Now, I'm going to wonder if everyone here can unconditionally agree that it's a good thing. I expect not. "Sure, it's kinda good, but..."
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Yeah, woohoo. Now what do we get to do, chop off his head and parade it around on a pike? Oh wait, we already did that with his sons. Maybe drawing and quartering?
Yeah, this is so incredibly wonderful. We captured one man out of a botched operation. I'm sure that's just a rousing success.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Thanks for not disappointing.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Hey, troll, don't you have a bridge to guard somewhere?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Argent, that's because few events are totally good or totally bad.
There is triumph here, yes. There is also a nagging feeling that things are not, and cannot be resolved by the capture of one man. The questions left are "How did this happen? How can we keep this from happening again?"
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I am stunned. I ask all you who think this is no big deal to go to your newspapers from last winter. The media kept trying to pin Bush down to the physical destruction of Saddam as a success. Now we have him in captivity. If you don't see this as a success, I am very sorry for you.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I don't think it's not a success. I guess I just don't want to see it as an end in itself.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I see it as a success in the goal of capturing Saddam, but capturing him will alone will not sway my decision on whether or not our operations in Iraq are a success.
Posted by Valkyrie (Member # 5980) on :
Perhaps if he was the tarrorist that was to blame for the 9-11 attacts, we would be more enthoseastic (sorry, cant spell) about his capture. But as it was he had nothing to do with the attacts, in fact Husain and Ben Laudin detested each other. I suppose it is good they finally found him, i just resent the way this whole war has been presented as a way to get back at terrorists and to stop future tarrorist attacts form happening. The difference between a terrorrist and a govermnent going to war, is that one has control and soverinty over a section of land, w/ people on it. The other dosn't, it can move from place to place.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Heh.... I suppose for those thought we should go into Iraq just so we could kill Saddam, the war's a success. But for those who thought we should do it to help the Iraqis, it's still marginal, and for those who thought we should do it as an attempt to fight terrorism, it couldn't possibly be more of a failure.
[ December 14, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Right on, Tres.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I see it as something that might make achieving those other goals easier, as Saddam's continued work as the figurehead of the opposition made it harder for us to stabilize the country. It's not victory, but it's a victory, and good news all around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The cynic in me is rarely disappointed.
Human,
quote:Yeah, woohoo. Now what do we get to do, chop off his head and parade it around on a pike? Oh wait, we already did that with his sons. Maybe drawing and quartering?
Yeah, this is so incredibly wonderful. We captured one man out of a botched operation. I'm sure that's just a rousing success.
What exactly did we do to his sons, again? Hyperbole much?
Downplay, downplay, downplay. We captured "one man" out of a "botched operation". Might as well call the first moon landing, "We sent a bunch of guys up to that rock up there." (And no, I'm not saying this is as momentous as Apollo, just that the downplay is enormous, Human.)
Slacker,
quote:I see it as a success in the goal of capturing Saddam, but capturing him will alone will not sway my decision on whether or not our operations in Iraq are a success.
Then you must also admit that you regarded the capture of Saddam Hussein as a non-issue then, right? I'm unsure if you've ever said that before or not, that's what you're saying now. If you thought capturing Saddam and putting him on trial was one of the goals of our war, then you just misspoke. If you didn't, then I don't understand at all.
Valkyrie,
quote:The difference between a terrorrist and a govermnent going to war, is that one has control and soverinty over a section of land, w/ people on it. The other dosn't, it can move from place to place.
There is such a thing as state-sponsored terrorism. Which Saddam Hussein was guilty of.
Tresopax,
quote:But for those who thought we should do it to help the Iraqis, it's still marginal, and for those who thought we should do it as an attempt to fight terrorism, it couldn't possibly be more of a failure.
You think the Iraqis aren't happy about this, Tresopax? Do you read the news? Tell me, how many Iraqis were still afraid of Saddam and that he'd come back into power and take revenge against Coalition supporters?
How is this a failure in the War on Terrorism? The figurehead of resistance of America, the man who encouraged jihad, who told people to fight till the death no matter the odds, was captured with his pistol still in its holster, cowering in a basement, looking like an Arabic Charles Manson...that's a failure?
*cynical laugh*
J4
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
The real victories of the day are the hopeful yet cautious speech by Bush, and the intelligent response from Dean. This could have been an opportunity for raucous gloating and biting sarcasm, respectively, but both parties seem well-focused on the limited relevance this event will have on American security efforts.
The situation on the ground in Iraq has comparatively little to do with, well, anything (save the lives of the soldiers trying to make the best of a shitty situation).
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I never said that I see capturing Saddam as a non-issue. I see it as an important issue, but I don't think that capturing Saddam will mean that everything is done and taken care of in Iraq. There are still people in Iraq that are running loose that are killing others in terror attacks (as I write this, there's a news blurb about another suicide bombing in Baghdad). We still have a long way to go before I'm willing to say that the campaign was a success (if for no other reason than the fact that it's still going on and things can still go wrong).
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I think the doubters and Bush haters on this forum have made a point of proving OSC right when OSC writes that there is absolutely no way that Bush can succeed in anything in their eyes. No matter how well any of these combat operations are conducted, you people will still find something to whine and cry about. Saddam Hussein was captured alive without firing a shot. Thats been the ace in your sleeves for months: 'They didnt even find Saddam, just like they didnt find bin ladin, the bumbling idiots'. Now Saddam is found and youre still finding fault. Not a single rational measure of success can be found in your arguments.
Here's a kleenex, go cry somewhere else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all fairness, odouls, I don't recall anyone on this forum saying that the success of the operation in Iraq could be measured by the capture of Saddam. In fact, most of the arguments I've heard along that line came from conservatives prior to the invasion.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I agree that this isn't the objective, or the end of it all. More like a delightful bonus, and hopefully something that will make the Iraqis people stop blowing themselves up. What I think, though, is that at some point human rights just don't manner. And that point lies somewhere around genocide and mass murder. So I think that sitting around in a hole with a pistol and a camouflage briefcase full of money, beaten and dejected, was the least of his problems.
[ December 14, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:I think the doubters and Bush haters on this forum have made a point of proving OSC right when OSC writes that there is absolutely no way that Bush can succeed in anything in their eyes.
Somebody missed the post just above him.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
somebody doesnt care. raise your hand if you know who it is
ooh ooh me! pick me! i know!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'd be a bit more impressed if Dubya'd whacked Saddam with that display turkey he was wavin' around to impress the photographers while in Iraq. Or Cheney had chosen to prove his manhood by huntin' down Hussein than shotgunning some tame birds.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, I don't remember anyone here criticizing Bush on the basis that Hussein hadn't been captured yet. No one ever cited his capture as one of the main objectives of the war.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh, I certainly remember that, of the Democratic presidential contenders who voted to authorize the war, all said that failure to catch Saddam was proof of a failed war policy. As did an overwhelming majority of normally Democrat-supporting columnists&commentators, as well as a surprisingly large minority of reflexively Republican-supporting columnists&commentators .
I've never seen war as a game of Stratego/chess; or of scoring points by body count and objectives taken. To me, the only true measure of victory is that the killing and destruction stops.
[ December 14, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I agree, aspectre, which is one reason I think the capture of Saddam will be a hollow victory. I suspect the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq will only continue.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Theyve already made it very clear that Iraq is still a dangerous place, and the violence will likely continue
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Odouls said: Thats been the ace in your sleeves for months
Did you get the funny in what he said? He said not capturing Saddam was the Ace in our sleeves, and Saddam is also the Ace in the deck of playing cards they pass out. They got the Ace today, removing the Ace from our sleeves! Good one, dude!
It may not have been on purpose, but I thought it was funny... Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You think the Iraqis aren't happy about this, Tresopax?
I just saw a couple news reports on this and they said the reaction was pretty variable - jubiliation some places, continued fear in other neighborhoods, anger from the bathists, and sadness among some at the loss of a major Arab leader. Obviously, many who have been oppressed with be happy. But the people still live in a war zone with an uncertain future that could very well end up worse than it started. I'd think that would be much more important to them than the fate of a man in a hole. Thus as I said, the war has only had a marginal effect on their welfare.
quote:How is this a failure in the War on Terrorism? The figurehead of resistance of America, the man who encouraged jihad, who told people to fight till the death no matter the odds, was captured with his pistol still in its holster, cowering in a basement, looking like an Arabic Charles Manson...that's a failure?
No, the war as a whole is a utter failure to the war on terror. The capture of Saddam is just irrelevant to it. After all, you don't think the terrorist threat tommorrow is going to be any less than it was yesterday do you? We've already seen a number of new attacks in Iraq, just since his capture earlier.
quote:Thats been the ace in your sleeves for months: 'They didnt even find Saddam, just like they didnt find bin ladin, the bumbling idiots'.
Actually, on the other thread, I just posted yesterday a list of 23 things to complain about in relation to Iraq and the failure to catch Saddam wasn't on it. It's not that I think it's a bad thing that we caught him. Of course not. I just think it's largely irrelevant, and might be made to serve as a distraction to real problems.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Yeah, we need some more kleenex in here.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
My apologies about my...inflammatory post. I should know better than to post when I'm angry, my arguments are neither coherent, logical, or calm. Rants help noone.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
aw human, next to my drivel youre always coherent logical and calm.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'll acknowledge "victory" when our soldiers are safely home, the Iraqis can lead their lives in relative safety and govern themselves, and we can get to a point where we discuss war and suffering without bringing up their impact on presidential campaigns.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Ah yes, but we have to GET to that point, which takes time, work, and sacrifice.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:I see it as something that might make achieving those other goals easier, as Saddam's continued work as the figurehead of the opposition made it harder for us to stabilize the country. It's not victory, but it's a victory, and good news all around.
That so many people can't even admit this is what has me chuckling. I don't even support the implied profiteering that's going on over there, nor the fact that there is little emphasis on the death toll being higher since the campaign than during it. However, this was definitely a victory. A victory, not the victory, but it is a major one.
quote:I'll acknowledge "victory" when our soldiers are safely home, the Iraqis can lead their lives in relative safety and govern themselves, and we can get to a point where we discuss war and suffering without bringing up their impact on presidential campaigns.
So that means never, right? You can go ahead and say it.
[ December 14, 2003, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Argèn†~ ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Argent, are you saying that you think the Bush administration is incapable of finishing what it started? Because that's what it seemed like with your last statement.
Please note that I am not stating any sort of opinion on the topic. Just asking for clarification.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Well, I am stunned. I ask all you who think this is no big deal to go to your newspapers from last winter. The media kept trying to pin Bush down to the physical destruction of Saddam as a success. Now we have him in captivity. If you don't see this as a success, I am very sorry for you.
Yes, but really, what they should have been hammering him on was the location of Osama Bin Laden.
Remember him? He was the guy who Dubya was going to bring to justice ... right before he attacked Iraq instead and placed us into a record deficit. So hundreds of American casualties later, with the Iraqi people not embracing the Americans the way Dubya had predicted, with more people dying every day because we attacked Iraq, with national unemployment soaring (except in in a select few sectors), we caught one man.
Whoopee. My only hope is that the capture of Hussein will take some of the wind from the Iraqi resistance's sails.
And now, perhaps, we can catch Osama Bin Laden. That is, when we're not too busy bombing Afghan children ...
Jeff
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Iraq is facing its gravest test since the US-led invasion more than a decade ago, after its army capitulated to Islamist insurgents who have seized four cities and pillaged military bases and banks, in a lightning campaign which seems poised to fuel a cross-border insurgency endangering the entire region. ... Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq's second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. ... The developments seriously undermine US claims to have established a unified and competent military after more than a decade of training. The US invasion and occupation cost Washington close to a trillion dollars and the lives of more than 4,500 of its soldiers. It is also thought to have killed at least 100,000 Iraqis.
quote:Who are Isis? A terror group too extreme even for al-Qaida The Islamic State of Iraq in Syria has a reputation for being even more brutal than the main jihadi group of inspiration
So this is still going on.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah so much for our bragging about how fast we took over all the major cities.
ISIS probably can't take Falujah and Baghdad, but still, that was ridiculous. The Kurds had to step in and fortify Kirkuk after the government forces fled.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the iraqi national guard beat feet comically fast in places like kirkuk and mosul
most servicepeople i have known, even the ones I just hear from off and on, who served in iraq are all like "hahahaha called it"
after whatsisface dissolved the iraqi military (still the dumbest mistake we made there, honestly) there was just too much challenge involved in cobbling together a competent national guard
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
In some instances there were literally thousands of government forces running from a few hundred ISIS fighters.
It's time to get out. I really hate to waste so much money, blood, and time, but there's just no way the US has a combat role in propping up that government anymore.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
It's not at all clear to me why this called for an 11 year old bump instead of a new post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In some instances there were literally thousands of government forces running from a few hundred ISIS fighters.
It's time to get out. I really hate to waste so much money, blood, and time, but there's just no way the US has a combat role in propping up that government anymore.
right, it's like, the question right now is how do you help nouri al-maliki? between his authoritarianism and his sectarianism, he's the problem. we can't help the problem. whatever assistance we give him, at our expense, will pass like sand through his hands and iraq will still be a shitpile tomorrow.
he needs to leave office.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
ricree101: It's an ongoing story, I like the title, and I think the predictions are interesting in retrospect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah so much for our bragging about how fast we took over all the major cities.
ISIS probably can't take Falujah and Baghdad, but still, that was ridiculous. The Kurds had to step in and fortify Kirkuk after the government forces fled.
"Had to" makes it sound like they were reluctant.
I'll sure the head of the Peshmerga was pretty gleeful when he sailed into Kirkuk. The Kurds have been bitter about losing that city for decades, since Saddam kicked them out and forcibly moved in tens of thousands of non-Kurdish Arabs to dilute Kurdish influence.
They almost went to war over it a couple years ago when they were given semi-autonomy, and also because it's a huge oil resource, but it stayed in Iraqi government hands.
They basically just got a freebie, and I'll be surprised if they let it go.
Depending on how this thing goes, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Kurdish state declared in the next year. I think that's part of why Iran is sending troops to help Iraq fight off the ISIL.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Who could possibly have predicted?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah so much for our bragging about how fast we took over all the major cities.
ISIS probably can't take Falujah and Baghdad, but still, that was ridiculous. The Kurds had to step in and fortify Kirkuk after the government forces fled.
"Had to" makes it sound like they were reluctant.
I'll sure the head of the Peshmerga was pretty gleeful when he sailed into Kirkuk. The Kurds have been bitter about losing that city for decades, since Saddam kicked them out and forcibly moved in tens of thousands of non-Kurdish Arabs to dilute Kurdish influence.
They almost went to war over it a couple years ago when they were given semi-autonomy, and also because it's a huge oil resource, but it stayed in Iraqi government hands.
They basically just got a freebie, and I'll be surprised if they let it go.
they get it by virtue of stepping up and holding ground where the iraqi guard is folding and fleeing at the slightest. i wouldn't necessarily write that off as a freebie, they just get to be the highest bidder for virtue of the fact they're not going to stand down Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and yes I would be surprised if the autonomous kurdish region doesn't break off.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
As someone who currently lives in the K.R.G., I can give a bit of insight into some local attitudes.
The Kurds were definitely glad to step into Kirkuk, both because of a genuine desire to protect its people as well as their own long-term irridentist and economic designs on the city. My best guess is that ISIL will eventually be pushed out by a combination of peshmerga and Iraqi forces supported by U.S. airstrikes. If that happens, the Kurds will be in a very strong position to demand the annexation of Kirkuk.
I'm less convinced that the K.R.G. will declare independence any time soon, though this has more to do with their relationship with Ankara than with Baghdad. Turkey is getting a lot of oil from the Kurds, and northern Iraq is in turn a huge market for their goods--many things for sale here, from soda to paper towels to bathroom fixtures, come from Turkey. Given this (and the Turks' delicate situation with their own Kurds), I don't think Turkey will be in a hurry to encourage an independent Kurdistan. And I don't think the Iraqi Kurds are in a position to declare independence without that approval (or at least acceptance). Yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a fair point I hadn't considered. An independent Kurdistan riles up the PKK, which Ankara would like to keep quiet.
Boy is that a tangled mess of alliances.
Sam -
I didn't mean freebie in that it doesn't cost them anything, I guess I meant a political freebie. They've been chomping at the bit for a long time, and in the space of days the political calculus is totally upended.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
There's also the flip side that the US just left the equipment sitting there because we didn't want to bring it home. Vehicles, weapons, you name it. We had a troop withdrawal, and we just left the stuff. These ISIS clowns are using much of our equipment.
Then again, I say we just stay out of it completely and let them figure it out themselves. Without any monetary aid whatsoever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We broke it. I would say that we have a responsibility to fix it except that the only thing we know how to do is keep breaking it. Like trying to fix a broken vase when all you have is a hammer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't think the current Iraqi government would be a worthwhile recipient for them, but I hope someday we pay them reparations or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If we aren't going to man up and admit we need to pay reparations to our own blacks and native american tribes, there's no way we'd give reparations to a faraway country
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
On the day the US first invaded Iraq back in March of 2003, I told people "Our leaders will declare victory in 2 weeks but we will still be fighting in 10 years." Looks like I was sadly over optimistic.
It took 6 weeks before Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished". Will the fighting go on for 30 years?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: On the day the US first invaded Iraq back in March of 2003, I told people "Our leaders will declare victory in 2 weeks but we will still be fighting in 10 years." Looks like I was sadly over optimistic.
It took 6 weeks before Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished". Will the fighting go on for 30 years?
IIRC, Bush never said mission accomplished. He actually said we still have a lot of work to do. It was just that dumb banner.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If we aren't going to man up and admit we need to pay reparations to our own blacks and native american tribes, there's no way we'd give reparations to a faraway country
Right, but in the case of Iraq we don't have the excuse that it was our ancestors and not us who did it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Which isn't true either in the black or native American cases, but whatever.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: On the day the US first invaded Iraq back in March of 2003, I told people "Our leaders will declare victory in 2 weeks but we will still be fighting in 10 years." Looks like I was sadly over optimistic.
It took 6 weeks before Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished". Will the fighting go on for 30 years?
IIRC, Bush never said mission accomplished. He actually said we still have a lot of work to do. It was just that dumb banner.
That's splitting hairs a bit finer than is actually relevant at this point. Regardless of what words were said, 'mission accomplished' was the tone of the event and it was NOT just the dumb banner. It was the whole publicity stunt of Bush heroically landing the the fighter jet on the aircraft carrier. The original draft of the speech did in fact say "Mission Accomplished." Rumsfield insisted that phrase be taken out as it was 'too conclusive'. It was replaced with 'major combat operations are over'.
But those details are really irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. In 2003, there was widespread belief, by both its proponents and opponents, that the war would be over in a few days at most. Well hear it is, over a decade later and the fighting is still going on.
It should have been clear to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the culture and history of the region that this is what would happen.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If we aren't going to man up and admit we need to pay reparations to our own blacks and native american tribes, there's no way we'd give reparations to a faraway country
You are probably right even though you are comparing apples and oranges. War reparations are well establish in international law and have a long history. As recently as 20 year ago, we required Iraq to pay reparation for invading Kuwait.
Reparations for slavery would be something unprecedented. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be making reparations to blacks and native americans. I'm just saying that the issues raised by making reparations for racial oppression are not at all the same as the issues involved in making war reparations.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I fully acknowledge that it's an apples and oranges thing, to a point.
The point of my bringing it up is that the nation that won't even pay reparations to the native americans is the nation that won't pay reparations to Iraq. Is there perhaps a war reparations precedent in existence? Yup. Would not paying reparations in the case of Iraq possibly make us hypocrites? Sure. Will either of these things matter? Nope.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
For those advocating reparations, do you believe Iraqis would be living in a better country had we never got involved in 2003? Do you think ousting Saddam Hussein caused more problems than it solved? And do you believe that ISIS or a similar terrorist organization wouldn't be causing these sorts of problems had we never sent troops over there in the first place?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the answer to all three questions, for my part, is "yes."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yes to all of those things.
and i am speaking as a person who nominally is all for intervention to liberate people, generally
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Can you elaborate?
While I don't think we've made it much better, if at all, I have a hard time wrapping my head around how it is worse. It was bad before 2003 and, the way other Middle Eastern countries fared (Syria, Iran, Jordan, etc.) without our intervention, I don't see why they would've improved any. Do you think the citizens would've gotten rid of Al-Qaeda on their own? I don't mean to imply they're gone now, but even if they did, how is ISIS our fault? Terrorist organizations crop up all the time in countries we never invaded.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ISIS is filled with angry Sunnies who see no future for them in the present Shiite government. Many of them were generals, officers in the army, and policeman when we invaded and they were summarily fired and dismissed even when they came forward to offer to be a part of the new government. They essentially have no voice or part in the present government. So they are banding together with Sunnies from Syria to form a new country in Northern Iraq that can stand up to Iran and the Shiite majority in Iraq, as well as the Iran sponsored Shiite government in Syria.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: For those advocating reparations, do you believe Iraqis would be living in a better country had we never got involved in 2003? Do you think ousting Saddam Hussein caused more problems than it solved? And do you believe that ISIS or a similar terrorist organization wouldn't be causing these sorts of problems had we never sent troops over there in the first place?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious.
Yes. Especially for the hundreds of thousands who would be alive and hundreds of thousands more who would be unmaimed and have their loved ones still living. Plus the women who went from living in a relatively secular society to an oppressive fundamentist one.
Yes. We broke their country. Of course, it might have been even better had we not kept him in power in the first place.
Yes. And we would be in a much better position to deal with terrorist threats in general.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
here is my serious response: i would start with reading the Atlantic's "Blind into Baghdad" - then follow it by reading matt taibi's "the great Iraq swindle"
like, i do not want to summarize either. there's no tl;dr here. you gotta sit down and absorb those two particular pieces in order.. not skim.
once you have done so, i won't have to summarize what i consider the extent of the crime we committed to Iraq. even taking the time for filling in data about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the power vacuum is superfluous.
let me know what you think.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Annnnd I'm going to be sick.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If we aren't going to man up and admit we need to pay reparations to our own blacks and native american tribes, there's no way we'd give reparations to a faraway country
You are probably right even though you are comparing apples and oranges. War reparations are well establish in international law and have a long history. As recently as 20 year ago, we required Iraq to pay reparation for invading Kuwait.
Reparations for slavery would be something unprecedented. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be making reparations to blacks and native americans. I'm just saying that the issues raised by making reparations for racial oppression are not at all the same as the issues involved in making war reparations.
Yes, reparations. Makes sense, since every black American living today is a direct descendant of a slave, and they have all felt like what it is like to be in slavery.
Why don't we also just throw in reparations for Chinese Americans that were exploited during the 1800's, or the Mormons that were murdered and thrown off their land in Missouri?
Let's just make it right for everyone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well that was interesting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If we aren't going to man up and admit we need to pay reparations to our own blacks and native american tribes, there's no way we'd give reparations to a faraway country
You are probably right even though you are comparing apples and oranges. War reparations are well establish in international law and have a long history. As recently as 20 year ago, we required Iraq to pay reparation for invading Kuwait.
Reparations for slavery would be something unprecedented. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be making reparations to blacks and native americans. I'm just saying that the issues raised by making reparations for racial oppression are not at all the same as the issues involved in making war reparations.
Yes, reparations. Makes sense, since every black American living today is a direct descendant of a slave, and they have all felt like what it is like to be in slavery.
Why don't we also just throw in reparations for Chinese Americans that were exploited during the 1800's, or the Mormons that were murdered and thrown off their land in Missouri?
Let's just make it right for everyone.
do you even coherently understand what the case for reparations would be, in the case of blacks and the first nations? would you be able to understand why not being directly related to slaves wouldn't matter overall?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ah, the good ol' Stockholm days
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Invading a country should require the absolutely highest standards, the US invasion of Iraq met no standards.
This quote is from one of Destineer's other threads, but I wondered how Russia's invasion of Crimea stacks up to this test Blayne suggested.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it met the absolute highest standard of russia inventing the standard, therefore
Posted by SpDTheadkeFor (Member # 12471) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If we aren't going to man up and admit we need to pay reparations to our own blacks and native american tribes, there's no way we'd give reparations to a faraway country
You are probably right even though you are comparing apples and oranges. War reparations are well establish in international law and have a long history. As recently as 20 year ago, we required Iraq to pay reparation for invading Kuwait.
Reparations for slavery would be something unprecedented. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be making reparations to blacks and native americans. I'm just saying that the issues raised by making reparations for racial oppression are not at all the same as the issues involved in making war reparations.
Yes, reparations. Makes sense, since every black American living today is a direct descendant of a slave, and they have all felt like what it is like to be in slavery.
Why don't we also just throw in reparations for Chinese Americans that were exploited during the 1800's, or the Mormons that were murdered and thrown off their land in Missouri?
Let's just make it right for everyone.
do you even coherently understand what the case for reparations would be, in the case of blacks and the first nations? would you be able to understand why not being directly related to slaves wouldn't matter overall?
Samp, what are your cases and what would reparations be or look like? If you have already discussed this else where on the forum, can you just point me to the link? Thanks
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That, unfortunately, saddles you with a reading assignment as well.
Basically, you have to sit down and read this entire article. Again, not skim, not catch parts of. Read the whole thing.
Same goes for you too, Geraine. Though I expect it not to actually change the mind of any invested conservative, it's the only way I expect someone to have a coherent sense of what the argument for reparations actually is, even if they continue to wholeheartedly disagree with it. As it is what I most often see is stuff like "ah, because every black american living today has felt what it is like to be in slavery" that has a subtle consistency.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: For those advocating reparations, do you believe Iraqis would be living in a better country had we never got involved in 2003? Do you think ousting Saddam Hussein caused more problems than it solved? And do you believe that ISIS or a similar terrorist organization wouldn't be causing these sorts of problems had we never sent troops over there in the first place?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious.
This question is predicated on the assumption that the US invaded Iraq in order to liberate its people and improve its economic and humanitarian situation. This is a dubious assumption. The US invaded Iraq, first and foremost, to assert its own regional geopolitical goals. Seen in this light alone, the Iraq war adventure was highly successful.* From a humanitarian or human justice point of view, not so much.
*Highly successful in the sense that it served to perpetuate an imbalance in the region that continues to stand in the way of regional autonomy and national or multi-national assertiveness in world trade. Despite what are apparently bad outcomes across the region, the outcomes in purely rationalist terms, as they apply to the US alone, are all fairly favorable. That is not a moral judgement or a justification, just an observation of current realities.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That, unfortunately, saddles you with a reading assignment as well.
Basically, you have to sit down and read this entire article. Again, not skim, not catch parts of. Read the whole thing.
Same goes for you too, Geraine. Though I expect it not to actually change the mind of any invested conservative, it's the only way I expect someone to have a coherent sense of what the argument for reparations actually is, even if they continue to wholeheartedly disagree with it. As it is what I most often see is stuff like "ah, because every black american living today has felt what it is like to be in slavery" that has a subtle consistency.
People share this Coates article all over the place, but I actually found it disappointing in one crucial respect. He doesn't really do much to address the objection, "But present-day white people aren't responsible for choices their ancestors made."
I don't myself care about this objection, because I don't care who owns what and think wealth redistribution from non-black Americans to black Americans would have huge positive effects. But anyone who believes in property rights is going to make a huge deal about it, and Coates really doesn't say anything to refute it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Personally (and I recognize this is a minority view and one colored by my political and personal ideology) I feel like the negative impacts of the Iraq war pointed out by other posters had little to do with the US invasion and everything to do with the underlying social dynamics of Saddam's Iraq. Comparing the Iraq war to the ongoing Syrian Civil War suggests to me that the US presence probably worked to decrease the amount of sectarian violence and bloodshed from what was an inevitable civil, religious war.
Saddam held onto power very effectively through brutal repression, torture, and slaughter; but eventually that regime would have ended, with or without US involvement, and the sectarian civil war would have erupted just as it did. While the US presence during that time served as a focal point for some attacks, and the US's early decisions particularly around disbanding the military had significant negative impacts on security, I think the role they served in brokering local and national power-sharing agreements went a long way toward decreasing the violence of the civil war.
That's not to say we bear no responsibility, or that we weren't misguided in forcing regime change in Iraq. But I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for all the terrible things that have happened in Iraq since the invasion on the US's involvement.
As a further note, I think the question of whether Iraqis see themselves as better off depends on which Iraqis you ask. The Shia majority is almost certainly more secure and better off than they were under Saddam, as are the Kurds. The Sunnis, as evidenced by ISIS's rapid spread through the West, are very angry about their diminished role.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hard to ask the dead ones, though. I bet they would not say they are better off. Are you better off if your government is better (and I am not conceding that- it certainly isn't better for women) but you are cripple. Or your parents are dead. Or your child?
Here is a thought experiment. Suppose a more powerful country decided that we needed a better government - one that even we would agree was better - but that we would need to sacrifice 1% of our population. Three million people. And would require the eyes, legs, arms of millions more. Would they have a right to make that choice for us?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think it all depends on degree of harm vs. help to the country. I mean, if someone had successfully brought long-lasting "regime change" to Uganda under Amin, or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, that would have been a great moral achievement.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: ... I have a hard time wrapping my head around how it is worse.
Well, you started with a secular government that the 9/11 commission discovered has no links to Al Qaeda, actually had no weapons of mass destruction, and was resolutely opposed to Iran (supposedly one of your (American) foes).
You've ended up with a sectarian civil war between a government that is allied with Iran and a rebel group that actually truly allied with Al Qaeda but was kicked out for being too extreme, likely kicking off terrorism that everyone will have to deal with for years.
There's also the many fun things that one could buy with the 1.7 trillion odd dollars that was wated like improving your own healthcare, improving infrastructure, etc.
So ... good job?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I don't myself care about this objection, because I don't care who owns what and think wealth redistribution from non-black Americans to black Americans would have huge positive effects. But anyone who believes in property rights is going to make a huge deal about it, and Coates really doesn't say anything to refute it.
The most important factor of the case is saying that independent of "assigning" "blame" it's incumbent on a decent society to provide a means to break the result of an enforced cycle of economic abuse and disenfranchisement of blacks. If not just because of eminently moral reasons, but because of practical improvement of our communities and cities. We have a dire rot in our cities, whole areas of crime and hopelessness and anomie, because of the predatory actions towards blacks. A country does not want this legacy in their cities and communities.
The people who refuse to accept any sense of blame because they "don't individually benefit from racism!" or are otherwise not responsible for the actions of their ancestors (and thus don't have to do anything) are both completely predictable and irrelevant. Strange that the vast majority of them will sign off on all taxpayers having to pay for two wars of 'liberation' in the middle east, but they won't even liberate a marginalized population in their own cities.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... Saddam held onto power very effectively through brutal repression, torture, and slaughter; but eventually that regime would have ended, with or without US involvement, and the sectarian civil war would have erupted just as it did.
I've heard American commentators and journalists predict the fall of North Korea for as long as I can remember and the fall of the Chinese government since the June 4th/Tiananmen Square at least. Assad is still around even with the US supplying his enemies. I've long grown doubtful of these kinds of predictions.
quote: But I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for all the terrible things that have happened in Iraq since the invasion on the US's involvement.
Of course it is. If America really was greeted as a liberator and Iraq turned out into a bastion of hope and freedom as presented by Bush, there would be no end of credit being taken. Conversely, you don't get to hide it underneath the carpet simply because the outcome was undesirable. Republicans knew this and were aware of this before the invasion
quote:Fast-forward 25 years to another phrase involving metaphoric breakage. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted in "Plan of Attack" as cautioning President George Bush before the war that he would "own" Iraq and all its problems, after military victory. "Privately," wrote Bob Woodward, "Powell and Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it." (Richard Armitage is the deputy secretary of state.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/arts/17iht-saf18.html
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, except that Powell was wrong in one particular regard. He didn't account for the fact that his party would begin to operate on a conspicuously pathological pseudologic that exports all the blame for anything that needs blame.
Instead of "You break it, you own it" it's "You break it, Obama is always wrong"
Exhibit A is how conservatives are already endlessly blaming Obama for withdrawing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I don't myself care about this objection, because I don't care who owns what and think wealth redistribution from non-black Americans to black Americans would have huge positive effects. But anyone who believes in property rights is going to make a huge deal about it, and Coates really doesn't say anything to refute it.
The most important factor of the case is saying that independent of "assigning" "blame" it's incumbent on a decent society to provide a means to break the result of an enforced cycle of economic abuse and disenfranchisement of blacks. If not just because of eminently moral reasons, but because of practical improvement of our communities and cities. We have a dire rot in our cities, whole areas of crime and hopelessness and anomie, because of the predatory actions towards blacks. A country does not want this legacy in their cities and communities.
The people who refuse to accept any sense of blame because they "don't individually benefit from racism!" or are otherwise not responsible for the actions of their ancestors (and thus don't have to do anything) are both completely predictable and irrelevant. Strange that the vast majority of them will sign off on all taxpayers having to pay for two wars of 'liberation' in the middle east, but they won't even liberate a marginalized population in their own cities.
I totally agree, I was just saying that the article is flawed because it doesn't mention any of these points. Coates's goal is to make "the case for reparations," and given the assumptions his audience will make coming in, about who's responsible for what, the article can't possibly convince anyone who doesn't start out from the same place as you and me.
I'm not sure how you can say the predictable property rights types are "irrelevant," since they're the people preventing this whole thing from ever happening in a million years.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Peter,
quote:Personally (and I recognize this is a minority view and one colored by my political and personal ideology) I feel like the negative impacts of the Iraq war pointed out by other posters had little to do with the US invasion and everything to do with the underlying social dynamics of Saddam's Iraq. Comparing the Iraq war to the ongoing Syrian Civil War suggests to me that the US presence probably worked to decrease the amount of sectarian violence and bloodshed from what was an inevitable civil, religious war.
I think there's a few logical problems with this. First among them being the statement 'Saddam's Iraq'. Well, sure it was, but if we're going to say that we have to examine the circumstances under which it became Saddam's Iraq and remained so for so many years. I don't think many serious people could examine that question and not see another striking example of Cold War stability foreign policy biting us in the ass.
As for the other premise, that it would have happened anyway, let's assume for the sake of argument that that's true. I think it's a big claim to make, but there is a case to be made. But even if we assume that, do we really get to set aside that responsibility simply because it would have happened? Our hands being on the figurative lever, for better or worse.
quote:Saddam held onto power very effectively through brutal repression, torture, and slaughter; but eventually that regime would have ended, with or without US involvement, and the sectarian civil war would have erupted just as it did. While the US presence during that time served as a focal point for some attacks, and the US's early decisions particularly around disbanding the military had significant negative impacts on security, I think the role they served in brokering local and national power-sharing agreements went a long way toward decreasing the violence of the civil war.
This I have less issue with, or at least the second portion. Mucus has already addressed the problem of brutal regimes being overthrown from within-historically, I can't think of many popular revolutions that were ever successful without some significant external help. Either help to the rebels, or external harm to the powers that be. As for the rest, though, that's where things get a lot murkier for me. I don't believe a civil sectarian war was inevitable, though I do think with the on-the-cheap nation-building we tried it was all but inevitable. I think had we committed to an authentic effort, which would have been enormously expensive and time-consuming and effort-consuming, the current circumstances could have been avoided.
Problem is there is little historical record to look at of such efforts, in our own history or anyone else's. It's simply not usually tried.
quote:That's not to say we bear no responsibility, or that we weren't misguided in forcing regime change in Iraq. But I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for all the terrible things that have happened in Iraq since the invasion on the US's involvement.
I can agree with this. Though I would challenge the qualifier 'misguided' in the case of some leadership.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I still don't think that an independent Kurdish state is imminent, but it looks a little more likely than it did a week or two ago.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I still don't think that an independent Kurdish state is imminent, but it looks a little more likely than it did a week or two ago.
I think some sort of special administrative region is imminent. You're not going to easily dislodge the Kurds from those oil fields again. And, if they can keep ISIS out, and get the oil line repaired, they're going to make a lot of money.
[ June 17, 2014, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Well, the KRG is already a special administrative region: it has its own flag, army, parliament, etc. The main reasons that it hasn't yet transitioned to full independence are financial and geo-political. And adding Kerkuk and getting a green light from Turkey may just be enough to solve those two issues.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry I couldn't finish my post, and I forgot to edit it after posting.
What I meant to say is something "beyond" a special administrative region is imminent. After my statement about all the money they are going to be getting I meant to suggest that it's enough to fund a fully functional independent country.
Turkey being eager to buy oil from the Kurds means the only thing that could stop them from declaring independence is probably what Iraq's government does whether good or bad. Or maybe ISIS, but I don't think ISIS by itself can boss the Kurds around.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If we aren't going to man up and admit we need to pay reparations to our own blacks and native american tribes, there's no way we'd give reparations to a faraway country
You are probably right even though you are comparing apples and oranges. War reparations are well establish in international law and have a long history. As recently as 20 year ago, we required Iraq to pay reparation for invading Kuwait.
Reparations for slavery would be something unprecedented. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be making reparations to blacks and native americans. I'm just saying that the issues raised by making reparations for racial oppression are not at all the same as the issues involved in making war reparations.
Yes, reparations. Makes sense, since every black American living today is a direct descendant of a slave, and they have all felt like what it is like to be in slavery.
Why don't we also just throw in reparations for Chinese Americans that were exploited during the 1800's, or the Mormons that were murdered and thrown off their land in Missouri?
Let's just make it right for everyone.
If you think reparations are just about slavery, then you're incredibly ignorant about 20th Century American history.
Ta-Nahisi Coates was on the Colbert Report the other night and he said he'd be willing to spot America everything before the 20th century and call it a mulligan. Because the slavery discussion is a distraction from the real, specific harms done to blacks in America in the 20th century, for which millions of sufferers are still alive today, not just descendents.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Let's say in the middle of Chicago there's a bunch of city blocks which are basically bombed out ruins filled with slow-burning seams and the ruins emit poison gas and it's just a terrible eyesore and problem and the city has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the problem and if the winds shift the poison gas kills a lot of people, especially marginalized people who have to live next to the bombed out ruins and it's been the hugest largest most evident problem of Chicago for the past 40 or 50 years since Chicago actually initially had the police bomb the area into ruins.
Somebody says "Yo, this is ridiculous, this isn't a problem which is going to go away easy on its own and it's foolish to expect that. We basically need to put effort into the area and restore the whole region."
Then the mayor says "ehhhhhhhh but that's expeeeennnnsiiiiiivve"
And the chief of police says "stop trying to blame me, it was my predecessor who bombed it not me, you can't punish me for the faults of my ancestors"
and the city council agrees that since nobody in the room is DIRECTLY responsible for the bombed out ruin, they can't be arsed to do anything about it, sorry
SO the city continues to have a giant bombed out ruin in the middle of it and it continues to cost hundreds of millions of dollars in problems and scores of deaths every year. GREAT JOB AMERICA
this is a studiously imperfect analogy but it sort of represents what's up with the general haze of logic governing why we won't ever engage in conspicuously efficacious reparations. hell, this country won't even pay the native american tribes the literal billions of dollars the BLM literally legally owes them from legally binding contracts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so looks like turkey is not going to stand in the way of an independent Kurdistan.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, I as reading about that. They want oil from North East Iraq, and it looks like the Kurds are going to control that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
From the NYTs,
"...militants turned over the bodies of Shiite civilians they had killed, only to bomb the cemetery during their funerals, according to one account."
Look, murdering people at all is messed up. But that's like another order of magnitude out from messed up.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Let's say in the middle of Chicago there's a bunch of city blocks which are basically bombed out ruins filled with slow-burning seams and the ruins emit poison gas and it's just a terrible eyesore and problem and the city has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the problem and if the winds shift the poison gas kills a lot of people, especially marginalized people who have to live next to the bombed out ruins and it's been the hugest largest most evident problem of Chicago for the past 40 or 50 years since Chicago actually initially had the police bomb the area into ruins.
Somebody says "Yo, this is ridiculous, this isn't a problem which is going to go away easy on its own and it's foolish to expect that. We basically need to put effort into the area and restore the whole region."
Then the mayor says "ehhhhhhhh but that's expeeeennnnsiiiiiivve"
And the chief of police says "stop trying to blame me, it was my predecessor who bombed it not me, you can't punish me for the faults of my ancestors"
and the city council agrees that since nobody in the room is DIRECTLY responsible for the bombed out ruin, they can't be arsed to do anything about it, sorry
SO the city continues to have a giant bombed out ruin in the middle of it and it continues to cost hundreds of millions of dollars in problems and scores of deaths every year. GREAT JOB AMERICA
this is a studiously imperfect analogy but it sort of represents what's up with the general haze of logic governing why we won't ever engage in conspicuously efficacious reparations. hell, this country won't even pay the native american tribes the literal billions of dollars the BLM literally legally owes them from legally binding contracts.
The analogy is more than imperfect if the bombed out ruin is going away on its own. I believe racism in this country is declining, especially among the younger generations (anyone 30 and under). And by the time those generations are the legislators and law enforcement officers, racism should be effectively gone from the system. IMHO, obviously.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Invading a country should require the absolutely highest standards, the US invasion of Iraq met no standards.
This quote is from one of Destineer's other threads, but I wondered how Russia's invasion of Crimea stacks up to this test Blayne suggested.
I never said it was justified, only that it was a "win" for Russia; new metaphor: in the same way me taking your queen by sacrificing a rook and a bishop is a win.
I also made repeated statements that I felt the Donbass stuff in SE Ukraine is a mistake; I think its clear there's a difference between invading a region you have no cultural or religious understanding of (crusade anyone?) and invading a country where 1/3 of its people speak your language and the chunk of people living adjacent to you identify as your culture.
I was not that I can recall, making a moral judgement, only a zero-sum geopolitical one.
In either case, the current situation in the Mid-East is a screw up of epic proportions by the Neocon's of the Bush administration and nothing could have salvaged it except by the whole hearted acceptance of Ethnic cleansing by the Americans.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: This I have less issue with, or at least the second portion. Mucus has already addressed the problem of brutal regimes being overthrown from within-historically, I can't think of many popular revolutions that were ever successful without some significant external help. Either help to the rebels, or external harm to the powers that be. As for the rest, though, that's where things get a lot murkier for me. I don't believe a civil sectarian war was inevitable, though I do think with the on-the-cheap nation-building we tried it was all but inevitable. I think had we committed to an authentic effort, which would have been enormously expensive and time-consuming and effort-consuming, the current circumstances could have been avoided.
I wish I had the link as it was years ago, but I remember a color coded map of the world which showed how something like a large chunk of the NIC's and Third World transitioned to functional democracies at the end of the Cold War. I think South Korea is an arguable example, most of the Formal Warsaw Pact transitioned relatively peacefully as did Russia (Russia probably transitioned back to Autocracy), and I think most of South America.
As for nation building, South Korea, Japan, West Germany, the Marshall Plan recipients in general, I think there's a lot of successful examples of nation building projects. Tsarist Russia's elevating of Finland to the rank of nations is probably an early example to boot.
The principle problem with the Iraq war was how ad-hoc the whole enterprise was, General Zioni former CnC CENTCOM was actually in charge one in constructing such a plan around the time of the first gulf war but his work was shelved, for ~reasons~ that I don't recall, but I think its telling there wasn't a plan.
I think with foresight, a plan of action and quick response a lot might have been avoided. Such as the looting of Iraqi museums and dig sites.
Then the issues of de-baathifization and the disbanding of the military. Perhaps Saddam's execution was also a problem, if he had been thrown in a cell they might have been able to drag him out like a long lost pretender to the Iron Throne and let him loose to have some sort of third side of the conflict, who knows?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: In either case, the current situation in the Mid-East is a screw up of epic proportions by the Neocon's of the Bush administration and nothing could have salvaged it except by the whole hearted acceptance of Ethnic cleansing by the Americans.
That is the opposite of "salvaging".
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: In either case, the current situation in the Mid-East is a screw up of epic proportions by the Neocon's of the Bush administration and nothing could have salvaged it except by the whole hearted acceptance of Ethnic cleansing by the Americans.
That is the opposite of "salvaging".
Right? The point is, don't do half measures when you can do full measures. Its trying to pretend to be a democracy that cares about liberty and self determination gets in the way of getting the job of spreading your affluence done.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I prefer we not do full measures when it comes to ethnic cleansing.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I prefer we not do full measures when it comes to ethnic cleansing.
I'm not quite saying that. I am saying that the effort of the United States to act according to its interests while following a soft or Doublethink / Doublespeak about the operation is what doomed itself from the start and the half measures is from trying to achieve the contradiction of accomplishing both or at least pretending to give lipservice to both when either it should have gone full Liberty or full Affluence, if the latter they simply should have fully supporting Iraqi sectarianism and backed one side; or gone full liberty and tried a functional democracy not caring whether whoever gains control is a pliable puppet or not.
They tried to trade away a little security for a little liberty and achieved neither while losing both.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or we should have stayed out of it beyond managing our own borders. There is very little good we ever could have done in Iraq. Iraq has been broken for a very long time - at least WWI - and all we keep doing is smashing the picture up into smaller bits and hoping the big pieces will sell us oil.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Perhaps, but I'm operating under the assumption that even if one of us took the alias of John Titor and travelled back to the year 2000 in time to "warn" people about the disaster of Iraq the democrats would still need balls surgically implanted within them you'ld be laughed off as an Un-American nutjob who hates America and HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE OUR PRESIDENT DO YOU NOT RESPECT THE HIGH AND HOLY SACRED OFFICE!? And there's nothing you can do but hope you can take out both Cheney and Bush and make it look like a hard far right false flag operation.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There's a more insidious dynamic at work in this politics as well, which helps to understand why the reparations idea suddenly has spread so widely through mainstream political discourse. We are in one of those rare moments in American history -- like the 1880s and 1890s and the Great Depression -- when common circumstances of economic and social insecurity have strengthened the potential for building broad solidarity across race, gender and other identities around shared concerns of daily life, concerns that only the minority of comfortable and well-off can dismiss in favor of monuments and apologies and a politics of psychobabble. Concerns like access to quality health care, the right to a decent and dignified livelihood, affordable housing, quality education for all. These are objectives that can be pursued effectively only by struggling to unite a wide section of the American population who experience those concerns most acutely, the substantial majority of this population who have lost those essential social benefits or live in fear of losing them. And isn't it interesting that at such a moment the corporate-dominated opinion-shaping media discover and project a demand for racially defined reparations that cuts precisely against building such solidarity?
Separated from the conspiracy-theoretic subtext, which I disagree with, I have some sympathy for the idea that the left is shooting itself in the foot with a focus on divisive issues.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: From the NYTs,
"...militants turned over the bodies of Shiite civilians they had killed, only to bomb the cemetery during their funerals, according to one account."
Look, murdering people at all is messed up. But that's like another order of magnitude out from messed up.
Yeah, what kind of monster would bomb civilians at a funeral ? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: From the NYTs,
"...militants turned over the bodies of Shiite civilians they had killed, only to bomb the cemetery during their funerals, according to one account."
Look, murdering people at all is messed up. But that's like another order of magnitude out from messed up.
Yeah, what kind of monster would bomb civilians at a funeral ?
You won't see me cuddling up to our drone strike policies. That's seriously messed up too.
edit: In this instance though there's the added nefariousness of pretending to charitably give the bodies of people you've murdered to their loved ones so you can murder them too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Perhaps, but I'm operating under the assumption that even if one of us took the alias of John Titor and travelled back to the year 2000 in time to "warn" people about the disaster of Iraq the democrats would still need balls surgically implanted within them you'ld be laughed off as an Un-American nutjob who hates America and HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE OUR PRESIDENT DO YOU NOT RESPECT THE HIGH AND HOLY SACRED OFFICE!? And there's nothing you can do but hope you can take out both Cheney and Bush and make it look like a hard far right false flag operation.
Yes. I am well aware that stopping the 2003 invasion was impossible. But we have been breaking things in the Iraq for much longer than that. I am convinced that the best we can do is to just stop.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: It's true that they probably felt an extra twinge of betrayal in the split second between hearing the bomb go off and before they died.
However, you can probably appreciate from the outside it doesn't really make a big difference which monster has a slightly less shiny coat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: The analogy is more than imperfect if the bombed out ruin is going away on its own. I believe racism in this country is declining, especially among the younger generations (anyone 30 and under). And by the time those generations are the legislators and law enforcement officers, racism should be effectively gone from the system. IMHO, obviously.
How many years in the future does this opinion think america would be accurately able to say that there's no racism in the system?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah, I as reading about that. They want oil from North East Iraq, and it looks like the Kurds are going to control that.
Looks like we're going to get this prediction tested.
quote: Isis insurgents in Iraq have seized several northwestern enclaves from Kurd control, prompting Syrian Kurdish fighters to cross the Iraqi border in an attempt to fend off the assault. Forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as Isis, began the attack late on Saturday, seizing control of majority Kurdish towns and territory that includes an oilfield and access to the Mosul dam. Dozens of Kurdish peshmerga fighters were reportedly killed. The fall of the towns marks the first time that Kurds have lost territory to Isis forces and delivers a blow to Kurdish fighters who had argued that they were more capable of defending the country than the Iraqi army, which let much of the north fall into Isis's hands in June.
This has been going around my social media sites pretty heavily. Hatrack Liberals: Rebuttal?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If he cared that much about it he would have secured a Status of Forces Agreement before he left office.
For that matter, Obama TRIED to establish one with Maliki, but Maliki wanted a huge troop commitment that Obama (and the American People) were unwilling to give.
And had Bush not more or less installed Maliki into power, this mess may never have happened. He almost single handedly wrecked years of progress.
Still, I think Obama has bungled things in Iraq. Not because of the troop issue, but he should have been keeping a closer watch and taken proactive measures sooner.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
say who was it who signed the agreement with Iraq for the date that we left anyway
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hmm
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Iraq and U.S. agree that all U.S. forces will withdraw "no later than December 31, 2011." On November 17, 2008, US and Iraqi officials signed a Security Agreement, often referred to as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), stating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011." The agreement also called for all U.S. combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities "no later than June 30, 2009." [U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, 11/17/08]
Bush praised agreement as "another sign of progress." Calling the SOFA "another sign of progress," President Bush said in a November 27, 2008, statement, "The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq." [whitehouse.gov, 11/27/08]
Bush signed SOFA, which "lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq." In a press conference at the signing of the SOFA, President Bush commented: "We're also signing a Security Agreement, sometimes called a Status of Forces Agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq's democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq -- a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge." Bush later commented: "There are certain benchmarks that will be met -- such as troops out of the cities by June of '09. And then there's a benchmark at the end of the agreement. As to the pace of meeting those agreements, that will depend of course upon the Iraqi government, the recommendations of the Iraqi military, and the close coordination between General Odierno and our military." [whitehouse.gov, 12/14/08]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Can't watch the video, maybe they block viewers from Canada?
But I would say the "chilling warning" would probably seem a whole lot less prescient to those who thought the whole invading Iraq thing would be a mess from the get-go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Can't watch the video, maybe they block viewers from Canada?
But I would say the "chilling warning" would probably seem a whole lot less prescient to those who thought the whole invading Iraq thing would be a mess from the get-go.
Indeed.
That's one of the most written comments after someone posts this video.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You can just as easily find quotes by Dick Cheney talking about why invading and attempting state building in Iraq would be a terrible idea while he was in the George H. W. Bush administration.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: here is my serious response: i would start with reading the Atlantic's "Blind into Baghdad" - then follow it by reading matt taibi's "the great Iraq swindle"
like, i do not want to summarize either. there's no tl;dr here. you gotta sit down and absorb those two particular pieces in order.. not skim.
once you have done so, i won't have to summarize what i consider the extent of the crime we committed to Iraq. even taking the time for filling in data about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the power vacuum is superfluous.
let me know what you think.
I just read "Blind Into Baghdad". Great read. I'm really glad you shared that.
Between that and the reparations article you posted, does The Atlantic always have such high quality articles? I'm considering getting a subscription if that's the case.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, they do.
The Atlantic is fantastic.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Something else to read about--The invasion of Lebanon by Israel circa 1982. I'm reading an old text book, "The Longest War" just to clean it out of my bookcase, and it describes the war as follows:
1) A great Democracy is attacked by terrorists.
2) Militaristic Hawk in the government uses fear and lies to point at another country as the source of that terrorism. More than reports of what those in the country have done is exaggerated theories of what those in that country can do, and are planning to do.
3) After a lot of press manipulation, and help from politicians seeking a bump in their polls, this country commits its first foreign invasion of a sovereign state that did not attack it first.
4) The war goes very well for the Democracy. They have the advantage in technology, discipline, training, and tactics. With almost complete air superiority the 2nd country is defeated militarily.
5) Cities are left in ruins. Many more civilians die than are reported to the people at home.
6) Volunteers and selfless people in the Democracy rush in to fix and repair the damage done, but it doesn't help.
7) The defeated, seeking some solace and pride, create resistance groups and guerrilla armies. While the Democracies citizen soldiers--untrained in the arts of making peace, try to build and repair and win hearts and minds, their more aggressive comrades continue violently proving their dominance.
8) Once the enemy armies are conquered the Democracy's army is left to occupy the country. The army is not happy with this role, the soldiers are not happy with this role, the people of both countries are not happy with this role, but no one can find a way out.
9) The occupying country eventually, after years and thousands of deaths, decides to pack its bags and go home.
10) When they leave a more aggressive, intelligent, and dangerous terrorist organization moves in. It knows how to occupy a territory, providing basic services and goodies with one hand, and providing terror to any detractors with the other.
Was the invasion of Lebanon by Israel a road map for the invasion of Iraq by the US? Does Sharon = Cheney? Southern Lebanon ended up with Hamas. Northern Iraq ended up with ISL/ISIS. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Begin and Hezbollah, not Sharon and Hamas.
Edit: I see you compared him to Cheney, not Bush. In that case I guess Sharon is more accurate.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks for not disappointing.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
ooh ooh me! pick me! i know!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)