Cost of War

Fair enough. I know not about these technical things.

If no stability can be established, then Iraq will continue in its current situation of being a hotbed for islamic-extremism/terrorism (far more than it ever was before. Notice the renewed recent evidence that Osama's attempts to work with Saddam never came to fruition. As much as militants obviously did manage to work within the superficially-secular Iraq, there's no evidence that they were endorsed or aided. In the current climate they're blatantly free to run amok and have a set of conveniently non-muslim targets to aim at)

All of this impacts significantly on the populace, who are still sustained by hope of improvement, as far as i can tell, more than by actual improvements in their lives. This is the central argument which runs against the "things-are-better-and-therefore-its-reasonable-to-expect-them-to-stay-better" argument.

I'm afraid your assumption that things are better conveniently ignores this aspect of contemporary Iraq (and the failings in the invasions' implementation which facilitate this situation)

Of course it was worth it (throwing off us nasty Brit imperialists seems to have benefitted all the larger nations we lorded it over during our days of mass-world-influence )

But it's a distinct situation in several core ways:

(a) There was no comparable religious clash. And as history has constantly shown, when religion is the wedge between factions, resolution requires seas of blood. The culture clash between "West" and "Arabic" is far stronger than the "Old World" vs "New World" one of that time.

(b) The US was an established, nigh-on stand-alone, region. Iraq has a far more unstable make-up.

Interesting that you chose the example of a nation throwing off a self-profiting system imposed by an empire tho

Comparably, i think the US might prove a lot easier. Iraq's context is a lot messier. Again, one of my criticisms is that we didn't address that context. Which is foolish.

No, i'm saying three main things:

(a) Even the liberty to struggle towards a form of self-government, as the US did, is yet to be established. (and i have douvts about the proceedure, because...)

(b)This potential was damaged from the outset by the divisive political atmosphere in which the regime change was was enacted by the US. Better to recognise the role these influences have played in destabilising the Middle East in the first place and come to a mutually-benefitting accord to keep it as stable as possible.

(c)This has contributed to the lack of multi-national man-power on the ground that could have limited the levels of fundamentalist-terrorism which continue the legacy of fear in iraq. (i don't think that man-power would have necessarily avoided the mishaps we've seen in encarceration/intimidation terms, but again it would have had a alightly better chance of doing so)

I think it's only the hope inspired by a Saddam-free-iraq, and the potential of a self-determining constituition, that distinguishes the situation for the average iraqi. Honestly. I still say the actual situation is genuinely comparable, currently, in that there is random fear and infrastructure destruction caused by the extremists, and the continued presence of sometimes arbitary torture.

That said tho, i'm hopeful of improvement. But from what i've seen, the hand-over is still relatively cosmetic. I don't see it as a definitive moment that will bring any great liberty to the average iraqi or seismic change to their political self-empowerment. But we'll see.

Ah, fair enough. My mistake.

I'm not saying that. But i still argue that the form the invasion took lessened the chances of an iraqi-empowering and politically conducisive outcome.

Oh, it's very up for debate, i agree. I'd certainly agree he was trying to aquire WMD, and could have gained some with the potential for ballistic local usuage earlier even than the 7-year-or-so projections that are touted now that we've looked at his facilities.

The question is: why did he want them. Certainly not for launch against the US etc. That's utterly unfeasible. It was for local leverage, almost certainly (the same reason he funded anti-israeli terrorism it seems. Staying in with the neighbours. As for trying to assissinate Bush senior, well, that was personal ). Now, he may have been able to use that leverage in ways which further destabilised the Middle East, and for that reason alone replacing him is certainly something I agree with.

And I agree with it because Iraq was one of the places where invasion could have the most positive effect. Saudi Arabia is already brimming over with extremists and terrorism-fomentation, and would have caused even greater uproar in the islamic world. Iran equally so. A secular and democratic iraq could have a highly beneficial effect on these borderline-insane nations. That's why it's such a shame we've potentially ballsed it up.

There must be multiple motivations, certainly. I agree that Bush, as a born-again, is undoubtably motivated by the humanitarian aspect. As is Blair. The question is whether they've combined this general principle with the politically-expedient motivations for invasion, and convinced themselves this makes it alright (again tho, i think Blair pushed for the more workable appraoch to regime change, and as such i'm afraid he gets a touch more kudos from me)

Let's look at the politically expedient reasons for invasion:

a) ensuring access to oil, and prevention of a shift away from petrodollar trade. (both of huuuuuge economic importance)

b) an opportunity to nullify the present and future offensive potentials of Iraq, and put the frightners on the ruling bodies of local nations like Iran, S.Arabia and Syria. (yes, i think Bush-n-co thought they were some WMDs. Although Blair has certainly made it clear he thought Saddam having weapons capable of use on his own populace was reason enough to go in, in his mind. In this he shows a potential naivity that means he loses political-effectiveness-kudos with me. Heigh ho )

c) International terrorism? If this was a reason then the US-centric appraoch was incredibly naive. Currently i think it's been counter-productive on that front.

Opposition to war-in-this-way. How many times to me and Piddz have to explain our position? We, and so many other anti-this-war people, are up for the idea of removing Saddam. We just think it's been done in a counter productive way.

Its supposed willingness to combat terrorism has been shown frequently to be at best inept, and at worst superficial and a sham. Saudi Arabia has proved a very strong political ally for the US inside OPEC and the Middle East, while the US in turn has turned a blind eye to it's undemocratic and liberty-opressing ways (yes, we disagree ).

Saddam didn't harbour terrorists. The recent inquiry has just reiterated the evidence relating to this.

There are far worse culprits in international-terrorism terms. Saudi Arabian ministers have boasted of the amounts given to Palestinian terrorist groups previously, and nothing was done. Recently, 3 out of 4 terrorist managed to escape from a sealed building where they'd been killing none-muslims, despite being surrounded by police. The point about the Saudis rulers is, they're either paying lip service to the idea coz they don't want to upset the muslim hardliners in their country, or they're just too isolated and uninfluential to do anything.

All this action has shown is inconsistancy and inappropriateness, taken within the "we're fighting terrorism" argument.

A broad-based rescue-job on the iraq regime-change could send a far stronger signal out, which would get some moderates back on side, rather than polarising issues further as has so far been achieved. But there are still impediments which derive from the unilateral-US approach. (i'm feeling like a broken record here )

I understand your anger (and defensiveness ), but what do you say to the idea that, at the very least, Bush has messed up his handling of the US's relations with the world? And because those relationships impinge on everything from Iraq to the "war on terror", his administration is responsible for creating a mess which wasn't there before.

Erm, i think you'll find i said it was good when he reversed idiotic protectionist measures of his own devising. I don't think you should really expect me to praise him for that. As for his management of your internal economics, i'm not informed enough to pass judgement, so as such i can't either praise or damn him. I feel your interpretations of his causal responsability for economic success are a touch biased, and so i'm reserving judgement.

Like many people, i'm angry at Bush's (political and economic)international policies, and his ecological approaches, so i'm as naturally biased towards doubting his efficacy and motives as you are to believing in them. But i do try to see positives where positives exist.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Just a little comment - most of those violations related to the weapons teams and to civillian treatment.

They show the pressure to keep the weapon inspections working was there. They neglect the fact that sanctions were also majorly to blame for civillian strife (and a minimum 1/2 million extra deaths over the whole period).

These things show that, on humanitarian levels, things needed to change, certainly. On their own though, they just show that Saddam is as bad as many other dictators. He was just one we were keeping our eye on.

Well, most of those violations, as Golgot stated, are related to UN weapons inspectors and how acessible they are to Facilities and such. Actually I don't even know why I am replying, Golgot did a wonderful job.

But they have been broken nonetheless. Ok, back to finding the OTHER 23 violations you speak of.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

I dont care if it was one or 40 he needed to go bottom line. I have seen what he has done.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Okay.......in with the good air.........hold.......hold......feel the chi......and breathe out. Feel better? Aight, as you were.

Well see, that makes me a little bothered. When someone says he has 40+ resolutions that have been broken..then when confrronted about it, they back off and say "I don't care.." that kinda throws me off...

Am I the only one whose concerned about this, someone let me know if I am being unreasonable...

Did you read my post?

I said

"There were 40+ resolutions and Iraq broke over half of them."

Emphasis on HALF.

I showed you 17 of around 20. They were all cause to go to war as when that document was signed it was signed as a binding agreement to cease fire. No one said well, you guys can just obey half and we'll let the other half slide ok? You left guys whine and cry about the UN being so almighty important and then when it comes to supporting an actual UN resolution that was signed by the entire freaking council YOU backpedal and say that it's okay to do it.

With or without WMD's, with or without imminent threat the US (with ALL backing signatories I might add) had cause to continue the mission against Iraq due to violation of UN contract (that you hold so dear).

No I can easily back what I say up (and I do not remeber mentioning 40?), I just dont feel like I should have to, it is common knowledge and even admitted by the UN and others including Hussein. What I am mean when I am saying "I do not care if it was 1 or 40" is that DESPITE these violations he needed to go. I have first hand knowledge of alot of the things I mention and it is up to you to belive if I am lying or not. I may be alot of things but a liar is not one of them. When have I ever "backed off" btw? I have made many staements about my feelings toward this bastard. You look into the dead eyes of a child that was killed by this man's orders just because they were Kuwati and tell me if I should give a damn about a violated resolution or not. You can confront me about anything you want and trust me....I never back off, we can go as many rounds as you want, and if I am wrong I am first to admit it. My last few comments may have been short and flippant, but that is only because it does not matter if I lay out the details of what I think or not, some people are set in their ways and I am not into converting the thoughts of anyone. I still respect your thoughts and opinions, I would at least expect the same. If I think that he had to go reguardless of what happened before the first Gulf war then by God I have that right.

Woa, guess the chi thing didn't work then

7th, i think Equilibrium was talking to Toose.

Slight generalisation. Some of us centre-lefties actually point out that, as important as the UN is potentially, it has plenty of flaws, and these include contradictory stances caused by unresolved internal conflicts.

But then again, i agree that the resolutions show that something needed to be done about Iraq. Just as they show that the Israel conflict desperately needs coherent outside intervention.

With regards to the iraq invasion, a central criticism is that it has added to the divisiveness when there was a great opportunity for unity. The sanctions were sustained in an untenable form by divisiveness in the first place, but instead of using the invasion as an opportunity to reunify international action (and the best sides of the UN), the invasion divided it further. As such, we're left with an unfocused UN which is less able to tackle ongoing problems like the Sudanese crisis etc.

All the big vetoeing nations are to blame for not coming to accord on the issues which are most important to humanity as a whole. But the US, as the most influential player of all, has not fulfilled its role in the purely-positive way some of "you right guys" often suggest

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. But here we go...

The so called overthrowing couldn't have been done in a very different way. The first months of the war would probably have been exactly the same if it had been a multirateral, although US-led, invasion. It's the control over "winning the peace" that's slipped out of hand because of reasons that I have mentioned several times in the past plus a few other ones.

The US army is too small. There are too many rebellious groups in too many areas in different places in Iraq for the americans to control. USA needed UN and now needs UN more than ever for this project that wasn't the walk in the park that I think that the hawks thought it was going to be.

The Bush administration won the american public's support because they said USA was going to war to protect the american homeland from a dictator with WMD harboring terrorist aiming to hurt americans on their own ground. This was not only false but I don't even think it was the real reasons but only a way to win the support of the american public. In any way the motivation for the actions wasn't liberation of the iraqi people and an occupier with dishonest intentions (talking about the leaders, not the soldiers) will not be very devoted to reaching the goals that were nothing but cosmetics to start with. If it had been an invasion done by the world community, no matter how greedy all the big nations are individually it still would have been a compromise. No one would get more than the other and the the lowest common denominator would probably have been liberation of the iraqi people. It still could have been US-led to avoid the undecisiveness that comes along with everthing UN is involved with and simply because USA has the largest army and was the inventor of the project to start with. And the reasons to the attack would have to have been different (= true) from the start as well. Then it would have been easier to defend today.

The Bush administration incorporated this military campaign in the War on Terrorsim, which has proved to be something of a paradox. Not only are the ties between terrorist networks aiming to hurt America and the Saddam regime very thin. Saddam's men weren't terrorists primarily, they were protecting Saddam primarily. But the invasion, or the way the peace is being won to be more precise, has also upset those iraqi groups whose ties to terrorist network threatening to turn against USA and their allies are easier to spot. There are no way that a people who wants to fight or fight back against USA can do it with conventional armies. So what do they do? They use suicide bombing, guerilla warfare and terrorism. I said before the war that this invasion, the way it has been executed, would rather lead to more terrorist acts than to a decrease. And I think I have been right.

And one more important thing. If the invasion had been carried out by the world community it would have been oh so much harder for USA's enemies to target their hate against USA. Then it would have been The World against Saddam. Not USA against the Muslim World.

It is being compared, that's not the issue. The issue, and the reason to why I wrote my initial post in this thread, is that americans, whether they're pro war or against the war, ask if the war was worth it - FOR AMERICA. When you said that you couldn't understand how someone could oppose this war on humanitarian grounds, you asked that question from an american point of view. I know for a fact that before the war there were iraqis living in exile here in Sweden which of some were against the invasion for some of the reasons that I have mentioned, being that the iraqi people are tired of war and chaos. Some also mentioned that this was a thing that they thought should be done by the iraqis themselves. I'm not saying that these guys were right or wrong, obviously a lot of iraqis welcomed the invasion, but I am saying that try and understand that from a iraqi point of view there are a lot of humanitarian reasons to oppose to the invasion, which a lot of the iraqis do whether you like it or not.

Sure and I wasn't talking about fundamental rights as food, shelter and freedom either. That would be like saying that as long as you have those things you should not complain about anything your government does. But I guess I'll have to blame myself for talking about something that's besides the real issue here.....

I think that when you can question the truthfulness of a reason it becomes unclear.

There were no ties to terrorism and no WMD-possesion. If there had been USA would have stayed until these things were exterminated. There was and still is civil rights violation going on. Will USA stay in Iraq until this is exterminated? I hope so, but I don't believe it. Therefore, the statement that USA is doing this to liberate the iraqi people is unclear to me.

I don't know if I have a method that differs from your method. I read, listen and see and put the different factors together and simply use my head. If you ask me what the number one reason to USA's invasion in Iraq is I would say that USA wanted to strengthen its presence in the Middle East. Islamists are threatening to seize power in Saudiarabia and that together with Saddam in the area would have been too much for USA. That would have created the possibility of a new cold war, only this time the enemy would have had enormous wealth from oil to spend on their armies. I guess USA just want to stay close to its enemies.

It's not a failure for Bush since he ignored the results of Blix's investigation and went to war anyway.

Look, there were a lot of reasons to look into what was going on inside of Iraq, especially since Saddam refused to let any outsiders into Iraq (just another sign of that he always put his Stalin-like ego before the benefits of Iraq). This was the reason for Hans Blix and his men going into Iraq - and they didn't find anything. This, of course, wasn't the answer that the Bush administration had hoped for since they were just looking for a reason to go into Iraq.

The whole point of Blix going into Iraq was to investigate the existence of WMD:s, an investigation that USA didn't want in the first place. Why? Maybe that they were fearing that the result wouldn't gain their plans of going into Iraq. The administration needed a reason that would win the american public over to their side. The WMD-threat is a far more powerful tool in winning the people over then simply saying "We need more people in the area".

I don't remember the title of the documentary but it was an american who I think used to work near Powell who said it. It was a long time since I saw it.

Talking about Clinton. I just learned during his time in office he and the CIA were going after Osama and Clinton evoked republican president Ford's decison that the CIA weren't allowed to commit murder. CIA claimed they needed to be allowed to kill him if they were ever going to get him. Clinton finally gave in for their demands in this single matter. I think this is pretty interesting considering a lot of Clinton haters blame him for 9-11. Of course Osama was later offered to USA by sudanese intelligence who wanted to make peace with USA but CIA were not able to obtain him because, to put it simple, it was against the law.

I'm asking you since you don't seem to care about how the politicians win the public over as long as you are pleased with the results. Even lies appear to be okay.

"A discussion about the intent of our leadership is wholly seperate from a discussion about whether or not their actions were defensible."

The intent is strongly linked to the result you want to reach. It is really the same thing. A leadership that expresses a desire to liberate the iraqi people as the reason to an invasion when the reasons are totally different and far more strategic then humanitarian, that leadership is manipulating the public. And in some ways manipulation is a big part of politics, but when it comes to war I think the tolerance towards manipulation should be a lot lower.

That is ridiculous. How is the Bush administration manipulating the americans about the reasons to the war irrelevant in a discussion about the war? Yes, what I'm saying it is true and I am glad you think so too. I just don't understand then how you can be okay with political leaders using arguments which content of truth is highly questionable to convince the public that going to war is right.

If you say so.

No that's not what I am saying. First of all I am not sure that what is happening in Iraq is what I wanted to happen. Second of all I don't think the result I want to see in Iraq will ever be accomplished with this strategy, simply because I don't think the result I would like to see matches the result that the Bush administration would like to see.

Well, for one thing the country is struck by a war threatening to develop into civil war. Furthermore, if I wanted to be very cynical I could point out the fact that when Saddam was in power at least there was order. The groups that are now rebelling and eager to seize power were being controlled by Saddam. Assassinations of politicians, attacks and suicidal bombings affecting civilians have become more common. Some degree of turmoil is of course something that needs to be accepted when overthrowing a dictatorship but I think there are some very important issues that were overlooked before the invasion started and that is now threatening to throw Iraq and its people into an unnecessarily long period of suffering.

All polls also show a dissatisfaction with the american occupation. Of course they are glad Saddam is gone! I would be too! Especially if I was a shia warlord looking to take his place. I just can't understand how you can be so naive to have thought and still think that if only Saddam is gone, then everything will be fine.

Where did you take part of the content from those letters? On a scattered news report?

I have seen all kinds of reports from the war and I think I am qualified to decide what is biased and what is useful info and what is not. I have seen american segments that's been pure propaganda to promote the american army and I have seen american segments that are the very critical about the war. Same with european news segments and documentaries, even if the european ones that I've seen tend to be slightly more objective than the american ones, the british ones possibly excluded.

And maybe 10.000 dead civilians doesn't sound nearly as chaotic as the news reports you watch make it appear to be. But I think it sounds like one more tragedy for the iraqi people.

I think Bush a mess period, he stands for views that I think is crap. And when it comes to the war I think he is a total mess. But then again, Bush has nothing to do with the discussion about the war.

So much for your desire to liberate a people. If democratic elections were to be held in Saudiarabia islamic fundamentalists like Osama would most certainly take power. Fact is that terrorist attacks within Saudiarabia have increased recently as a result from the saudi regime's collaboration with USA. Besides a complete stop of the relations with USA the fundamentalists want reforms for the people, i.e. increased democracy. These reforms for the people is something that to my knowledge USA hasn't cared for significally in its relationship with Saudiarabia. The increasing terrorist attacks on the other hand have led to the regime taking steps towards democracy reforms. This sends signals all over the arab and islam world that working with USA will lead to no democracy while terrorizing your own countrymen will. How does that help George W Bush in his war against terrorism?

I do know about Saddam offering cash to suicide bombers, it was all over the news around here a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly I think a family was given $50.000. This was suicide bombers in Israel and giving money to families whose provider dying as a suicide bomber does not really qualify in my book for being a terrorist. Reagan paid the iranians milions of dollars to NOT release the american hostage before he was elected president and what about americans that supported the IRA? And America's financial supports of several other dictators all over the world? And don't you think that USA has ever tried to take out Saddam? Or Castro? Or Allende? Oh, right.. they did get rid of Allende.

That sounds like terrific news.

I would say that none of those reasons served as the primary motivator. As I said before, establishing a strong american presence in the area was the motivator, that is my guess. I would say that USA is aiming to obtain a similar relationship to Iraq as they have with Saudiarabia, but with greater influence over the country preferably.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I read your last post and really find someinteresting views included. The above quote however is a bit disturbing. Could you please be specific on what you think a terroist is and how these men who invaded Kuwait and killed many innocents are not terroists? Please do not take this as a sound bite from your post, I read it all and this seemed to stick out. Thanks for any response.

I was talking about Saddam's National Guard. Sure, you can call them terrorists if you by that mean men who terrorized their countrymen. But when I used the term "terrorist" in my post I was referring to Al Quaida and suicide bombers, that kind of terrorists. Invading other countries and killing innocent people is terrible and disgusting, sure, but I don't refer to that kind of people as terrorists. Then all soldiers by definition would be terrorists to some degree. I don't use the word as an insult or nickname for a very bad person but as a definition of someone who is engaging in organized guerilla warfare targeted not only at soldiers but at civilians as well and who often is operating outside the borders of the homeland and with a political or religious motive.

I think you misunderstand that sentence. By saying that Saddam's men weren't terrorists I didn't mean "they are not so bad after all".