Really? That's interesting because I've seen MANY people in MANY threads support islamic practices that oppress civil liberties and so have you. For example, there was the thread about Muslims bringing strict Islamic law to Canada. How preposterous, I said, that Canadian women (who protest this change) will have much of their life determined by an islamic tribunal instead of the Canadian courts. I was promptly criticised for my anti-muslim position. There have been multiple discussions of the forced covering of women's heads and many responders have concluded that its ok and that not everyone thinks democratic civil liberties (as we know it) are the way to go. So i guess I disagree with your assessment.
As seems to be the case with many who are either unable (like your friend and svpernaut for health reasons) or unwilling (like you and your brother) to actually risk their own necks.
'Most' Iraqis are not attacking us. Hmmmm.... there were insurgencies (in Greece and Turkey just off the top of my head), mass deportations, mass chaos in which its estimated 2 million people were killed, HALF of Europe was controlled by a totalitarian regime far worse than a mullahocracy with no civil rights or protection from the State and we can go on and on. The point is that some seem to have this misconception - illustrated in this thread - that the day the war ended in Europe everything was stable and safe. Its just not the case. It was easily more than a decade before resource scarcity and instability STARTED to wane in Europe.
Hayes, that's a well known fact. However, when have we governed our foreign policy based on the ravings of a rather obscure (pre-9/11, to most Americans) and wealthy Islamic activist, who had a history in the Afghan War (the Soviet occupation), and was, again, unknown to most Americans? Had we felt that our presence in Saudi Arabia was destabilizing, and we should have paid more attention to that possibility, obviously, in the lens of post-9/11, then we were perfectly capable of keeping Saddam in his "box" without bases in Saudi. In other words, hindsight always being perfect, of course, we could have pulled out of the Kingdom and kept doing what we were doing, and Saddam wouldn't be any more of a threat now than he was before Bush decided he was going to invade and occupy Iraq, come hell or high water. Keep D&D Civil!!
So you think for any major government action there is only one can only be one reason for it? I personally don't believe that oil was the primary reason for invading Iraq but I'm not going to say it wasn't a factor in the equation. The admin have said so pretty much themselves by pointing out the economic importance Iraq and the need to get Iraqi oil flowing again and in actions like no bid contracts for KBR to reconstruct Iraq's oil infrastructure. I also agree that GW Bush's is a "Hard Wilsonian" but that still doesn't mean that there aren't those in his Admin or even himself who don't see the economic benefit of Iraqi oil and aren't at least partially motivated by that. This was a war for many reasons. I don't happen to support most of those, particularly the Hard Wilsonian idea, but I think its mistaken to think that war opponents or supporters are logically confined to criticising or supporting on only one reason.
Whether or not we could have done something different really misses the point. Its not just Bush that thought Iraq was a threat - remember UN sanctions, no fly zones, inspections etc? No one in any of the major administrations proposed pulling out of SA bases. In fact the Euros were more than happy to let us and the British handle most of the day to day activities surrounding 'containtment.' The options were continued containment or intervention so the comparisons should stick to that premise, not ANY possible action you can think of in hindsight. The point is that 'containment,' or the 'box' as you put it, had MASSIVE costs for the US. You contend that no action was necessary because he was contained - which ignores the cost of that containment starting with 9/11. That you confirm its a well known fact that containment resulted in 9/11 has major friction with your conclusion.
No, but if you claim that someone is ideologically bound to a particular philosophy and then in other places/conversations/threads claim they are acting according to another philosophy/ideology - that is problematic.
True but in any combat in a popoluous country the number of combatants compared to civillians will always be a much smaller. That said even according to many military commanders the insurgency is mostly home grown Iraqis. Not a good sign for a people we are trying to win over. Hayes you've got a point there. If we compare the occupation of Iraq to the occupation of Eastern Europe post WWII by the Soviet Union then yes the Iraqi occupation looks a little bit better. Still though from what I can recall the insurgencies in those countries weren't as bad as what we're facing in Iraq. I'm not aware of any Fallujah sized battles being fought by Soviets against insurgents in Eastern Europe. So under that standard we're doing a worse job than the Soviets. Forget the occupation of Germany where not a single American soldier was killed by enemy action after 1945 since what's going on in Iraq isn't even close.
Let me reintroduce you to the term "flip flop." That politicians claim to act under one ideaological motivation but also act in a way that isn't consistent with that ideology should be no surprise. You yourself point out that GW Bush has flip flopped in his view of foreign policy from real politik to Wilsonian. The thing about Iraq though is that there is a stated motivations from GW Bush for invading that is both real politik and Wilsonian and GW Bush has at times framed the argument more one way or the other.
I'm sorry, Hayes, but you'll have to put that in English I can understand. The "box" was expensive. Do you think the war costs are remotely similar? Of course you don't, so what bearing does "cost" have on anything pertaining to this bit of the discussion? The Europeans have always preferred, post WWII, to have us do their heavy lifting. No surprise there. They can be made to come around to participate in a bit of grunt work, if diplomacy and rational argument thump them on the head enough times, and if they think it's in their national interests. (I should have put that one first) The massive buildup and maintaining of large bases in Saudi began with George H. W. Bush, after the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, and during the buildup and execution of the Gulf War, and following it. I said that hindsight was perfect. Clinton wasn't rushing around, pulling our troops and bases out of the Kingdom. There was plenty of myopia around for both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Hayes, I said that the US presence in the Kingdom was well known as a major reason for OBL's hatred of the United States. So, is it your contention now that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was justified because Saddam caused us to build bases in Saudi, those bases pissed off Bin Laden, and that resulted in 9/11? Really?? Let me know if I'm missing something. Keep D&D Civil!!
were they an imminent threat? was it worth to go to war simply becasue they are a 'threat'? Are you trying to link Iraq/Saddam to 911?
No, my contention is that people overlook the direct costs of containment for the US (not even getting into other costs). Indicating that it would have been fine to continue containment ignores those costs and distorts their assessment. What STARTED the terrorists war on us, the US, was containment - claiming there was no link between containment/Iraq and the 'war on terror' amazes me. When your conclusion is that we would have been better off NOT intervening in Iraq - and you don't include the cost of what was then the Status Quo - there is a problem.
When speaking about Iraq/Saddam in a vaccuum, I always said the threat was inevitable - not imminent. There are MANY reasons why intervention was worth it, being an inevitable threat was one of those (for me). Already did. Its a fact. See above: Deckard "Hayes, that's a well known fact."
what are the costs your "containment".. 1800 dead US soldiers in two years? $300 billion in three years? so you're aying since we were in Saudi to "contain" Iraq, and since we're getting kicked out of Saudi, the best option is to attack Iraq?
Already did. Its a fact. See above: Deckard "Hayes, that's a well known fact."[/QUOTE] Your kidding right .Dude you need to quit with that BS there was no link.
What's a know fact? Are you Dick Cheney? Osama/Al Queda was definitely involved in 911. And his main reason was the US bases in Saudi. So going back to my question which you have not answered, whats the link between Saddam/Iraq and 911?
Costs of containment? Well, for starters: More than 3,000 lives lost in the 9/11 attacks. Plus the dead in Afghanistan and the Cole/embassy attacks. If you want to count overall deaths or Iraqi deaths - you can put the 1,000,000 killed by sanctions (the intervention removed sanctions) on top of that, plus those killed by Saddam's regime every year. Half a trillion bucks for the overall economic effect: "Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars." http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/homeland.asp Insurance. The losses from the terrorist attacks for the insurance industry (including reinsurance) are estimated at between $30 and $58 billion with the main uncertainty concerning liability insurance. (same as above) 9/11 cost NYC alone about $95 billion. Estimates are that losses JUST from supply chain logistics is "According to David Closs, a professor of logistics at Michigan State, the answer is somewhere between $50 and $80 billion a year." http://www.mmh.com/article/CA198648.html $50 billion more in defense spending & $40 billion in homeland defense spending a year. You could add in the costs in of the embassy attacks in Africa and the USS Cole attacks. Add in the cost of the Afghanistan intervention. That's enough to begin with - certainly not comprehensive by any means, but it illustrates a broader picture. Didn't know we were getting 'kicked out of Saudi.' Please elaborate.
Of course, when we went into Afghanistan and took out AQ, we could have taken out Bin Laden as well, making his anger over the "containment" policy moot. We might have been able to accomplish that mission had we not wasted our effort on a war that did not have to be fought. The Iraq debacle has clearly illustrated why you cannot invade a country based on its potential to become a threat. When there is a threat (like AQ proved itself to be on 9/11), you deal with it immediately and with prejudice, as we commendably did in Afghanistan. When it MIGHT be a threat, you do what you can through diplomatic channels until the threat becomes imminent, at which point you take care of it. If you want to pull links to 9/11 out of your arse, you might also link it to the way we treated Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out. We had promised reconstruction aid, humanitarian missions, and all kinds of other perks (when Bin Laden was our ally), but once the USSR bugged out, so did we. Bin Laden made plenty of statements to this effect when trying to justify his actions, so while you are busy blaming 9/11 on the policy of containment, you might also assign some to Reagan.
If something is said to represent all of Islam and said to be bad, then I believe people should speak out against that kind of rhetoric. I have said and will continue to say that I don't agree with practices that oppress civil liberties. Disagreeing with doesn't mean I beleive we should be at war with though.
