Here's what I mean: The version you have of Iraq, and our reasons for being there, is not reality. It's your idea of reality. You think it was a benevolent attempt to bring all that is good and wonderful abut our society to a region and people who are not as fortchocming with their gratitude as they should be. Others, including many of those who you'd term ingrates, see the US again acting in the US's interests, and lying and spinning to try and portray that as an act of social good. But these same Iraqis also know that we supported, funded, and supplied Hussein when he was doing the very worst to his people, and we were aware of it. They also know that we were the ones who vetoed the UN condemning him for same for a decade. They also know we got the Kurds to rise up in the first war, and then left them to die when it no longer suited our purposes. They also know the reasons we cited for going in, and know that we said theis was an act of self-defense, not an act of benevolence. SO perhaps you can forgive them for not bowing down to Old Glory, or believing your version of why we're there... They think we undetook regime change on our own behalf, in our own interests, and in the process opened a can of worms we now are growing disenchanted with closing properly. We went in for our own purposes under the assumption that things after the war would work out simply because our goodness and superiority were self-evident, and when things didn't work that way, we were unprepared for the consecuences. Strawberry Fields, indeed. An apt description of the romantic, idealistic, naive and arrogant assumption upon which our post war plan was based. The analogy to the treatment of natives is pretty damned bang on; in the West we termed everyone who didn't cowtow to our version of the way things were going to be in their land 'hostiles', now we call them 'terrorists'. Once termed such, each were thus considered acting against the law, and being a threat, it made perfect sense to eleiminate them.It boils down to the same principle, outlined more clearly by Bama in my sig. There were tribes who were hostile indeed, but most were simply fighting to keep control of their own land, much as we would oursleves. There are terrorists, but there are also Iraqis who are against us telling them how they have to run their country. To lump them all together now as terrorists and to expect gratitude for our invading their country, killing thousands of their people, in pursuit of our own interests is laughable and arrogant...IOW, typical. The actions Saddam took which we now claim to be protecting his people from happened over a decade ago, aren't news, and were done under our watch. We were there for ourselves; freeing Iraq from a dictator was a benefit, not a cause of our invasion, less I missed the part where we said Saddam could avoind the invasion by being better to his people...
At the time of the invasion he wasn't a threat to Kuwait, and it's questionable if he was ever a threat to Saudi Arabia. 1. He still isn't number one on brutality. Yes many years in the past he did use WMD's against his own people, but there have been and continue to be more brutal dictators and govts. around the world who do kill more of their own people, but perhaps don't use WMD. Since prior to the invasion Saddam didnt' have any WMD, that takes away that factor of the equation. 2. Saddam did do those things. But prior to the invasion he had let the UN inspectors back in and had even offered to allow thousands of FBI and CIA agents into Iraq. 3. That happened years before the invasion 4. Was not really a threat to Israel at the time of the invasion. 5. He did offer money to the families of suicide bombers and that was wrong. But the majority of that fund did not go to suicide bombers families, but to innocent civilians' which were killed by the Israeli army. The fund was set up to pay the families of martyrs in the conflict. Only a very small percentage of all Palestinian 'Martyr's' deaths are because of suicide bombings. The majority of them are innocent civilians followed by a number of resistence fighters who clash with Israel's military, and last the suicide bombers. The only publicity the fund received was because the last part of the recipients. Saddam has been guilty of many horrible things, and the policy of regime change is a just and righteous policy for him. The methods by which that policy was carried out, was based on false grounds, and poorly handled no matter what the reasoning was.
Blade, I'm just saying that these were contributing factor that in all add up to the bushies decision for the invasion. Less one or two and maybe we're still applying sanctions. I admit I am an idealist. I believe it is the duty of free people in the world to work for the freedom of all people. It is impractical to think you can do it everywhere it needs doing though. If it's this hard in a fairly small fairly structured society imagine how hard it would be in an unorganized society like Ruwanda or a very large societ like China. The facts are it is much easier to impose a totalitarian government than a democratic one. You just need to have the means and will to intimidate the people rather than the ideas and morality to motivate them. In pracatice however, as Mc B stated one mans freedom is another mans satan. There is freedom of choice in anarchy and there is freedom from choice totalitarianism. While we americans hold our truths to be self-evident they may not be so to other societies and granted our actions as a nation rarely live up to our ideals to there is little precedent for anyone to trust us now. A nation that overthrows elected governments, supprted the the Shah of Iran, supports the dislocation of the arab people from the holy land, can hardly be trusted over that of the clerical theocracy that just wants you to pray a lot and not have any fun. But it's different this time , we promise.
Originally posted by MacBeth Here's what I mean: The version you have of Iraq, and our reasons for being there, is not reality. It's your idea of reality. You think it was a benevolent attempt to bring all that is good and wonderful abut our society to a region and people who are not as fortchocming with their gratitude as they should be. <b>I think our society is better and more benevolent than theirs. We have no one carrying around a notion to intentionally kill innocents to win the struggle. I think the US does have self-interest in what goes on there, but more along the lines of democratization of an Arab nation in the Middle East for stabilization of that area. I'm not so sure I want to judge them as ungrateful yet. In my mind I calculate the total number of radical anti-US demonstrators as no more than 25,000. What number do you come up with? And how big is Iraq? How many of those are actually Iraqis? I don't think we have any idea what the actual numbers are.</b> Others, including many of those who you'd term ingrates, see the US again acting in the US's interests, and lying and spinning to try and portray that as an act of social good. But these same Iraqis also know that we supported, funded, and supplied Hussein when he was doing the very worst to his people, and we were aware of it. They also know that we were the ones who vetoed the UN condemning him for same for a decade. They also know we got the Kurds to rise up in the first war, and then left them to die when it no longer suited our purposes. They also know the reasons we cited for going in, and know that we said theis was an act of self-defense, not an act of benevolence. SO perhaps you can forgive them for not bowing down to Old Glory, or believing your version of why we're there... <b>Same team. Different players. Different era. New hope. I don't buy into your misrepresentation of events. From the get-go, the necessity of regime change was on the table. Damn man, in all this alleged sub-plotting that went on prior to 9/11, gettig rid of Saddam was already an ambition... and now you say it wasn't. Which is it?</b> They think we undetook regime change on our own behalf, in our own interests, and in the process opened a can of worms we now are growing disenchanted with closing properly. We went in for our own purposes under the assumption that things after the war would work out simply because our goodness and superiority were self-evident, and when things didn't work that way, we were unprepared for the consecuences. Strawberry Fields, indeed. An apt description of the romantic, idealistic, naive and arrogant assumption upon which our post war plan was based. <b>Things haven't gone exactly as we wished they would but some outcomes are unknowable. It is no quagmire. It is no disaster. I don't apologize for US self-interest. It is not out-of-control. We can't be caretakers of the world unless we are taken care of along the way. No one is looking out for us. Been that way for all of my life.</b> The analogy to the treatment of natives is pretty damned bang on; in the West we termed everyone who didn't cowtow to our version of the way things were going to be in their land 'hostiles', now we call them 'terrorists'. Once termed such, each were thus considered acting against the law, and being a threat, it made perfect sense to eleiminate them.It boils down to the same principle, outlined more clearly by Bama in my sig. <b>Don't forget that the "hostiles" took out the Twin Towers on our soil. Oops, there goes our analogy again.</b> There were tribes who were hostile indeed, but most were simply fighting to keep control of their own land, much as we would oursleves. There are terrorists, but there are also Iraqis who are against us telling them how they have to run their country. To lump them all together now as terrorists and to expect gratitude for our invading their country, killing thousands of their people, in pursuit of our own interests is laughable and arrogant...IOW, typical. The actions Saddam took which we now claim to be protecting his people from happened over a decade ago, aren't news, and were done under our watch. We were there for ourselves; freeing Iraq from a dictator was a benefit, not a cause of our invasion, less I missed the part where we said Saddam could avoind the invasion by being better to his people... <b>Your mistake is in characterizing all this as being done only for our self-interest. Yes, it is a factor but liberation of the Iraqi people IS in our best interest as Americans and free citizens of this planet. You have this fantasy that all of the Iraqis are of your like-mind and I'm not buying it. Strawberry Fields Forever.... again.</b>
1) Of course you do...everyone thinks their poo stinks the least, always has been. Which is why we generally don't allow nations to decide the standard for other nation's conduct, unless it's done through the global community. DOn't you realize that everyone...including Germans in 1939...think's their society is morally and/or practically superior? 2) Even if we are better and more benevolent, what right does that give us to determine their fate? Do nations who are morally superior to us have the same right? Or is it only might which makes the case? 3) Do you not see that it was the same kind of assumption that got us into this post-invasion mess? The assumption that our superiority was so self-evident that we needn't plan for any real opposition, and needn't consider whether Iraqis would be content with our dictates, as they'd be just so gosh darned pleased to be in the club, they'd greet us with flowers? Of course not...we don't need to. But when we did need to, we did. It's easy for the guy sitting in the tank to condemn the kid with the slingshot for not fighting according to form...but when we had the slingshot, 'you did what you had to do.' ( American Revolution, proyecto de guerra, intentional spreading of disease to natives, Nagasaki, etc.) Ok...I understand that you look at our foreign policy through rose coloured glasses ( Or is it Strawberry coloured?), but do you know anything of our history in this regard? We have...several, several times, supported murderopus tyrants, overthrown popular governments, invaded other nations, etc. to further our own material or politcal ends. The effect those actions had on the regions themselves was always, at best, a secondary consideration. now that we have lied ad nauseum, misrepresented, miscalculated etc. our way into this war, what makes you think that this is evidence we've 280'd in our priorities? Here's a simple excercise: Imperialists spend more time/effort on entry plans for wars than exit plans. Which one do you think we planned out with greater diligence and sincerity? But the fact that you'd judge them as ungratefull at all is the problem. You percieve that you have a greater understanding of what Iraq needs than those who live there...awfully enlightened of you. You really ought to read some Disraeli speeches... I would say a much larger number than 25, 000, but unlike you, am not all that solid on who is and who is not against us. Consider that originally all those who opposed us were Saddam supporters. Then we admitted there were foreginers, but called them all terrorists. Now that it is indisputable that regular old Iraqis are opposing us, the means to marginalize their position and ignore it's import is to question their gratitude...cute. A)See if this makes sense to you. When Saddam was doing his bad stuff, we knew of it, and still supported him. Years later, we fought a war with him, and didn't even introduce these actions as a part of the peace agreement. A decade later still, and you think those actions justify an invasion? You don't see how they're just a tad weak, and how they give fuel to those who feel we are doing what we've always done, what Imperial nations have always done; seeking to exert our influece by whatever means are necessary while telling our populace we're doing the right thing? B)Add to that the fact that other nations have done as bad or worse...and are currently doing as bad or worse, but short of secondary motivations, are ignored by us...and does it even tickle your suspecion meter just a tad? C)What events did I misrepresent? Please...enlighten me... D) In the alleged sub-plotting, huh? yeah...it's an X-Files thingie...certainly it takes a greater degree of credulity to believe that we are doing what we've always done than to believe that we used bad intel we knew was bad but had forgotten was bad to support a war that was about human rights but which we offered to cancel if the WMDs were removed, and was about his connection with 9-11, except we knew there wasn't one, but oh, well...etc...Honestly, which side of this argument requires more faith to sustain? E) The war was SAID to be about WMD, and the threat WMD in Saddam's hands posed. As such, regime change would be a necessary step to ensuring our safety. Remember when we offered to cancel it if Saddam disarmed? Not that we'd have listened to any evidence he had, but still, doesn't that tell you, just a tad, on what basis the war was fought and sold, not to mention bought and sold? Whether Bush meant it when he said that disarm = no invasion, and what the war was really about are another matter, but I'm trying to avoid any inference of alleged sub-plots...as I assume you are, right? SO if you believe Bush means what he says, and call us conspiracy loonies when we disagree, how do you rationalize his offer of disarm= no invasion? Surely you won't put forth a theory that has Bush being less than genuine in this one instance... Oh, well, I was gonna quote Generals, former Secretaries of Defense and State, the Army War College, current military analysts and such from both sides of the politcal spectrum, but if you say it's no quagmire or disaster, what possible bearing would their opinion have on the matter? Well why should you? I mean, a simple thing like the fact that we pursue those interests in other countries at the expense of other people surely shouldn't enter into the discussion... How do you know whether or not it's out of control? What does the 'taken care of along the way' line mean? Sounds suspiciously like a line from a dirty-cop movie... You can rationalize it all you want, but either pursuing your own interests in other countries at their expense is right or it's wrong...it can't be right when we do it but wrong when the USSR, Nazis, Brits, or Saddam does it. WHo was looking out for any of them when they were abusing their power? Does that excuse their actions? sigh...I was trying to point out that we are using the term 'terrorist' with a broad brush to deomize anyone who opposes us and excuse our actions towards them in their land, ( In this case Iraq...ahem)...and you come back with this. Either you just don't get it, or you need to pass on your info about the Iraqis ( say, the Clerics, etc.) who oppose us in Iraq being behind 9-11...
Originally posted by MacBeth 1) Of course you do...everyone thinks their poo stinks the least, always has been. Which is why we generally don't allow nations to decide the standard for other nation's conduct, unless it's done through the global community. DOn't you realize that everyone...including Germans in 1939...think's their society is morally and/or practically superior? <b>I think I tossed in some objective standards as well. I love the example of Germany. When will the other shoe drop: John Fascroft anyone?</b> 2) Even if we are better and more benevolent, what right does that give us to determine their fate? Do nations who are morally superior to us have the same right? Or is it only might which makes the case? <b>I think I have this right: it is the undefined Zero which gives meaning to all mathematics. I think it is the Givers and the Doers who have the right. I've tossed aside my rose-colored glasses a long time ago. I'm not so naive to think that the US is beyond criticism, but I'm not waiting around for perfection as the justification for action. The world owes us a great deal and if we take a little along the way to make it affordable and doable.... SO WHAT!</b> 3) Do you not see that it was the same kind of assumption that got us into this post-invasion mess? The assumption that our superiority was so self-evident that we needn't plan for any real opposition, and needn't consider whether Iraqis would be content with our dictates, as they'd be just so gosh darned pleased to be in the club, they'd greet us with flowers? <b>Apparently that was an underestimation. Are you still trying to imply that every Iraqi is opposed to our assistance there?</b> Of course not...we don't need to. But when we did need to, we did. It's easy for the guy sitting in the tank to condemn the kid with the slingshot for not fighting according to form...but when we had the slingshot, 'you did what you had to do.' ( American Revolution, proyecto de guerra, intentional spreading of disease to natives, Nagasaki, etc.) Ok...I understand that you look at our foreign policy through rose coloured glasses ( Or is it Strawberry coloured?), but do you know anything of our history in this regard? We have...several, several times, supported murderopus tyrants, overthrown popular governments, invaded other nations, etc. to further our own material or politcal ends. The effect those actions had on the regions themselves was always, at best, a secondary consideration. now that we have lied ad nauseum, misrepresented, miscalculated etc. our way into this war, what makes you think that this is evidence we've 280'd in our priorities? <b>Times change. Can it not be construed that we are amending past mistakes?</b> Here's a simple excercise: Imperialists spend more time/effort on entry plans for wars than exit plans. Which one do you think we planned out with greater diligence and sincerity? <b>I would think that anyone would do that. You don't know the conditions which will surround your exit. Imperialist know that because they don't plan to exit. Some of this is just not knowable. How do you calculate insurgency supported from neighboring countries?</b> But the fact that you'd judge them as ungratefull at all is the problem. You percieve that you have a greater understanding of what Iraq needs than those who live there...awfully enlightened of you. You really ought to read some Disraeli speeches... <b>I only allude to a portion of them as ungrateful. Some are just hateful. Neither group approaches anything near a majority of Iraqis in my estimation. Do they in yours?</b> I would say a much larger number than 25, 000, but unlike you, am not all that solid on who is and who is not against us. Consider that originally all those who opposed us were Saddam supporters. Then we admitted there were foreginers, but called them all terrorists. Now that it is indisputable that regular old Iraqis are opposing us, the means to marginalize their position and ignore it's import is to question their gratitude...cute. <b>Some are opposing us. Some American colonials were King George loyalists, too. I'm glad that their viewpoint didn't win out!</b> A)See if this makes sense to you. When Saddam was doing his bad stuff, we knew of it, and still supported him. Years later, we fought a war with him, and didn't even introduce these actions as a part of the peace agreement. A decade later still, and you think those actions justify an invasion? You don't see how they're just a tad weak, and how they give fuel to those who feel we are doing what we've always done, what Imperial nations have always done; seeking to exert our influece by whatever means are necessary while telling our populace we're doing the right thing? <b>Historically speaking, what is the last act of imperialism perpetrated by the US?</b> B)Add to that the fact that other nations have done as bad or worse...and are currently doing as bad or worse, but short of secondary motivations, are ignored by us...and does it even tickle your suspecion meter just a tad? <b>If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times (and I think Gene Peterson was intimating something similar): middle East Geography makes a lot of difference. The US is not obliged to sacrifice all around the world. We can sacrifice when and where it is determined to be worthwhile. Wake up and smell the coffee!</b> C)What events did I misrepresent? Please...enlighten me... <b>I'll have to get back and edit here... can't remember what I wrote....</b> D) In the alleged sub-plotting, huh? yeah...it's an X-Files thingie...certainly it takes a greater degree of credulity to believe that we are doing what we've always done than to believe that we used bad intel we knew was bad but had forgotten was bad to support a war that was about human rights but which we offered to cancel if the WMDs were removed, and was about his connection with 9-11, except we knew there wasn't one, but oh, well...etc...Honestly, which side of this argument requires more faith to sustain? <b>Hindsight is not in the arsenal of decision-makers.</b> E) The war was SAID to be about WMD, and the threat WMD in Saddam's hands posed. As such, regime change would be a necessary step to ensuring our safety. Remember when we offered to cancel it if Saddam disarmed? Not that we'd have listened to any evidence he had, but still, doesn't that tell you, just a tad, on what basis the war was fought and sold, not to mention bought and sold? Whether Bush meant it when he said that disarm = no invasion, and what the war was really about are another matter, but I'm trying to avoid any inference of alleged sub-plots...as I assume you are, right? SO if you believe Bush means what he says, and call us conspiracy loonies when we disagree, how do you rationalize his offer of disarm= no invasion? Surely you won't put forth a theory that has Bush being less than genuine in this one instance... <b>Saddam invited us to a scavenger hunt when we wanted an inspection. Bad decision on his part. Ghaddafhi learned something, didn't he?</b> Oh, well, I was gonna quote Generals, former Secretaries of Defense and State, the Army War College, current military analysts and such from both sides of the politcal spectrum, but if you say it's no quagmire or disaster, what possible bearing would their opinion have on the matter? <b>We can both cite quotables til the sun comes up and they will fall on both sides of the issue.</b> Well why should you? I mean, a simple thing like the fact that we pursue those interests in other countries at the expense of other people surely shouldn't enter into the discussion... How do you know whether or not it's out of control? <b>See my question above about imperialism...</b> What does the 'taken care of along the way' line mean? Sounds suspiciously like a line from a dirty-cop movie... <b>I'm exagerating. Very little of that has occurred that I am aware of. We have a military presence in Germany and Japan.</b> You can rationalize it all you want, but either pursuing your own interests in other countries at their expense is right or it's wrong...it can't be right when we do it but wrong when the USSR, Nazis, Brits, or Saddam does it. WHo was looking out for any of them when they were abusing their power? Does that excuse their actions? <b>It's not just at their expense; it's to their benefit. See Germany and Japan.</b> sigh...I was trying to point out that we are using the term 'terrorist' with a broad brush to deomize anyone who opposes us and excuse our actions towards them in their land, ( In this case Iraq...ahem)...and you come back with this. Either you just don't get it, or you need to pass on your info about the Iraqis ( say, the Clerics, etc.) who oppose us in Iraq being behind 9-11... <b>There are a lot of dead Al Quaedan, Pakistani, Syrians, and God knows who or wherelse.... In the end, I just trust America more than you do. S-I-G-H of my own.</b>
And we are still in both countries over fifty years after the end of WWII. Something to think about when your trying to justify a war we did not have to fight... not now and not for the reasons given.
Yes, and I still do. But I don't think drawing a parallel between occupying 2 countries for 50+ years that unleashed the most horrific war the world has ever known, responsible for the deaths of 10's of millions of people, and our invasion and occupation of Iraq, is a comparison you really want to make, is it?
I'm sure they thought so when we did, but what's your point, you seem to be avoiding Deckard's main point that those countries were real threats to global peace and us and one of them actually attacked us.
MacBeth: The objective standard I referrred to was a lack of a wanton desire on our part to kill civilians. The enemy here has no concern for that. In fact, it is a prmary tactic; look at Madrid. So am I to conclude that my thoughts are just that while yours are the facts? LOL. I assume that everything you or I say/write about matters such as this is just our opinion. The US is the arbiter because the US is the primary giver. Who else in this world begins to compare? Oh yeah, Canada! I forgot. Regarding unrealistic standards: those were your ideas not mine. I challenged them not you. The problem with your burglar analogy is that GWB was not the Commander in Chief a decade or more ago when the abuses occured. I can understand Iraqi skepticism but I don't have to partake in it. Are you implying that the US had NO exit plan? I doubt that. I am not arguing that it was well-formulated. Again, I didn't miss your point. I just don't buy it. Regarding your analogy to the US revolution: let me know when we start taxing the Iraqis without representation. Will Puerto Rico or Panama be the 51st state? What is your notion of imperialism? You say we are just "a taker." What have we irretrievably taken from, say, Germany or Japan. BTW, those are perfect analogies (in fact better than perfect) because, as you pointed out, they clearly declared war on the US and we helped to re-build them. The Iraqi people at large were not anti-US. Why would we do less for them? Gotta go.............
I know it is hard to look at actual facts, but Madrid was done by Al Qaeda, an organization that has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. If we were still attacking Al Quaeda (in Afghanistan, BTW), I would be on board, but we shelved our action against Al Qaeda in favor of pursuing an unjustifiable war in Iraq. So we get to decide what goes on in the world because we give away less than a tenth of a percent of our GDP to other countries? That is truly asinine. I would go further than imply, I would state out loud that they had no exit strategy. It is apparent based on the facts at hand. Once again, the Iraqi people did not declare war on us, nor did they attack us. You seem to be confused about the enemy, Saddam never attacked the US, nor did he declare war, as the Japanese and Germans did. If 9/11 was Al Qaeda "declaring war," then we have done the opposite of what we did after WWII since we have now left the country where Al Qaeda was , AND we have not even begun to rebuild it.
So you think it's an accident of history that we have had a military presence in both countries all these years? Yes, they are our allies now, and yes, I wouldn't call our current forces in those countries an "occupation" today, but I wouldn't call it an accident, a coincidence, or purely a legacy of the Cold War, either. And pgabriel was good enough to point out a salient problem with your analogy. There is no comparison between Germany and Japan and Iraq. If you think our forces in Germany and Japan were just a result of the Cold War, if indeed that was your point (sorry, I'm still trying to figure it out), then I don't think France and Britain, in the case of Germany, have been there all this time just because of the USSR. They have been there because it was in their national interest to insure that Germany wouldn't become a threat in the future. I suspect they may not remain long, but they are still there. Things have worked out very nicely with both Germany and Japan. The victors of WWII are now close friends, allies and partners with the two former enemies in the global arena, mainly competing in the economic sphere. Again, what do those countries have to do with Iraq? In my opinion, there is no comparison to be made.
The best analogy is Lebanon versus Israel, not the Allies versus the Axis. edit:another tidbit, we estimate we killed 14 North Vietnamese soldiers per American casualty. The best estimate is we are killing 14 Iraqi *civilians* per American casualty.
andymoon: Can you prove that AQ has nothing at all to do with Iraq? Haven't recent reports cited AQans as being very present in Iraq both before and during the war? deckard/pgabriel: You're right. There is no comparison to be made between Germany/Japan and Iraq. That observation more than makes my point! Iraqis are not in whole our enemies. Saddam's regime was and now those still living who fight in the memory of that regime are our enemies. I think it is a small percentage of the Iraqi occupation. On the other hand both Germany and Japan declared war on us and so as a nation were enemies. After our victory, our relative unobtrusive occupation of those nations proved to be beneficial for them. In an era of 24 hour news, how in the world are we going to pull some shenanigan on the Iraqi people? woofer: Are you counting total dead and defining them as Iraqi citizens? How are you accounting for Fedayen?
No, every recent report I have seen debunks the myth that AQ was associated with Saddam's regime at all. He didn't want Islamic fundamentalists in his country any more than we do. BTW, no I can't prove it, but I can point to all the available evidence that shows that there were no connections.
