation the way it was before the war ( poverty, opression ) and now ( total anarchy, chaos ). I choose the former situation as the more favourable one ( the lesser of two evils ).
However, i will leave the option that most Iraqis are actually optimistic about the future, after all, it can't get any worse can it?
Why do i think the recounts of those Iraqis who have lost someone as a result of the invasion are more truthful to those of american soldiers? Because i'm an anti-american idiot obviously. :rolleyes:
I don't know that they were ever all that welcomed in the Muslim world. Regardless, vagueries about negative opinions is not an argument against the war. If it was, no war would ever be justified.
I think americans were more than welcomed some 40 years ago. But things have change a great deal as of recent.
And i think it's a very good argument against the war, so as not to antagonize the muslims any further. But you obviously don't care about that, so don't be surprised when another 9.11. happens and you start to wonder in bevilderment why those damn evil muslims hate you so much and why they want you all dead and the US to fall on it's arse.
First, this isn't really your complaint. You'd be more upset if we invaded Iran and Pakistan, not less. You're damn right ,i would be. Second, we've been looking into confronting Iran for some time, and it may very well happen; we can't do everything at once, however.
I can't wait for that to happen....can't wait for more people to get killed because you think you MIGHT get attacked. But i think Iran will prove to be a much tougher cookie than Iraq. I see another disaster like Vietnam if you do choose to make such a catastrophic decision ( yes, you , not your country, you.... :rolleyes: )
Third, Iran may have a nuclear weapons program, whereas with Saddam, we only suspected that one was in progress.There's something wrong with this statement. Iran MAY have a nuclear weapons program, Iraq was SUSPECTED of having one....What's the difference exactly? Maybe my english ain't that good.....
Also, I don't think you really answered my "where did it get us?" question. It wasn't entirely rhetorical. You're asking every question that pops into your head, apparently, and while I don't find it especially difficult to answer, I think you ought to put your cards on the table: what are you saying we should have done? Are you suggesting isolationism?
Where did what get you? This has something to do with your statement that america, prior to the Gulf war, was essentially minding it's own buisness doesn't it? Nope, you were meddling as usual, you just made wrong choices , as usual, by helping Saddam because you thought it would serve your interests...then it backfired....then you decided to make another wrong move...then it backfired....etc.
Yes, i'm suggesting isolationism...let's see how that works out.Although i think you pissed off far too many people for that to work now. You should have stuck to that after the second world war. You wouldn't have these problems if you had.
And dag nab it, this discussion really is tiresome....and somewhat pointless ,seeing as how i've yet to convince a single republican that the war ( and you foreign policies in general ) are wrong. You're tough cookies i'll give you that.
So instead, i propose a fist fight, me and froggy against you....lets settle this matter like real men....;)
adidasss
03-29-06, 01:23 PM
Heh, i said as much on the moral front. My main point to y'good self was that an internal uprising was never gonna happen/succeed, for various reasons.
PS, on the Palestine front i think you'll find that that's one area where the UK diverges from the US, in that we're diplomatically 'hard' on Israel's more dubious actions. But that's about the most help we're in a position to give.
it was never gonna happen? well i guess we'll never know, but i wouldn't have excluded it as an option.
chicagofrog
03-29-06, 01:31 PM
ok,but don't forget to invade Turkey for the genocide they did on the Armenians some 100 years ago aye? selective punishment.
a genocide that, i repeat, is continuing today and extends to the Kurds, even if it's more hidden.
and why the heck doesn't anyone respect the word "hypocrisy", and the pronoun "its"?? hehe :D :D
adidasss
03-29-06, 02:41 PM
a genocide that, i repeat, is continuing today and extends to the Kurds, even if it's more hidden.
and why the heck doesn't anyone respect the word "hypocrisy", and the pronoun "its"?? hehe :D :D
sorry, i'm a crap speller...i'll try to remedy the situation.
Piddzilla
03-29-06, 05:04 PM
Jeez, is this where you guys have been all day?
"Oh let's do a quick MoFo drop in before I go to bed...."
As if.....
I can't possibly read all these posts now.... Are they any good??
Mine are fantastic ;)
coz i've kept them really short :)
adidasss
03-29-06, 05:58 PM
Mine are fantastic ;)
coz i've kept them really short :)
or is it because of your uber sexy english accent?
oh no, i shall never let it go, you will now forever be known to me as the sexy-posh-english-voice-guy....that's right...isn't it a catchy new nickname??
and to piddy, my posts are as always mind-bogglingly intelligent and insightful....as if you actually doubted that....
I tried to sit down and write an extensive post about why the war in Iraq, at least in my opinion, is justified. I could not do it. Oh certainly not because I could not think of any reasons, but because I wonder what good would it do? I run into a stone wall of unbending convictions and media hyped propaganda. Not just here, but in other places as well. War is bad, Bush rushed to war, stay out of other peoples business, oil/money, etc… No matter what good is done the war was and is wrong and Bush is hated more than the kid who leaves a pick up game early with the only ball. When I used my “load of crap” comment, I did not mean that the facts given were wrong, but that the mindset behind all the shoulder patting and adrenaline induced Bush hating was. I get angry at the tunnel vision of hate, the comparisons to Hitler and terrorists, the blaming of Hurricanes sent by God to punish a country that elected the antichrist; the list goes on and on and on. I could care less if anyone hates my president, Hell they have that right, but do they have to enjoy it? It is some new kind of team spirit that has infected the haters with such callousness. It is almost as if all of a sudden when Bush became elected and Florida became an electoral battleground the bitterness set in and has only grown stronger. Nothing Bush can ever do will be considered a good thing to the haters. He is a failure, an alcoholic, a militant, etc… So where am I going with all this whining? I have hatred too, a hatred for Saddam and it cuts deep and it is fueled by memories and heartbreak and death. I wanted to present the question: Can you name some things Bush has done that in your mind is, simply put, good. Then I replace the name Bush with Saddam, and think about how hard it would be for me to even try. In this revelation I come to understand a bit of the hate. The difference however is I do not enjoy hating Saddam. It is sad to me that I see more hatred towards Bush than I ever did towards Saddam. I support the war, I support the ideal of freedom, and I support the families that I know will have a better life because of the liberation going on right now. I take their word for it that things are better. I do not forget or ignore those who are suffering and who have died because of this war. It saddens me to the core of my being, it truly does. There is no easy answer.
adidasss
03-29-06, 08:58 PM
it's not hate man, i'm just tired of wars....that's why it's a little hard for me to comprehend anyone who would support such violence, even if under the pretence of achieving peace. i'm convinced that the well being of the Iraqis is not why the majority of americans are supporting the war. and it saddens me that they don't realize what war means....i know what it means....but, it seems you know what it means too....and yet you still support it....i just don't understand....
I tried to sit down and write an extensive post about why the war in Iraq, at least in my opinion, is justified.
There's almost a "Bush is good because he's better than Saddam" sentiment in your post. I agree, Bush is better than Saddam but I also believe we can do a whole lot better than Bush. That's the beauty of America. We can criticize things that we think should be better.
Also, some people have a "He's the President and deserves our respect" attitude. Baloney. He's our employee and serves us. We don't have a King and we don't have a Monarchy. We have a representative government. When the government no longer represents the people, it should be escorted out.
About hatred for Bush vs hatred for Saddam... First, I don't hate Bush. I'm just very disappointed in his actions. Saddam is probably worthy of hate if all the tales of atrocities are true. I've read that his son may have been a worse monster than he was. And the suicide bombings that take innocent life...horrible and unjustifiable. The beheadings of kidnap victims... barbaric and shameful. But we don't have control over those things. It's not our government doing them (although some of the events at Abu Graib and Guantanomo are heading down that path). We do have some control over the actions of OUR government. If not control, we at least have the right to criticize it. And criticizing our government is not "hating America." It's demanding that America live up to the ideals and excellence that we expect.
Supporting the war... You're entitled to support the war. You're entitled to believe all the death and destruction of the last three years is an improvement over the previous years. You're entitled to hope a better and freer Iraq is on the horizon. And I'm entitled to not share your optimism. First, Iraq has internal divisions and factions (even worse than Democrats and Republicans.) And secondly, I don't see a positive outcome when democracy is attempted by force from an invading foreign power. A foreign power that is already seen as hostile by much of Iraq and the Middle East. And the foreign power has dramatic cultural differences from the country it is liberating.
Iraq may achieve democracy. But at what cost? How long will the daily death toll continue? How long will US troops occupy the country? And how much damage will be done to the US; economically, militarily and to our image around the world? IMO, the invasion of Iraq was an arrogant and shortsighted venture that was ignorant of the real consequences.
chicagofrog
03-30-06, 08:49 AM
I don't hate Bush. I'm just very disappointed in his actions
same thing here. e.g. i don't wish for anything bad happening to him, ideally i wish for him to be happy in his Texan ranch with his family etc. hatred is far worse, it's when you wish something bad would happen to people, or at least you wouldn't care if it did. which is not my general feeling about people, even political and ideological foes.
as for America, if i didn't love it like i do in/thanx to many of its aspects and good things and arts and, yes, criticism (and especially autocriticism seen in movies and novels and comicbooks - which is much deeper than in most other countries), i wouldn't give a damn. but i think
1) it deserves better
2) it would be more appreciated abroad if it changed politics
3) any president who were willing to abolish the imperialistic tendencies would be best for the US
There's almost a "Bush is good because he's better than Saddam" sentiment in your post.
Not what I am trying to say at all, what I am trying to get at is that I do not understand where were all these war haters when iraq invaded Kuwait for example? Should we not have gone and helped Kuwait? Just not meddle in their buisness. Hey they are killing Kuwaiti citizens on sight, but its none of our buisness. yes it was a different war, but it was a war for a reason that involved liberation. I am for liberating Iraq, so are many of its citizens. I hate war, I despise it. But sometimes if you want progress or freedom you have to sacrifice and fight for it.
Incidently I do not support everyting Bush does and I am very dissappointed in a lot of things he has done lately, but the war on terrorisn and the war in Iraq are not among that list. So yeah I do not think Bush is God and I would not vote for him again if he were a choice.
Piddzilla
03-30-06, 12:48 PM
7thson, I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion and I probably share with you a lot of ideas of how things should be but perhaps not always how to get there. And thank you for trying to formulate your views in a very good post. Because it is a good post (I'm talking about the one with a different font).
Mine are fantastic ;)
coz i've kept them really short :)
:skeptical: :cool:
Every conversation I have with someone who is adamantly opposed to the war tends to go exactly like this one. They say they oppose the invasion, are asked why (in some form), and then proceed to detail a list of complaints do not actually describe an opposition to the war at all. They describe an opposition to the Bush administration's PR strategy.
Why do I oppose the invasion?... Number one, it was a preemptive invasion with no imminent threat. That's not something I'm comfortable with. That's something I might expect from the former Soviet Union or an African or Central American dictator but not the United States. Secondly, Middle Eastern (Islam) and US relations are more important than ever. A preemptive invasion of a Muslim country is not the way to improve relations. Thirdly, 2300 dead and 15,000 wounded US soldiers. So far. This President has indicated we'll be there til at least 2009. How many more? Fourthly, 30,000 dead and probably well over 100,000 wounded Iraqis. So far. And that's because of our actions and response to our actions. It wasn't Saddam Hussein. Fifthly, because of the daily violence and bloodshed in Iraq the hatred between the Iraqis and our troops is growing. Where will it be in another year? Three years? Five? Sixthly, a democratic government is no guarantee of a friendly government. Democracy for Iraq could lead to theocracy or a government hostile to the US. Seventhly, we helped arm Saddam with chemical weapons in the 80s, we implemented sanctions that starved the Iraqi people in the 90s and now in 2003, we're full of compassion and want to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq...at the point of a gun. Nah, I'm not buying it. We're going to spend 300 billion...500...maybe a trillion dollars before it's over, suffer who knows how many casualties...and walk away when Iraq can defend itself? All that for a democratic Iraq? If that's true, some people in Washington need white jackets and a padded room.
to be continued...
Why do I oppose the invasion?... Number one, it was a preemptive invasion with no imminent threat. That's not something I'm comfortable with. That's something I might expect from the former Soviet Union or an African or Central American dictator but not the United States. Secondly, Middle Eastern (Islam) and US relations are more important than ever. A preemptive invasion of a Muslim country is not the way to improve relations. Thirdly, 2300 dead and 15,000 wounded US soldiers. So far. This President has indicated we'll be there til at least 2009. How many more? Fourthly, 30,000 dead and probably well over 100,000 wounded Iraqis. So far. And that's because of our actions and response to our actions. It wasn't Saddam Hussein. Fifthly, because of the daily violence and bloodshed in Iraq the hatred between the Iraqis and our troops is growing. Where will it be in another year? Three years? Five? Sixthly, a democratic government is no guarantee of a friendly government. Democracy for Iraq could lead to theocracy or a government hostile to the US. Seventhly, we helped arm Saddam with chemical weapons in the 80s, we implemented sanctions that starved the Iraqi people in the 90s and now in 2003, we're full of compassion and want to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq...at the point of a gun. Nah, I'm not buying it. We're going to spend 300 billion...500...maybe a trillion dollars before it's over, suffer who knows how many casualties...and walk away when Iraq can defend itself? All that for a democratic Iraq? If that's true, some people in Washington need white jackets and a padded room.
to be continued...
I again bring up the invasion of Kuwait. The reason is because that really started all of this, at least it was a major reason. After the cease fire agreement was signed there were stipulations that were to be followed or the cease fire would be discontinued. the big mistake was allowing the cease fire to be ignored in the first place, this war should have continued as soon as Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.N., The U.S. the Kuwaitis, and the world. WMDs were used by Iraq during the first Gulf war and were fired where he pleased. "Rush to war" yeah right the war should have never stopped till he was removed the first time.
al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, but it does not represent all terrorism. War was declared on all terrorist organizations (I'm sure you recall that), and Iraq qualified under any reasonable definition of the word.
Yes, that policy paves the way for further preemptive attacks. Which of these countries should we attack next...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Terrorist_Organization
Abu Nidal Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal_Organization) (ANO) (International)
Abu Sayyaf Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sayyaf_Group) (Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines))
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Martyrs_Brigade) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Ansar al-Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam) (Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), Kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan))
Armed Islamic Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Islamic_Group) (GIA) (Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria))
Asbat al-Ansar (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asbat_al-Ansar&action=edit)
Aum Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo) (Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan))
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_Fatherland_and_Liberty) (ETA) (Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France))
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_People%27s_Army) (CPP/NPA) (Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines))
Continuity Irish Republican Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_Irish_Republican_Army) (Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland))
Gama'a al-Islamiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gama%27a_al-Islamiyya) (Translates: Islamic Group) (Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt))
HAMAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMAS) (Islamic Resistance Movement) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harakat_ul-Mujahidin) (HUM) (Kashmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir))
Hizballah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizballah) (Translates: Party of God) (Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon))
Islamic Jihad Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_Jihad_Group&action=edit)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan) (IMU) (Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan))
Jaish-e-Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish-e-Mohammed) (JEM) (Translates: Army of Mohammed) (Kashmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir))
Jemaah Islamiya organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemaah_Islamiya_organization) (JI) (South East Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_Asia))
al-Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jihad) (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) (Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt))
Kahane Chai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahane_Chai) (Kach) (Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel))
Kongra-Gel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongra-Gel) (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK) (Kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan))
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Tayyiba) (LT) (Army of the Righteous) (Kashmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir))
Lashkar i Jhangvi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar_i_Jhangvi) (Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan))
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam) (LTTE) (Sri Lanka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka))
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group) (LIFG) (Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya))
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Islamic_Combatant_Group) (GICM) (Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco))
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedin-e_Khalq_Organization) (MEK) (Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran))
National Liberation Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_%28Colombia%29) (ELN) (Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia))
Palestine Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Front) (PLF) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad) (PIJ) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine) (PFLP) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine_-_General_Command) (PFLP-GC) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
al-Qa’ida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qa%E2%80%99ida) (Global)
Real IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_IRA) (Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland))
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia) (FARC) (Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia))
Revolutionary Nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Nuclei) (formerly ELA) (Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece))
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Organization_17_November) (Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece))
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_People%27s_Liberation_Party/Front) (DHKP/C) (Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey))
Salafist Group for Call and Combat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist_Group_for_Call_and_Combat) (GSPC) (Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria))
Shining Path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path) (Sendero Luminoso, SL) (Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru))
Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzim_Qa%27idat_al-Jihad_fi_Bilad_al-Rafidayn) (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network) (Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq))
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Self-Defense_Forces_of_Colombia) (AUC) (Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia))
Iraq harbored one of the bombers of the original WTC bombing in 1993, offered cash to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President. There are all publicly verifiable and universally accepted facts, and they are all terrorist acts (and some are arguably acts of war in and of themselves).
One of the bombers? What about the native country of fifteen of the 911 terrorists, Saudi Arabia? Saudia Arabia had fifteen, United Arab Emirates had two (the country Bush wants to control our ports) Egypt one and Lebanon one. Iraq, zero.
Good question. From what Bush has said, we leave when we're confident that the Iraqis can fend for themselves. There is, unfortunately, no way of knowing for sure when this is.
You actually believe that? That we'll leave? We'll spend hundreds of billions of dollars, lose thousands of lives and just get up and leave if/when Iraq is more stable? We're there for the military bases, more control over the oil and more control over Iraq itself. But Bush can't say that. He has to say it's about WMD and terrorists. And yes, that is only my opinion and conjecture. But I think it's reasonable conjecture.
I don't want to ever vote for someone who shys away from doing something simply because it might take more than 8 years. It's either the right thing to do, or not. The best decision does not always fit into a 4-year window.
I don't want to ever vote for someone who leads us into an unnecessary war that may last a decade or more. Yes, Bush will be out of office after 2008. But there's a good chance that people will still be dying in Iraq because of the war he started. And Bush will be in Crawford Texas, relaxing on the ranch.
I don't expect the insurgency to simply stop; I expect it to lose. And I expect it to become the problem of the Iraqi people at some point. Again, you've got lots of good questions, but -- and this sounds more confrontational than it's meant to -- no answers. And for the decision to have been a mistake, it needs to be demonstrated that there was a better, plausible, alternative.
The way the insurgency lost in Vietnam? It's a similar kind of war, only the Iraqis are more willing to blow themselves up. The alternative was: don't invade Iraq. Our military focus was Afghanistan, the Taliban, al Qaeda and bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with any of that. You can either believe that the (non-existent) WMD posed an imminent threat or you can believe this administration sold us and congress a pile of manure to make a preemptive invasion possible. A policy that several of the key players had wanted to implement for many years.
I'm not saying they flat out lied about WMD. I'm saying they USED WMD to achieve their agenda. In case WMD wasn't quite enough, both Cheney and Rice rolled out the "mushroom cloud." That sealed the deal.
And what would you think of someone who aligned with that dictator, supplied him with weapons, did nothing while he used them, and never became outraged?
The time to be outraged was when it was occurring. Twenty years later isn't outrage, that's revenge. Or maybe it's just one of many excuses to implement a policy that has nothing to do with the initial atrocities. If we're going to be the worlds' humanitarian and stop atrocities as they happen, why weren't 150,000 troops sent to Darfur?
like the war, to be continued...
chicagofrog
04-02-06, 10:21 AM
One of the bombers? What about the native country of fifteen of the 911 terrorists, Saudi Arabia? Saudia Arabia had fifteen, United Arab Emirates had two (the country Bush wants to control our ports) Egypt one and Lebanon one. Iraq, zero.
how many times has it been repeated? plus everyone has seen the movie, haven't they?
but they don't wanna listen, national interests first!
Piddzilla
04-02-06, 10:45 AM
Abu Nidal Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal_Organization) (ANO) (International)
Abu Sayyaf Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Sayyaf_Group) (Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines))
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Martyrs_Brigade) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Ansar al-Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam) (Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), Kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan))
Armed Islamic Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Islamic_Group) (GIA) (Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria))
Asbat al-Ansar (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asbat_al-Ansar&action=edit)
Aum Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo) (Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan))
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_Fatherland_and_Liberty) (ETA) (Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France))
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_People%27s_Army) (CPP/NPA) (Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines))
Continuity Irish Republican Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_Irish_Republican_Army) (Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland))
Gama'a al-Islamiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gama%27a_al-Islamiyya) (Translates: Islamic Group) (Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt))
HAMAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMAS) (Islamic Resistance Movement) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harakat_ul-Mujahidin) (HUM) (Kashmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir))
Hizballah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizballah) (Translates: Party of God) (Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon))
Islamic Jihad Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_Jihad_Group&action=edit)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan) (IMU) (Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan))
Jaish-e-Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish-e-Mohammed) (JEM) (Translates: Army of Mohammed) (Kashmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir))
Jemaah Islamiya organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jemaah_Islamiya_organization) (JI) (South East Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_Asia))
al-Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jihad) (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) (Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt))
Kahane Chai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahane_Chai) (Kach) (Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel))
Kongra-Gel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongra-Gel) (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK) (Kurdistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan))
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Tayyiba) (LT) (Army of the Righteous) (Kashmir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir))
Lashkar i Jhangvi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar_i_Jhangvi) (Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan))
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam) (LTTE) (Sri Lanka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka))
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group) (LIFG) (Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya))
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Islamic_Combatant_Group) (GICM) (Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco))
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedin-e_Khalq_Organization) (MEK) (Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran))
National Liberation Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_%28Colombia%29) (ELN) (Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia))
Palestine Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Front) (PLF) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad) (PIJ) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine) (PFLP) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine_-_General_Command) (PFLP-GC) (Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine))
al-Qa’ida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qa%E2%80%99ida) (Global)
Real IRA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_IRA) (Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland))
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia) (FARC) (Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia))
Revolutionary Nuclei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Nuclei) (formerly ELA) (Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece))
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Organization_17_November) (Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece))
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_People%27s_Liberation_Party/Front) (DHKP/C) (Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey))
Salafist Group for Call and Combat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist_Group_for_Call_and_Combat) (GSPC) (Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria))
Shining Path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Path) (Sendero Luminoso, SL) (Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru))
Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzim_Qa%27idat_al-Jihad_fi_Bilad_al-Rafidayn) (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network) (Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq))
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Self-Defense_Forces_of_Colombia) (AUC) (Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia))
Just wanted to add:
The People's Front of Judea (http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/previews/featured/pc/rome_total_war/rome_total_war_pfj.jpg)
I'd like to respond to you, Twain (sorry, that sounds awkward but I don't know your first name), but I don't want to bombard anyone if they haven't even finished their thoughts. Would you rather I respond whenever, or would you rather I wait until you're done?
I'd like to respond to you, Twain (sorry, that sounds awkward but I don't know your first name), but I don't want to bombard anyone if they haven't even finished their thoughts. Would you rather I respond whenever, or would you rather I wait until you're done?
Oh, just whenever. Bombard away. :D
I again bring up the invasion of Kuwait. The reason is because that really started all of this, at least it was a major reason. After the cease fire agreement was signed there were stipulations that were to be followed or the cease fire would be discontinued. the big mistake was allowing the cease fire to be ignored in the first place, this war should have continued as soon as Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.N., The U.S. the Kuwaitis, and the world. WMDs were used by Iraq during the first Gulf war and were fired where he pleased. "Rush to war" yeah right the war should have never stopped till he was removed the first time.
I was gonna start another thread, but think this is a good place to bring it up:
What are the thoughts on the invasion of Kuwait, was it justified in anyones mind?
For them that's interested...
U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/world/middleeast/09report.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1144641600&en=2ae9b3b3cb19f9e8&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin)
Saudis plan to fence off border with chaos (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2126835,00.html)
---
What are the thoughts on the invasion of Kuwait, was it justified in anyones mind?
Yup, justified enough. (Not that Kuwaitis have a particularly pretty set-up, but Saddam's was worse in most ways, and looking to expand. On 'Hitler' style grounds, intervention was warrented)
Forget the WMD argument tho. You've said enough by pointing out that Saddam invaded a country. Ability to do something is important, but intention-and-actualisation are even more so. (WMDs were used by both sides. WMDs are owned by nigh on every country in the world. Under certain definitions of WMD [like those used to justify the latest Gulf excursion to the UK populace] an RPG is a WMD. WMDs have basically become red-herrings in these arguments)
Here are some probs with the invade-Saddam-from-the-off idea you're suggesting:
a) The allies were in no position to invade Iraq after freeing Kuwait. They'd used a blitzkreig tactic which meant they didn't have the resources or preparation to pursue Saddam's fleeing forces onto their own turf - as i understand it. (Making the call for a Shiite uprising the first of several shockingly inept strategies employed there by us 'allies' in the last little while)
b) UN containment has been shown to be successful - with the threat of force behind it to deal with times of non-compliance. Iraq wasn't a threat to its neighbours, let alone the likes of the US or UK. (The sanctions were sick and misapplied in many cases, but they were eventually morphed into something far more humane, at least).
chicagofrog
04-13-06, 06:09 AM
"blitzkrIEg" :)
a) The allies were in no position to invade Iraq after freeing Kuwait. They'd used a blitzkreig tactic which meant they didn't have the resources or preparation to pursue Saddam's fleeing forces onto their own turf - as i understand it. (Making the call for a Shiite uprising the first of several shockingly inept strategies employed there by us 'allies' in the last little while)
Oh there was more than enough resources, a gross amount of unused resources in my mind, and we we already on "their turf" Special Force units had already entered Bagdad.
"blitzkrIEg" :)
Erm, i don't speak German :p ;)
Oh there was more than enough resources, a gross amount of unused resources in my mind, and we we already on "their turf" Special Force units had already entered Bagdad.
Not the same as an occupation ;)
Like i say, i'm going on what i've heard, which has mainly come from 'history' documentaries. They've claimed that a complete push into Iraq was unfeasible at the time.
And besides, Iraq is a big ole place. Taking it is just the beginning. As we've learnt.
Piddzilla
06-30-06, 07:32 PM
Didn't feel like starting a new thread, so...
The US Supreme Court's ruling that camps like the one in Guantanamo is unconstitutional (not sure about the correct terms here) - what do you think the consequences will be?
Equilibrium
06-30-06, 08:24 PM
hopefully severe...
linespalsy
06-30-06, 09:06 PM
Didn't feel like starting a new thread, so...
The US Supreme Court's ruling that camps like the one in Guantanamo is unconstitutional (not sure about the correct terms here) - what do you think the consequences will be?
Purandara already started a thread about it here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=12073). Just so you know.
Piddzilla
07-04-06, 04:05 AM
Purandara already started a thread about it here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=12073). Just so you know.
My mistake. Sorry!
will.15
06-13-11, 03:42 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-missing-billions-20110613,0,4414060.story
The Bush Administration was incredibly incompetent and negligent in allowing this to happen, and make no mistake about it, it was their fault for allowing private contractors to operate with virtually no oversight. Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in American history, and Dick Cheney was our worst Vice President because he was stupidly given by a detached President real power, which he used evilly and stupidly. The record actually improved in the last two year of the Bush Adminstration when Bush finally quietly stripped Cheney of his power and got rid of Dumbsfeld.
Deadite
06-13-11, 05:36 AM
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=52981
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-missing-billions-20110613,0,4414060.story
The Bush Administration was incredibly incompetent and negligent in allowing this to happen, and make no mistake about it, it was their fault for allowing private contractors to operate with virtually no oversight. Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in American history, and Dick Cheney was our worst Vice President because he was stupidly given by a detached President real power, which he used evilly and stupidly. The record actually improved in the last two year of the Bush Adminstration when Bush finally quietly stripped Cheney of his power and got rid of Dumbsfeld.
Well, it's not good, but war has always been, and will always be, chaotic. But how do you get from these obvious facts to the root of the cause, or the idea that it is exceptional?
I also find it difficult to take seriously (or see any hope of having a conversation based on) any post that includes both "evilly and stupidly" and "Dumbsfeld."
Deadite
06-13-11, 09:58 AM
Maybe a conversation could be had by not focusing solely on a bit of wordplay and instead addressing the gist.
Just a suggestion.
No, I think a conversation would be better had by posting a giant, sarcastic photo of a fat woman. That'll get things going.
I didn't focus on wordplay, regardless: I asked a simple fact-based question, first.
Deadite
06-13-11, 10:10 AM
I'm not trying to converse with you. I was simply making an observation.
But an inaccurate one, I think. Will took a fact and made an inference from it, and used that inference to make an accusation. So I asked him what connects the two, specifically.
Deadite
06-13-11, 10:17 AM
You don't see there having been a pattern of deception and corruption within the Bush admin?
Try opening your eyes next time.
Anyways I'm out. Like I said, I'm not trying to converse with you.
Then stop talking to me, guy.
Anyway, that's not what Will said or asked. He made a very specific accusation, and I asked him to support it. It's not complicated.
Deadite
06-13-11, 10:21 AM
Okay, I'm done talking to you. :)
Yay, everyone's happy now. :)
Deadite
06-13-11, 10:24 AM
Of course they are!
I leave the last word to you.
And that word is...twitterpated.
will.15
06-13-11, 03:18 PM
It is all linked together because the war was badly bungled except for the initial invasion and the last two years by a Secretary of Defense who refused to change strategy when it was clear we didn't have enough troops on the ground to deal with the insurgents and who was strongly supported by a Vice President who wielded too much power. Bush didn't even notify him Rumsfeld was fired until after he fired him (a little afraid of him?), keeping him out of the loop for the first time. Cheney deliberately manipulated intelligence reports and information to justify invading Iraq. The Bush Administration also shows the danger when ideologues are allowed to wield power because of their inability to adapt to facts that contradict their mindset and refusal to compromise.
planet news
06-14-11, 05:54 AM
>The Bush Administration also shows the danger when ideologues are allowed to wield power because of their inability to adapt to facts that contradict their mindset and refusal to compromise.
This. But, unfortunately, that's the nature of all politics. :bored:
will.15
10-15-11, 11:35 PM
BAGHDAD -The Associated Press has learned that the Obama administration is abandoning plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq past a year-end withdrawal deadline.
A senior administration official in Washington confirmed Saturday that all American troops will leave except for about 160 troops attached to the U.S. Embassy. The Pentagon had considered leaving up to 5,000 troops to train security forces and hinder Iranian influence.
A senior U.S. military official said the withdrawal could allow future, limited U.S. military training missions if requested.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Iraqi political leaders have rejected giving legal immunity to U.S. troops — a deal-breaker to Washington.
Good. Finally. Get out of there. And with us gone the violence will flare up again out of control, but the Iraqis don't want us there because they want to scapegoat American troops so let the mess they will get be their sole responsibility.
the Iraqis don't want us there because they want to scapegoat American troops so let the mess they will get be their sole responsibility.
Iraq says it's asked for 5,000 U.S. trainers, awaits reply (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449098/iraq-says-its-asked-for-5000-us.html).
I rather doubt that people who are determined to scapegoat American troops will stop doing so based on this. It would be extremely easy for them to blame us for coming in and then leaving even when they'd asked for further assistance. That ship has sailed.
will.15
10-16-11, 02:17 PM
Can you read? They are no longer negotiating so that is an ultimatum, not a request. They want the troops on terms unacceptable to the United States on a take it or leave it ultimatum. Do you think it would be right for American soldiers in a combat situation to be subject to Iraqi law where there is still a lot of resentment and hatred to the United States and their court system is corrupt and biased?
"Talabani's more specific statement seemed intended to clarify that, at least from an Iraqi perspective, negotiations were over, and the U.S. was expected merely either to agree to stay on or decline to do so.
"If the Americans do not agree to leave behind the trainers without immunity, then we have three choices: to ask for trainers of the (weapons) manufacturing companies, to seek the assistance of NATO or to send members of the Iraqi armed forces to train abroad," Talabani said."
Do you ever argue with things I actually say? You say they don't want us there, I point out that that's not entirely true, and that scapegoating Americans isn't going to stop based on what you're saying. Nothing in your last post seems to address or dispute that at all.
This is getting really exasperating. I'm perfectly glad to argue, discuss, whatever, but I end up spending half my time in these discussions wading through non-sequiturs.
wintertriangles
10-16-11, 02:41 PM
1) They aren't out yet. No one should be assuming it will happen.
2) Even if they do get out, I have a suspicion its a re-election ploy because it'll be the only card Obama will be able to play next year
will.15
10-16-11, 03:02 PM
No, they don't want us there because even the conditioned "request" bypasses the legislature where the troop request wouldn't pass under any circumstances:
The decision to request the 5,000 U.S. trainers came after months of discussions within Iraq's political groups, and the agreement not to seek a formal vote in parliament was symptomatic of the controversy that surrounds it. Even supporters of extending the American presence would find it difficult to take that position in public.
Many key political blocs remain vocal in their opposition.
Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of an influential bloc whose backing allowed Maliki to form a government after the last elections, made certain that his opposition to the American presence was clear in a posting on the Sadr bloc's website.
"I do not approve of the continued presence of any of the occupiers; not the military, not the bases, trainers, embassy, militias (contractors) or anything else American," he wrote. "If my finger were American, I would cut it off."
And as for it being an election ploy by the Obama Admisnstration, that makes no sense.
wintertriangles
10-16-11, 03:10 PM
And as for it being an election ploy by the Obama Admisnstration, that makes no sense.[/COLOR][/LEFT]Nixon did it, and I trust Obama even less than him. Nixon wasn't the only one either.
will.15
10-16-11, 03:17 PM
Nixon did it, and I trust Obama even less than him. Nixon wasn't the only one either.
What exaxtly is the election ploy? The timetable deadline is from The Bush Administration and we would be leaving five thousand troops there if the Iraqi government were not making an unaccetable demand unacceptable to both Republicans and Democrats.
wintertriangles
10-16-11, 03:42 PM
What exaxtly is the election ploy? The timetable deadline is from The Bush Administration and we would be leaving five thousand troops there if the Iraqi government were not making an unaccetable demand unacceptable to both Republicans and Democrats.First of all, it doesn't matter whose deadline it is, the general public doesn't know dick, especially that we still have troops everywhere we've ever been. Second of all, the ploy is to shed an illusion that we've withdrawn from Iraq "just like he promised" and hope it will draw in more votes solely from that. It's exactly what Nixon did in the early 70s, and it worked then.
will.15
10-16-11, 04:04 PM
But Iraq is not controversial right now and if he wanted just to withdraw the troops he could. It is only happening because of Iraqi demands American troops can only stay if they are subject to Iraq law.. He can't leave troops beyond the deadline without breaking a treaty negotiated by Bush.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.