Mostly agreed except the last statement. When the resolution for democracy is COMBINED with other not-so-holy motives, the case for war is becoming shabby and sinister. Even Teddy Roosevelt had some problem with a pure Wilsonian war.
Yes, Clinton administration drafted the 'regime change' policy, but quiet frankly it was never going to happen on Clinton's watch, because he just didn't have the stomach for it. Clinton wasn't willing to do anything more than a 'Serbia-style' aerial bombings. A large ground invasion was out of the realm of possibility with Clinton.
Don't disagree with any of this. But certainly you'd conceed that at the point the neocons had the floor 'democracy' was an issue. It HAS to be that way by the very definition of what a neocon is. BUT I do agree this is a very interesting phenomenon. You don't usually see that mid stream switch (at least that is so drastic). I think just leads down the road of infinite regression. Since democracies are more likely to coexist peacefully, join the world economy etc - you could always claim there are other motives. Besides I am only arguing that stating democracy/elections had NO bearing on the intervention is false, nothing more (at least in this thread).
I think Iraq was largely a perfect mix of multiple ideologies converging to create a perfect situation for intervention: Neoconservative ideology (Wolfowitz), a chance to settle 'old scores' (Cheney), and a realist agenda that includes: 'pre-empting and excluding' China from having any influence in the region by establishing a firm long-term foothold in the region, especially when Saudi was fastly becoming an unfriendly host; reintroducing Iraq's vast oil wealth to the market once again, hoping to use it as a way to 'break OPEC's monopoly on oil', which threatens US economic stability; and finally establishing a foothold right on Iran and Syria's borders, hoping to become a check against their 'threatening activities' towards Israel and the region. I think that's why Iraq just had to be invaded, it was too ideal not to intervene. There was no other clear alternative that would provide a chance to 'hit all these birds with one stone'.
Agreed, it's truly fascinating for a political scientist like myself. This administration is going to be one of the most interesting to study and analyze 10-20 years from now. Can't wait! No argument there, it was definitely a factor, but only one of many. Iraq was just tough to pass up, IMO.
I agree pretty much wholly with this and your last post. A confluence of agendas is what I've called in when discussing this in the past. So many others just blab on about 'neocons' this or that without any understanding of what's really happening. I think that its especially interesting in light of 9/11. People say sarcastically 'oh yeah, 9/11 changed everything.' IMO it obviously did. Before that Bush was the 'we aren't nation builders' President, afterwards he was Mr. Pro-active. You'll be analyzing that switch for a long time.
Oh Bigtexxx, that comment is truly bull****. You are always so quick to qoute anything from the Pro Right FoxNews and any other blog. I mean if bush came out and said it himself that he lied you would probably blame it on "The Guardian" slipping the date rape drug in his coffee. The evidence is overwhelming. Seems as you love Bush more than you love AMERICA...
There is no question that this administration has gone through dramatic changes in 'philosophy' when it comes to foreign policy. 9/11 did make a big difference in how Bush personally was transformed, no question about it.
Julian Borger in Washington, Brian Whitaker and Vikram Dodd Friday November 7, 2003 The Guardian Why are we talking about this old story again?
WMD's were the only reason given for the actual invasion. They weren't the only benefits of invasion listed if that makes sense. Bush never said any reason other than WMD's merited invasions, but he did talk a lot about other benefits once Saddam would be gone. Unless you want to count the time tha Bush slipped up and said that Saddam didn't let weapons inspectors back in to Iraq. Deckard's original reasoning still has not been refuted. War should be the last option. There were plenty of other options on the table, including those that could have verified and continued to verify WMD development or lack there of.
Hmmm, no. Yes, I believe it has. Whether you agree with that, IYO, is another thing. In your opinion. Others thought enough was enough. With Saddam the case for this opinion was far from unreasonable, especially when you consider (really THE main factor IMO at the time) his continued obsfucation of the inspection process. For you it would have been fine to indefinitely continue to let Saddam play his cat and mouse game. For me it made no sense as he would inevitably acquire WMDs - either by circumventing the sanctions or by waiting them out.
It all depends on what you want to believe. If you wholeheartedly believe Bush is a "straight shooter" from the get-go, then power to you. If you think a politician (which Bush is) would say anything to get elected, and the aversion was evident of general American public to nation building for the sake of establishing democracy, especially in the midst of an extended period of peace and properity of our own, then your argument is unsubstantiated. However you want to make excuses for Bush's incoherent foreign policy, one needs to look no further beyond Bush's cabinet appointees and foreign policy advisors in his first term: Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle - a list of Who's-Who on The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) original signatories. Of course, the revelation by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that the map of Iraqi oil fields was shown during one of the first cabinet meetings after Bush took Oval Office isn't going to help your case either.
...Mr. Blix the guy who was at the head of the inspection committee IN IRAQ said that Saddam was clean....and that there were no WMD...funny how you don't hear from that guy anymore...at the begining he said that its wrong for the U.S to attack based on WMD...since then he has'nt been heard from.. for me the whole war was done for oil and stability/control of the region...not that there is nothing wrong with that....i believe all superpowers have done this in the past....just in different ways...
I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America By "Certain Clutch BBS Posters" As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now. It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war. But it is another thing entirely to do it during a war. Once the blood of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as citizens not to challenge those responsible for spilling that blood. We must remove the boxing gloves and put on the kid gloves. That is why, in this moment of crisis, I should not be allowed to say the following things about America: Why do we purport to be fighting in the name of liberating the Iraqi people when we have no interest in violations of human rights—as evidenced by our habit of looking the other way when they occur in China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Burma, Libya, and countless other countries? Why, of all the brutal regimes that regularly violate human rights, do we only intervene militarily in Iraq? Because the violation of human rights is not our true interest here. We just say it is as a convenient means of manipulating world opinion and making our cause seem more just. That is exactly the sort of thing I should not say right now. This also is not the time to ask whether diplomacy was ever given a chance. Or why, for the last 10 years, Iraq has been our sworn archenemy, when during the 15 years preceding it we traded freely in armaments and military aircraft with the evil and despotic Saddam Hussein. This is the kind of question that, while utterly valid, should not be posed right now. And I certainly will not point out our rapid loss of interest in the establishment of democracy in Afghanistan once our fighting in that country was over. We sure got out of that place in a hurry once it became clear that the problems were too complex to solve with cruise missiles. That sort of remark will simply have to wait until our boys are safely back home. Here's another question I won't ask right now: Could this entire situation have been avoided in the early 1990s had then-U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie not been given sub rosa instructions by the Bush Administration to soft-pedal a cruel dictator? Such a question would be tantamount to sedition while our country engages in bloody conflict. Just think how hurtful that would be to our military morale. I know I couldn't fight a war knowing that was the talk back home. Is this, then, the appropriate time for me to ask if Operation Iraqi Freedom is an elaborate double-blind, sleight-of-hand misdirection ploy to con us out of inconvenient civil rights through Patriot Acts I and II? Should I wonder whether this war is an elaborate means of distracting the country while its economy bucks and lurches toward the brink of a full-blown depression? No and no. True patriots know that a price of freedom is periodic submission to the will of our leaders—especially when the liberties granted us by the Constitution are at stake. What good is our right to free speech if our soldiers are too demoralized to defend that right, thanks to disparaging remarks made about their commander-in-chief by the Dixie Chicks? When the Founding Fathers authored the Constitution that sets forth our nation's guiding principles, they made certain to guarantee us individual rights and freedoms. How dare we selfishly lay claim to those liberties at the very moment when our nation is in crisis, when it needs us to be our most selfless? We shame the memory of Thomas Jefferson by daring to mention Bush's outright lies about satellite photos that supposedly prove Iraq is developing nuclear weapons. At this difficult time, President Bush needs my support. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld needs my support. General Tommy Franks needs my support. It is not my function as a citizen in a participatory democracy to question our leaders. And to exercise my constitutional right—nay, duty—to do so would be un-American. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33266
I think I'm pretty safe in contending that Bush is not smart enough to be that devious, nor clever enough to pull it off. If you want to contend otherwise, lol - feel free.
Actually he said that they hadn't found any WMD, not that Iraq was clean. In fact, in the months leading up to the war he pointed out that he was getting more cooperation from Saddam than previously because of the threat of war - but IIRC he never said Saddam was cooperating fully. But this doesn't really refute my argument about the inevitability of Saddam's WMD acquisition - not a point Bush made but should have IMO.
I Should Say The Following Things About America - Over and Over Again By "Certain Clutch BBS Posters" As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its actions. We don't, however, ever consider that there might be negative consequences of public dissent. We don't believe that external enemies can be emboldened by such dissent or that it might bolster their belief that Americans are weak at heart and incapable of sustaining an effort against them. The only thing we need to know is that it is our right to dissent and that will make everything wonderful if we exercise it no matter what. It doesn't matter what situation we are in - prewar, at war, post war: we must always express our dissent. That is why we make arguments like: We haven't cared about human rights in the past, therefore it is impossible that we could now or in the future. We haven't criticized governments like China, Syria, and Egypt among others - and haven't tried to bolster efforts for democratic reform in those places and central asia or eastern europe. We haven't actually SEEN change in some of those places recently. We have recently criticized the US because some Central Asian countries are so peeved at our human rights pressure that they are moving toward China. In fact, we start threads about how they ARE moving toward better relations with China as an example of how bad the US is - despite the fact that they are moving toward China because China DOESN'T criticize their human rights record and because China could care less. Hell, they oppress their own people en masse. But we don't see that. WE don't see it even if its actually happening. If we are going to attack ONE dictator then we obviously must attack them all simultaneously - or we're hypocrites and liars. We really only intervene for resources and national security. Just look at Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somlia. If those weren't for oil and world domination - then my name isn't glynch. That's exactly the sort of thing we should continue to propogate. This is also the time to contend that since we supported Saddam before the first Gulf War (along with France, Britain, Russia, Germany and others) we can't possible CHANGE our policy and stop supporting dictators. Hey, consistency is more important. We should criticize the US for supporting dictators and ALSO criticize them for removing dictators. Dissent all the time, in all situations is the best most consistent course. We certainly should criticize our involvement in Afghanistan - even though the motivation for that multilateral intervention was self defense as recognized by the international community (for those who think that's the end all be all). I mean really - they don't have a stabilized democracy there yet. We expected it to happen overnight and it hasn't. So we should shout loud and hard about what a waste its been. We don't have to wait till the boys come home to determine how worthless their sacrifice has been. Here's another question that's a good example of dissent making a positive impact. Isn't all this really our fault for not cracking down on Saddam in 1990 or before? Had we crushed him then, he wouldn't be here now - would he. But that's neither here nor there, because we dissent loudly whether we support the dictator or move against him. We know that's both good for soldiers morale AND projects a strong front to our external enemies. Obviously, then, this is the appropriate time to point out that Operation Iraqi Freedom is really a way for the neocons (we know all government decisionmakers are Jew neocons) to turn our state into a totalitarian regime. Slippery slope don't 'cha know. Its a good way to distract from the domestic woes - that's why Bush originally didn't want to be involved at all in international imbroglios like this one - er, I mean that's how Bush cleverly duped us. True patriots know, again, that we don't have to accept decisions made by the majority when we are in the minority. In fact, we should all go have big sit downs to bring the functioning of government to a halt because democracy means you don't accept any decision you don't like. You don't support it even if a united front is more likely to engender a positive outcome. What good is freedom of speech if you don't use it to demoralize those enacting the policy or embolden our enemies? Hasn't Osama bin Laden already told us he was convinced to take us on because of the resounding dissent to US casualties and the weakness (his perception) of the US public as expressed through public dissent? When the Founding Fathers authored the Constitution that sets forth our nation's guiding principles, they made certain to guarantee us individual rights and freedoms. Why wouldn't we exercise those rights without limitation or reflection? Madison for example, was not worried about fractious dissent when he wrote in the federalist papers. Really the founding fathers wanted to make each citizen a country onto themselves - no need to think of the greater whole - especially not if you disagree with the course. At this time it is not possible to separate my dislike for President Bush, Rumsfeld et al, from the worthiness of the intervention in Iraq. Since he didn't justify the intervention properly pre-war, then justification must not exist. It cannot if he didn't articulate it properly before the war. It is my function as a citizen in a participatory democracy to do what I can to scuttle any policy I don't agree with and reverse such a policy asap regardless of consequence. After all, if you aren't criticising the government then you're just a stupid redneck patsy that can't tell his ass from hole in the ground, a right wing Christian ideologue that doesn't care for them Muslims, or an oil Baron cousin of Cheney making cold hard cash. http://www.thetruecitizenpatriotclutchfan.com
there are a lot of countries that are pursuing WMD.....you want to attack them all??...who gives someone the permission to produce WMD?....is it only for rich wealthy nations???...we know from the past that wealthy nations can be just as irrational ...last time i checked the U.S has been the only country to drop the Atomic Bomb...and i've read they are ready to use WMD in the fight against terror scary....Hayes i don't personally give a damn that Iraq was attacked...i would just like some of you guys to admit it was for oil...i believe its natural for the powerful to use the weak....that's life... a government is like big business...you can't remain successful unless you are cold and ruthless....especially if a country wants to remain a hegemony. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
Well, no. Some you can bargain with (Ukraine). Some you can guarantee security (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Germany). Some you sanction (Serbia, South Africa). Some you stop through intervention (Israel/Iraq '84). Again, its just silly to say because we do one thing in one situation that we have to do it in all situations. I'm not alone in my position that the horizontal spread of nuclear weapons is undesirable and should be prevented, look at the EU's pressure on Iran. The number of nukes needs to go down, not up. One thing the Cold War DID allow us to do was keep the number of nuclear nations down - now without the proxy system there is no control over nations that have neither the stability nor the infrastructure to safely possess nuclear weapons. There simply is no right to own nuclear weapons. There was hardly anything irrational about that (little things called WWII and Cold War). Compared to an Islamist with a finger on the button? C'mon. First strike with a nuke will never happen from the US. Period. Bush is not machiavelli. Sorry, he just isn't capable. If you look at tigermissions posts above, I believe that presents a much more balanced and valid view. Not saying oil wasn't a factor, but to say 'it was for oil' does not even qualify as overgeneralization - its flat out misleading.
