Well, the Kurds absolutely wanted intervention. That's 1/3 right there. The Shiites arguably did as well since they had already risen up against Saddam and requested US support. The Shias probably...no. So be careful what kind of totality you portray there, FB. This one isn't accurate. In addition I think its a complete misnomer to talk about 'imposing democracy.' We removed the artificial impediment to democracy - Saddam. You can't really contend that the people of Iraq DO NOT want to be involved in their own governance. They will have self determination now. That may be as three separate states instead of one, but stop with this silly 'can't impose argument.' It makes good rhetoric but absolutely no sense.
I said in my original post that there was percentage of the population that was happy it was done, and laid out two reasons why they might be happy. The Kurds are one of three major groups in Iraq, but they don't make up 1/3 of the population. The shiites wanted intervention more than a decade ago, and when they didn't get the help, they weren't too trusting or requesting of an invasion of their country this time. I am not contending that the people of Iraq wanted something different from Saddam. I am contending that they didn't ask anyone else to remove that factor for them, nor did they ask what kind of govt. they wanted to have after the fact. The American revolution worked because it was organic. There was enough of a consolidation of opinion in support of that idea. We wanted it and we took it. The Iraqis may have wanted Saddam gone, but there was no consensus on how, when, or what was to come after. All of that was imposed by the U.S. So again it is a gift that they didn't ask for, but are now being asked to be responsible for. I would hope we don't make the same mistake in Iran.
No, they make up 1 of the three main groups in Iraq though. Correct me if I'm wrong here but both the Shiites (the largest in population) and the Kurds are pretty much wholly participating in the government now. And while the Shiites weren't too trusting because of their previous experience that doesn't translate into 'they didn't want Saddam removed.' Well, again - the Kurds absolutely did. The Shiites certainly did ask the West to remove Saddam. And they are deciding on their own government, so what is this about not having a choice in their government? Strange, I remember some French involvement, no? To assert that a revolution only will work in the absence of foreign intervention is to doom those people in states where the regime's security apparatus is too strong and ruthless. You cannot dispute that the Kurds nor the Shiites wanted Saddam in power, yet were NOT able to overthrow him - even though both had taken up arms against him. Further, I'll point out that we ALSO had to have our own civil war before we settled down into our current happy state. I'm pretty sure its reasonable to say the Shiites and the Kurds wanted Saddam gone as soon as possible, not 'at some point in the future.' Well, they are being asked to run their own country - yes, lol. Is that unreasonable? If you think so then I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Hayes. I am not saying that I am defending th Mullahs. Not invading is not the same as defending. Not even an obsession to to quibble, nitpick or parse leading one to miss the forest for the trees can create that type of misunderstanding,. Go ahead. Define yourself to "victory". Hayes: "Not wanting to attack Iran is "defending the mullahs". Busted!!!
I don't even really think this is a matter of perspective. When you're being crushed by a despot and someone removes the dictator that's hardly 'thrusting' something upon you. The Shiites have in one continuous motion wanted to have a hand in their own governance. That didn't change when they rose up and were crushed by Saddam in '91. Both the Kurds and the Shiites have always wanted Saddam removed. There is no way you can dispute that. The alternative they wanted was to have a hand in their own governance. There is no way you can dispute that. They never said 'well we want Saddam removed but not right now.' They have ALWAYS consistently wanted him removed. Your opinion. We debated this in the other thread. Try to unstop a gridlocked process is not the same as chosing their leader. Iraqis have as free a hand as they could possibly have. Iraqis are chosing the leadership. The blockage of the Shiite candidate for PM was not from the US, but from the other Iraqis. Where kind of standard is this you're using - 'unified ready to move on its own.' So we should never intervene unless all the disparate parties are unified? So until the Shias (whose leader was Saddam) also wanted Saddam removed, we just let the Shiites and Kurds go under? You seem to feel that if Saddam was removed in '91 when the Shiites rose up - that would be legitimate, yet in all likelihood a Shia insurgency would have followed that move as well - failing to meet your standard. And even if we were to skip that - I am sure the Shiites and the Kurds certainly feel we did them a favor by removing Saddam. Wow. Talk about blaming the victim. 'They didn't want it badly enough.' Just wow. I guess you think they should have risen up again, gotten killed en masse as in '91 and THEN it would be ok for us to intervene? I don't have to define a victory. Respond to my points, glynch, instead of taking the easy way out. Your response was not 'I don't want to attack Iran.' I'll make it easy on you - we all recognize you don't support an attack on Iran. Please explain to us why you 'hate the Mullahs.'
Are you saying I am in favor of attacking Iran? Please acknowlege that you were wrong to equate the fact that I dont want to attack Iran as I support the Mullahs. How can I take you seriously when you won't back off from the equivalent of "you were a Sadam lover because you opposed the Iraq War"? After that we can get into whether your abstract notions of political theory such as "realism" , etc. or examples of Hitler and others mean that we must launch an attack on Iran if they don't do what we want with respect to nuclear power and or building a bomb-- despite this being such a minority position worldwide, in the United States, and even opposed by Tony Blair.
I did not accuse you of being in favor of attacking Iran. Calm down. I don't want you running around in the front yard burning your driver's license and taking the first bus to Canada. That's not what I said. When I made a comment about the Mullacracy, you responded deriding my point. THAT is a defense of the Mullahs. I'm not sure what part of that you don't get. So much to say. Good for you. Saying my 'notions of theory' are abstract is redundant, btw. Further, I never said we should attack Iran. I said Iran getting nukes is dangerous and undesirable. Oops. Clean the spittle off your chin and get back in the game. Oh, and will you please let us know why you 'hate the Mullahs?' It might be something we agree on.
HayesStreet: I'm just wondering, do you support the war on Iraq? And what reason do you give to why it needed to occur? Democracy, Removal of tyrant, Oil, Liberation of the People, Weapons of Mass Disappearance, or terrorism? Plus, why Iraq and not North Korea? Again, just curious to your position on it all.
Lol. Huggh? I guess that is the point with your stye. Forest gets lost for the trees, "ers" on warmonger(er); whether a theory is abstract or whatever. Is this your typical parsing, "that depends on what the meaning of is is" or are you actually saying we should not attack Iran even if they keep enriching uranium or even build a bomb? Forest for the trees. Say something clearly. Well, yeah, but I don't think it merits an attack and we can live with that. Time for Dubya to stop threatening war and or dangerous and illegal attacks on Iran. The US and Israel having nukes is dangerous and undesireable and also. Threatening to use them by the US is a violation of the NPT and I don't think Israel should be able to do so just because they refused to sign the NPT.
Yep. Containment of Saddam caused 9/11. Saddam was a genocidal dictator. If cannot get a despot to reform, we should remove them if we can. Democracy in the ME will address the root causes of terrorism. Saddam was an inevitable WMD threat. Containment of Saddam killed millions of Iraqis. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. That's a start I guess. HEY!
Read this slowly: I never said we should attack Iran at this time. That seems pretty clear. As for the other part: if I say glynch is an idiot, and you say 'glynch is not an idiot' - then you are defending glynch. Simple enough? And again will you tell us why you hate the Mullahs? You're entitled to your opinion. Of course, you didn't think we should intervene in Afghanistan (or any other place I can think of) so you might be ideologically slanted too far to one side. Oh, I don't know if I agree with that or not. What part of the NPT is that? Care to be specific? Not sure what Israel has to do with Iran. The US's policy is clearly and has always been the less nuclear states the better. We did not help any other country except possibly the UK (don't remember exactly about that) proliferate. OTOH we've acted to stop Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Germany, the Soviet Union, the PRC, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and others from proliferating. I don't remember Israel talking about wiping someone else off the planet and the only instance where their arsenal has come into play was in a defensive measure. Further, taking them away from Israel would present the same problems as taking them away from North Korea (now) or Pakistan or India. But again, I have no idea what Israeli nukes have to do with Iranian nukes.
] If those are the reasons, then it is fair to assume that you would also support an attack on Iran. (Yet in a previous post you stated you wouldn’t ) Anyways that’s the end of my interrogation Thanks for replying.
No, sir - you assume to much. I believe I said "I never said we should attack Iran at this time.' That is different from saying 'I wouldn't support an attack on Iran.' I know that'll confuse glynch so look at it this way: I am not affirmatively endorsing the idea of intervening in Iran, although I would not rule it out depending on what happens in the future. Iran also has nothing to do with containment - 9/11 or containment killing Iraqis. I also believe there is a chance for reform in Iran (as opposed to Iraq) and that reform would negate a move to proliferate. No problem.
Funny. Look up why Osama decided to attack the US. The link between containment and 9/11 is a direct one.
Yes they want a hand at governing. Yes they wanted Saddam removed. I want Bush removed, that doesn't mean I am prepared for or would support another nation coming in here with an army and removing. People can want a lot, but it is about how much. They didn't want it enough to organize and prepare for it. They didn't have drafts of possible constitutions ready to go. They didn't want it badly enough to ask the U.S. to help them. I'll address the '91 uprising later in the post. Revolutions that succeed do so not only because they want to get rid of the current leader, but because they have a philosophy, and rationale behind them that drives them. In Iraq there was no kind of consolidated movement or undergrond for that kind of thing. They may have wanted Saddam gone, that doesn't mean they wanted an invasion and system implemented on them from the U.S. In fact it is clear that most Iraqis don't want that. None-the-less he was the person chosen by the system in place. We disagree on whether or not there was the U.S. is circumventing the system there or not. That is more or less correct, that unless there is some sort of general unity we should not intervene. Furthermore we shouldn't do it unless we are asked to do so by the unified movement. In '91 we would have been invited, and not party crashers. Yes Saddam's party would have resisted, but we would have had the support of large percentage of everyone else. We don't have that now. They want us out of there. The polls I have seen show that most Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone, but not happy that we are there. No matter how great we think it is that Saddam is gone it may not have been important enough to Iraqis to be happy that another nation invaded and is currently occupying their nation. One can be happy Saddam's regime is over, and still not be happy that it was taken out by an occupying invasion force, from the U.S. Many were killed en masse in '91. I obviously don't want them to be killed, but if they are willing to give their lives to the cause, then we know the committment and how important it is to them. Where was the underground movement, groups from within working together, behind an idea of what they would do once they had taken over Iraq. Where was the idea for Iraq's future that inspired them to fight? There wasn't any kind of movement like that going on in Iraq except from the Kurds and a slight bit from terrorist groups residing in Kurdish territory. It isn't that I wanted them to be killed, but I wanted them to believe in something enough to give their lives. It would only have been ok to intervene if those conditions were present, and they asked for military help from the U.S. I am talking about self determination, and a nation trying to make its own destiny. Simply being against Saddam isn't a great start for a new nation, as we have seen. There has to be more to it than that. Even if you disagree with that, don't you at least agree it would have been better for Iraq now, if they had organized themselves, develpoped public support for a centralized idea or philosophy that was going to be put in place after Saddam was gone? Isn't it better to fight for something rather than just against someone? Yes they wanted Saddam gone, but to all of a sudden be forced into someone else's mold and live in a country without security of any kind just doesn't seem to be working.
Exactly. So there you go. I'm not a Bush fan but don't trivialize the plight of the average Iraqi by equating it to your life here or equating Bush with Saddam. That's bull****, FB. If Bush had killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and buried them in mass graves, gassed whole American cities, utterly crushed uprisings against him - hell yes I'd take some outside help to remove him. Are you kidding? This is ridiculous. Hey, maybe they should have had mass protests - er, except Saddam would have slaughtered them like he did in '91. There was plenty of activity by Iraqis in exile, all of which wanted Saddam removed, in terms of Constitutions etc. Revolution and or regime change is not like shopping at Walmart, FB - 'I'll take one of these, one of those, who's with me?' Sorry, I don't buy your criteria that the Kurds, Shiites, and Shias needed to have all the post-Saddam details worked out in secret before Saddam was removed. It's functionally ridiculous to assert as much. Don't want and didn't want are two different things. Don't mix and match the two. Actually he wasn't. The system in place did was gridlocked - he was NOT being chosen as the PM. That is completely absent any US involvement. There is no reason to believe a similar move in '91 wouldn't have encountered a similar Sunni insurgency. And if there would have been a Sunni insurgency....there wouldn't have been unity. The distinctions you make between this one and that one are completely artificial. Yeah, ok. Its not that I want them to rise up and be killed en masse, but really they need to rise up and be killed en masse, AGAIN, before I think its ok to intervene. No, I disagree with your premise that the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds could have worked it all out beforehand. Someone else's mold. What are you talking about? They picked the government, they picked the leaders. There is NO SUCH THING in Iraq. That's a fantasy construct. It may not work, there may be a civil war. But that too is part of the self determination process. If splitting into three countries is the end result then so be it. It will be the Iraqis that decide that. The worst case scenario is STILL better than Saddam. For all your talk about fighting FOR something, it has to be about more than survival - self determination is worth fighting for, right?
Forgive me for jumping in here, but what in the hell is 'Duck Radar' and why do the Iranians want it so bad?
