War on Terror

[langeweile]

So you believe the war was fought for reasons of benevolence as opposed to an undisciplined lashing out at a villian universally reviled in an attempt to salve the wounds of 911 ?

I don't know the answer to this question. LLike all of us you will have to be patient and let history take it's course.

Most likely, like with so many other problems in live, there is not one reason. Most likely it is a combination of reasons. Bad judgement could be very much part of it. We will see, time will tell.

 

[antaeus]

Wow, alot of partisan hot air here. Fun.

All statements pertaining to Iraq of "war on terror" then "WMD" then "regime change" then back to "WMD" were public relation masters parsing a complex multi-threaded policy into media digestible, bankable story. Anything else is disingenuous, US has as much interest in Iraq as Venezuela.

The "invasion" was part of a much larger administrative policy set out to achieve all sorts of things, but primarily to distinguish R's from D's, facilitate a governmental personnel bloodletting and restocking in line with R conviction, turboboost economy and check EU growth and independence and send a tremendous message to Saudi Arabia. The gravy was to begin to address Bush's 2000 election slate of energy independence (remember that, drilling in protected wilderness of Alaska and Yukon?)

I think it is fundamental to imagine the importance put by R's in 2000 after losing popular vote to a cementitious, boring, grandiose leftover of a wishy-washy adulterator. How can we as a party distinguish ourselves from them. Develop a monstrously controversial policy that has a with us or against us element, compared to Clinton's "nobody should doubt our firm resolve..." Allowing years of easy continued parsing of D and media attacks of otherwise poor governance.

The Saudi Arabian Royal Family seems to be losing it's iron grip. This is of great concern to US as Saudia Arabia owns something like 30% of the US, from banks to brokers to real estate to outrate cash. It may be true that released evidence shows terrorist financing had an SA connection, but a weak, diluted monarchy that holds so much financial power in the US needed to be shown what can happen to them. Iraq happened to offer a convenient bully to exercise on. BTW, in my extreme cynicism I wonder how much cash SA has paid underwriting the Iraqi invasion.

The only grandeloquent statements from US politicos and talking heads that may actually have something to do with a war on terror was the action in Afghanistan. Which the US did not have much trouble garnering international support for, direct and indirect, including the UN. And seems that overall a good job was done, history will tell. I believe thinkers around the world saw that it was pretty bloody obvious Bush and cronies invaded Iraq solely for internal US Republican partisan purposes, and did an amazing job of not saying so nor being sarcastic but just saying no, we won't help your internal affairs, but we'll help Iraqi people after you succeed.

What really bugs me is the preaching about bringing democracy. The way I see it, it's rather like your grandmother asking if you like the sweater she gave you for christmas. Regardless of what you think and do with the hideous sweater, there's only one answer.

 

[Ranger68]

I guess than other nations have to step up to the plate and defend themselves.
You are right let history be the judge. Let's see what happens, because I still maintain we don't know half of the s***t that went on in IRAQ.
The answer to "Who made money on the oil for food deal?" will be just the beginning. The answer to this will uncover the true motivation of the French and the Germans to resist the invasion. The house of cards will come crumbling down...just wait and let history decide.

The problem with this is that we're just letting nations do what they want, when they want.
That was a pretty crappy way to do things even when nations couldn't incinerate large portions of the planet with nuclear weapons. Now that they can, it's a terrible way to do things.

The US, for fifty years or so, thought that the UN was a pretty good idea. I guess Bush and his cronies all think that those guys were idiots.

 

[Ranger68]

Innocent untill proven guilty is a presumption the law must take.

And if chosen for a jury you must go into the trial without a pre-concieved notion of guilt. You are oblighted to be unbiased.

But obviously, the notion has no meaning for the US. I mean, otherwise, *Iraq* would have had to be proven guilty, right?

Just more evidence that the US isn't interested in whether or not this was legal. It clearly wasn't. They've set a VERY dangerous precedent, and better pray that it doesn't totally blow up in their faces. Literally.

 

[Ranger68]

So tell me then almighty Ranger, what was the reason to invade Iraq? It wasn't oil, AlQuaeda or WMD's what was it then?

Your post implies that ALL Iraquis are united in the fight against the USA This is not true? there is maybe 20% and if there is more or all as you claim, why the hell should I care if they blow each other up?
No your reasoning on this point is weak, however it is your opinion and I respect it.


You seemed to be a smart guy and i value and appreciate your insight and opinion. I have a question. Why do you have to insult people? Why I might not be as well read on some issue than you are, does that make me stupid?

An opinion on something is just that an opinion..no need to be insulting.

I've explained this. The reason for invading Iraq was that the current US administration came into power hoping to finish the unfinished business, hoping to demonstrate that they were interested in promoting global hegemony, the extension of the US being the only global superpower into the future, military expansion into the Gulf region, and busting the UN's chops.

It was an easy sell - lots of flat land where American military power could be showcased - never mind they were flattening an army they practically obliterated last time around and hadn't fully recovered - run by a thug whom everyone hated (Al Qaeda included), and Israel was interested in seeing regime change.

Really simple, actually.

The US has done more to unite disparate Iraqi elements against a common foe than anything else in their recent history. I suppose this is *something* good out of the invasion. However, it's NO GOOD for the US, as they all mostly revile the USA now. I don't know where you get your "20%" figure from, but I'd bet it's a lot higher. Not 100%, but a high percentage.

Why should you care if they blow each other up? They're not. They're mostly blowing up US troops and those they associate most closely with them. And when the US leaves, they'd better hope that those they wish to leave in power aren't all blown up. And they'd better hope that those doing the blowing up don't follow them to parts of the earth much closer to home.

You ask me why I insult people - yet, in this post, you call me "almighty Ranger". I get tired of the sarcasm from people who just don't get it, people with weak reasoning. I only dish it out when I get it.

Finally, let me say that I'm *PRO*-American. The American people deserve better than this. The current US administration is WRECKING fifty years of good, decent, noble work done by similarly honourable American politicians and diplomats - those who thought there was something to be gained by working WITH the other large nations of the world, and who thought that the establishment and empowerment of the UN was a good thing.
What's going on now means NO GOOD for the American people. It's sad that they're being so abused on the international stage. The terrorist threat can be dealt with quite rationally and forcefully - but not by bombing Baghdad.

 

[Ranger68]

I firmly believe that there was a calculation by Bush that Iraq would welcome the USA with open arms. If that would have come to pass, nobody would give a rats ass why we went there in the first place.
A happy and free Iraq would have and will shut up a lot of critics.

What EVER made them think that the people would open up their arms and throw flowers as the American tanks drove past?! It's sheer fantasy.

You CANNOT impose democracy on a country that's not ready for it, and genocidal concerns apart, the invasion of a sovereign nation to effect regime change is ALWAYS a HORRIBLE idea.

 

[stainless]

What EVER made them think that the people would open up their arms and throw flowers as the American tanks drove past?! It's sheer fantasy.

You CANNOT impose democracy on a country that's not ready for it, and genocidal concerns apart, the invasion of a sovereign nation to effect regime change is ALWAYS a HORRIBLE idea.

I agree giving democracy to Iraq, is like giving a Ferrari to a 15 yr. old. Democracy is a noble idea, but it must come from the people. How many democratic nations are in that region ??

 

[onthebottom]

WOW - that's kind of a silly statement. The US was ruled by a King before their revolution - are you saying only white people are capable of democracy. It doesn't matter about how many democracies there are in the region it just matters that Iraq is given a chance to find their own brand of Democratic Institutions. I think Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of Government except all the rest." For us to say that collectively all the people of Iraq wants a dictatorship because of the noise being made by a small percentage of the population is silly and possibly a bigoted statement.

Think about it - if 90% of the population marched in the streets in Iraq, demanding the return to a dictatorship - do you really think the US would be able to stop them?


bbk

bbking,

You don't understand, if the Iraqi's are able to build a democracy the entire region will be in danger of being run by the people instead of the dictators.

I'm trying to imagine an outcome worse than Saddam's regime, I just can't think of one. Even the clowns in beards in Iran are better than old Saddam was.

OTB

 

[danmand]

I can think of one --- put me in charge. According to Annessa I am the most evil person on the board.

Not evil, silly.

 

[Ranger68]

WOW - that's kind of a silly statement. The US was ruled by a King before their revolution - are you saying only white people are capable of democracy. It doesn't matter about how many democracies there are in the region it just matters that Iraq is given a chance to find their own brand of Democratic Institutions. I think Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of Government except all the rest." For us to say that collectively all the people of Iraq wants a dictatorship because of the noise being made by a small percentage of the population is silly and possibly a bigoted statement.

Think about it - if 90% of the population marched in the streets in Iraq, demanding the return to a dictatorship - do you really think the US would be able to stop them?


bbk

The cry of the American bigot.
Our way, or the highway.

Democracy is seriously overrated.

 

[Drunken Master]

I'm trying to imagine an outcome worse than Saddam's regime, I just can't think of one. Even the clowns in beards in Iran are better than old Saddam was.

OTB

A silly statement. If Iraq finds itself with another dictator at its helm some years down the road - one perhaps supported by the US, as Saddam once was - then Iraq will have traveled down a very, very bloody road for nothing.

This is a very real possibility, and one which I would say is somewhat worse given that all hope for the Iraqi people will pretty much have found its way into the toilet.

Speaking of Iran, on a completely unrelated topic, Iran has an incarceration rate of 229 per hundred thousand people, while the US - with the highest rate in the world - stands at 686 per hundred thousand, about half of whom are incarcerated for drug offenses. Belarus and Kaazakhstan, both with authoritarian governments, both have an incarceration that is lower than that of the US. Vietnam - good old Vietnam! - only incarcerates 21 people per 100000.

Someone remind me - in what does the absolute moral authority of the US to do as it pleases with the lives of everyone else in the world consist?

 

[onthebottom]

A silly statement. If Iraq finds itself with another dictator at its helm some years down the road - one perhaps supported by the US, as Saddam once was - then Iraq will have traveled down a very, very bloody road for nothing.

This is a very real possibility, and one which I would say is somewhat worse given that all hope for the Iraqi people will pretty much have found its way into the toilet.

............

I don't think any of the paths for Iraq were lacking blood, that was my point - if they try and fail it is worse than not trying at all - I think that's your point.

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

MUCH worse.
ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse, potentially, with the damage they've done to the notion of multi-lateralism.