I don't know if I believe in God, but I'm praying for the families of these people just in case.
[ March 31, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure why we're blaming Bush for this one.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Look here. Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I think you might be misplacing blame for this.
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
It's so graphic my browser is saying "This page can't be displayed" Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Okay fine.
I was just assigning general blame for them being there in the first place.
But honestly, does it really matter?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If it didn't matter you wouldn't have posted in the first place, at least not with the title you posted it under.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it matters a great deal.
The issue is not that our people are dying over there. The issue is whether they are dying for a REASON.
If what we're doing in Iraq is for the long-term good, it frankly doesn't MATTER much that a few hundred soldiers and a couple dozen American civilians gave up their lives; it's still worth it.
If what we're doing in Iraq is NOT for the long-term good, even ONE dead -- even one dead IRAQI -- isn't worth it.
So harping about casualties is pointless regardless of which way you look at it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm not sure why we're blaming Bush for this one.
Presumably because they wouldn't have done this had we not invaded their country. When you invade a country and the people of that country strike back against you, you can't claim total innocence.
I'm not sure why the death of four Americans would be cause to reevaluate, though, when we've already overlooked the hundreds and thousands of dead Iraqis resulting from Bush's decision.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Presumably because they wouldn't have done this had we not invaded their country.
just as long as you recognize that was a presumption.
[ March 31, 2004, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The link that you posted doesn't say that the american killed was part of the military. It could have been a reporter, some guy on vacation, etc. Meaning that he might have been there anyway.
[ March 31, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: luthe ]
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
They were civilian contractors.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
My *opinion* is that it was not worth the price we have paid, are paying, and will continue to pay for years to come just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games.
It might have been worth that price to round up Al-Quaida (sp?) cells around the world and find a way to make Islam our ally against terrorism in general.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My *opinion* is that it was not worth the price we have paid, are paying, and will continue to pay for years to come just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games.
So your problem isn't with the price but the perceived benefit?
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
A question of worth inevitably involves a cost/benefit analysis, Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course, but many protestors have made it clear that the cost is too high for almost anything. I was trying to clarify your position.
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Well you failed, because my problem is with the price AND the 'perceived' benefit.
It seems like you're trying to play the Geoff Card (pun intended): trying to make me look suicidally squeamish.
If we could have toppled Saddam Hussein without a two-year plus massive committment of troops and without having to fight portions of the citizenry itself, I might have considered it worth the cost. Unfortunately the Bush administration convinced Congress that the threat Iraq posed was too imminent to explore the avenues that might have made that possible. That, of course, turned out not to be true.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
John
Do you value the lives of Americans more than those of citizens of Iraq?
The fact that the populace is allowed to practice thier religion freely now, are allowed to voice thier disapproval with thing, that the economy is growing by leaps and bounds, shows that some things are working.
Was WWII worth the cost? We could have just let Hitler have Europe.
msquared
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
*takes this opportunity to point out for the hundredth time that we have had a continuous and uninterrupted presence of troops, significant enough to cause "stop-loss" and the recall of seperated troops (i.e., people who had left the military being pressed back into service) in that region for over 13 years now*
[ March 31, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
ah there has been extreme anti-americanism in that region long before we invaded. Its horrible yes, but what about all of the iraqis that were killed by their own government, don't we also mourn for them?
edit: learn to speel.
[ March 31, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: HollowEarth ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Apparently not. Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Unfortunately the Bush administration convinced Congress that the threat Iraq posed was too imminent to explore the avenues..."
Right..because diplomacy and sanctions did a whole lot of good over the past decade. The Hussien DICTATORSHIP contunually defied the UN and the world over the past ten yearsand and actively tortured it's citizenry. Do you really think that there was any point to continuing to negotiate with that regime? Please... And another thing. It can be argued that the real benefit in invading Iraq was to put other outlaw regimes on notice that America IS still capable to backing up all it's talk. That kind of currency can not be measured in the here and now. But if our actions influence other nations who harbor terrorist institutions to reevaluate (sp?) their stance, then it was soooo worth it. I mean wasn't there alot of talk/propoganda being spouted by the Al Queda and others about how "lazy and impotent" the Americans are? This was one way to answer that question definitivly. Sadaam had stuck out his neck too far so we cut it off. And there was much rejoiceing, by some. Those in positions of power in Iraq, and countries who had financial investments there cried foul. Of course they did, it was not in THIER best interests. Citizens of America, mostly those with someting political to gain, protested aswell. Again in THIER best interests to criticise the current administrtion. I, for one do think that the invasion was in AMERICAS best interests, and that is what matter to me.
And this most recent display of hostility and desicration does bother me greatly. I just can't imagine being motivated to such barbary. It is one thing to kill, but this is reminescent (sp?) of the middle-ages. But worth it? Yep. Soldiers are paid to risk thier lives. It is their job and they signed a contract that they honor. Not that I am unsympathetic. I have friends there like I am sure many of you do and I pray for them. Killing civilians like this is horrid but I have to beleive that and civilians in Iraq are there of their own accord and at their own risk aswell.
[ March 31, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I wonder how many of those Iraqs would really have done that if totally on their own -- and how many (especially the young ones) were just sucked in by the "gang mentality" at the moment.
Farmgirl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well you failed, because my problem is with the price AND the 'perceived' benefit.
It seems like you're trying to play the Geoff Card (pun intended): trying to make me look suicidally squeamish.
Well, it seemed like you were trying to deliberately misstate what the perceived benefit was, and I wanted to clarify that that’s really what you were saying before I called you on it. But never mind.
Dagonee Edit: As in, I was going to point out why "just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games" is a gross simplification of what's at stake here. Which has nothing to do with squeamishness (as they are related to costs). Seems you're pretty bad at the mind-reading necessary to pre-dismiss others' positions.
[ March 31, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The town/area mentioned in the article is the site of an incident in which US soldiers fired into a threatening crowd. I'm sure they were justified in doing so, so please don't dogpile over this. But the point is that the place's name has become a rallying cry for insurgents who are actually using it to recruit new members to fight us.
Ultimately, the goal of having a western-friendly, pro-democracy government in Iraq is a worthy one. Whether we can achieve it depends on our determination and on our actions toward the Iraqi people. We have to be steady and unflappable even in the face of barbaric actions like the displaying of burned corpses of Americans.
Just as we have to remain undeterred in the face of new terrorist attacks here at home.
If we become brutal in return (i.e., if we allow our soldiers to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians and go unpunished, for example -- again, I'm not saying that happened, it's just how the Iraqi's perceive the incident), then we blow the chance we have to make something good here.
I trust our military to do the right thing here. I'm not sure I trust our leaders, though. That remains to be seen. Bush has been quick to do things that seem retaliatory in nature.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Do you value the lives of Americans more than those of citizens of Iraq?
Sort of. Not really an important question, if you ask me.
quote:The fact that the populace is allowed to practice thier religion freely now, are allowed to voice thier disapproval with thing, that the economy is growing by leaps and bounds, shows that some things are working.
All mostly true. But I didn't say that nothing was working there at all.
quote:Was WWII worth the cost? We could have just let Hitler have Europe.
*yawn*
Yes, I think it's important that we act immediately to stop despots from invading other countries in their pursuit to take over the world and shape it to their own designs. In what way is this analagous to 2002 post-Iraq 1.0?
quote:ah there has been extreme anti-americanism in that region long before we invaded. Its horrible yes, but what about all of the iraqis that were killed by their own government, don't we also mourn for them?
Yes, we do. This is one of those things that the administration uses to sell the importance of Iraq 2.0. But the urgency and ultimate legitimacy of Iraq 2.0 was sold to Congress and the rest of the world for self-defense reasons, not humanitarian ones. That's the reason not everyone participated in Iraq 2.0: because not everyone agreed that it was an urgent battle for self-defense. The whole world felt it was important to keep Iraq in check because of Saddam's previous sins and obvious propensity for evil-doing. Not everyone agreed that the way to do that was to roll right into baghdad with tanks. In fact MOST of the world's citizens did not agree with that. I personally gave the President the benefit of the doubt because he sounded so damn sure that Al-Quaeda could easily pick up a nuke at the Hussein palace and drive Saddam's SUV right up to the White House.
Turns out President Bush was either exaggerating, misinformed, or lying.
quote:Well, it seemed like you were trying to deliberately misstate what the perceived benefit was, and I wanted to clarify that that’s really what you were saying before I called you on it. But never mind.
Dagonee Edit: As in, I was going to point out why "just to have somewhere other than Saudi Arabia for America to hold its cards in the mideast games" is a gross simplification of what's at stake here. Which has nothing to do with squeamishness (as they are related to costs). Seems you're pretty bad at the mind-reading necessary to pre-dismiss others' positions.
*shrugs*
This is why I used the words *opinion* and *perceived* in my posts. I refer to what I perceive to be the real endgame of the Bush Administration. In my opinion. I don't buy the idea that Iraq was crucial to the War on Terror unless you are, as I said, making a place for yourself to hold your cards in the mideast that ISN'T Saudi Arabia, since that is where our most dangerous of enemies are bred and fed, even though they are technically an "ally".
[ April 01, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
A bunch of psychos kill some innocent people and you Blame Bush? And your reasoning is 'because they were there'?
That's absurd. If I get shot at work tonite by some damned nutbag, I hope no one excuses the murderer on the grounds of "Well, Dave chose to live in this town. If he hadn't been here, it wouldn't have happened."
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, if you blow up someone's house, and then that person comes back and attacks you, I'd say you are somewhat to blame for being attacked.
It's not like these people just randomly attacked our people because they happened to be standing there. They attacked our people because we invaded their country.
[ March 31, 2004, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Not everyone agreed that the way to do that was to roll right into baghdad with tanks. In fact MOST of the world's citizens did not agree with that.
What MOST of the world thinks is pretty close to irrelevent. Its what Americans think about our actions.
Yes we need the rest of the world, and an effort was made to include them. To go through the "proper" channels and have the UN handle it. They chose not to support it, but america chose to invade. Since we invaded anyway this is just saying "I told you so."
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:What MOST of the world thinks is pretty close to irrelevent. Its what Americans think about our actions.
Heh. That's cute, dude.
Not to raise Godwin from the dead, but should the Germans of the 1930's have thought that only German opinions mattered on invading Czechslovakia?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bzzzzt. Try again.
Seems to me the Germans got the cooperation of the rest of the world in removing Czechslovakia's defendable border, making the invasion trivial.
Dagonee
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
We have plenty of targets, dude. How about Poland? The Soviet Union?
Plus, it's not as though you answered my question. Even if the rest of the world had opposed Germany's invasion, should Germans have counted only German opinions as those worth paying attention to? Smacks of arrogant -- and damn idiotic -- masturbatory attempts at elitist pseudo-patriotism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And what if Britain had decided not to cave at Munich and had lived up to its alliance obligations to the Czechs, contrary to the opinion of the rest of the world? They had a bigger, more capable army at the time and could possibly have nipped things in the bud. World support does not equal correctness.
You're the one who made an invalid comparison - don't complain to me.
43 nations supported the invasion of Iraq. You tell me what the magic number is.
Dagonee
[ March 31, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:And what if Britain had decided not to cave at Munich and had lived up to its alliance obligations to the Czechs, contrary to the opinion of the rest of the world? They had a bigger, more capable army at the time and could possibly have nipped things in the bud. World support does not equal correctness.
You're the one who made an invalid comparison - don't complain to me.
Yes, because making a comparison with another invasion the world largely opposed is invalid -- unlike, say, comparing an invasion with holding to a peace treaty.
Heh.
quote:43 nations supported the invasion of Iraq. You tell me what the magic number is.
Dagonee
I love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war while we were able to enlist the aid of, what, Australia? And that's one of the most impressive names on that list, to my knowledge.
Though I just love how we got some of the support for that war. Bribing Turkey's government to ignore the will of, what was it, 98% of its people so we could use their military bases was a really classy move. Shows our respect for democracy when it disagrees with us.
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
Besides murdering more Arabs than any other person in the history of the world, Saddam Hussein really did support terrorism in a big way. Abdul Rahman, the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing, was given sanctuary in Baghdad after being indicted by the US. Abu Abbas, who organized the Achille Lauro hijacking, was arrested in Iraq by US troops last April. The PLF, ANO, and other radical groups have been training in state run camps in Iraq for years. And of course, we cannot forget the cash incentives that Saddam offered to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Even if Saddam was not directly linked with Al Queda (a claim that the recent bombings in Spain have put into question) it seems clear that he was a major supporter of international terrorism and an important target in the War on Terror. After all, there were no Nazis in the planes that bombed Pearl Harbor, but nobody seemed upset when we included them in our retaliation.
The fact that these journalists were murdered just shows how important it is that this region move out of the dark ages and enter the modern world. And as for the claim that it was Bush, and not fanatic Islamists who are responsible for the deaths of these contractors, I can't help but laugh. By that logic, nobody should try to get rid of bears because they're more dangerous when wounded than when unharmed.
[ March 31, 2004, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Bartleby147 ]
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
" love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war..."
Dade, didn't I read somewhere that both Russia and France had large financial investments (Oil interests for France, and arms dealing for Russia as I recall) that were lost or put in jeopardy by our invasion of Iraq? Dosn't this make you question their motives for not supporting our actions b/c it clearly was not in their financial best interests? Not that I blame them. All countries do and should do what is best for their country. However I don't think that us going ahead without their support was wrong if you understand where their reasoning is coming from.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:By that logic, nobody should try to get rid of bears because they're more dangerous when wounded than when unharmed.
We are getting rid of bears now?? Wha' happen?
fil
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
quote: We are getting rid of bears now?? Wha' happen?
Maybe not the best example. But, hypothetically, if there were a big ole' grizzly bear terrorizing my village and eating the livestock and killing all the people, I would want to do what it took to get rid of him. Even though I would know that in the short term, he was more dangerous injured, in the long term my village would certainly be better off without this evil killer bear running around mauling people.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Dade, didn't I read somewhere that both Russia and France had large financial investments (Oil interests for France, and arms dealing for Russia as I recall) that were lost or put in jeopardy by our invasion of Iraq? Dosn't this make you question their motives for not supporting our actions b/c it clearly was not in their financial best interests? Not that I blame them. All countries do and should do what is best for their country. However I don't think that us going ahead without their support was wrong if you understand where their reasoning is coming from.
If you're gonna start saying France and Russia only opposed the war out of financial concerns (despite all their claims to the contrary), then we should be fair and also just say the U.S. only invaded Iraq to get oil. Because both are pretty clearly not true.
[ April 01, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Yeah, it's completely irrelevant what the rest of the world thinks. Sounds like a good way to make Islamic fanatics hate you even more, if you ask me.
And I was one of those all-important Americans who supported Iraq 2.0 when I believed that Bush was being honest about the imminent danger that the nation threatened to our security...
I would still be supportive of Iraq 2.0 if we had stockpiles of WMD to show that we were justified in our urgency to invade.
All these other reasons are great, guys, but what you're doing is apologizing for Bush's failure to accomplish the stated objective of Iraq 2.0. Funny thing is, I *may* have even supported an Iraq 2.0 that was justified on humanitarian reasons IF BUSH HAD BEEN CANDID ABOUT HIS REASONS FOR THE INVASION. If you tell my family members who are in the service "we have an obligation to turn Iraq into a peaceful 'democratic' nation for this reason that reason and the other reason, and this is how we're going to do it and this is the sacrifices we'll need from you and in the end we'll meet the following objectives" and then turn around and make THAT case to the rest of the world... then and only then would your reasoning hold any water for me.
Instead America said "we get to do what we want, you're either with us or against us Iraq has got to go because they could have nuclear weapons next week, and we know where the WMD are, they're buried around Tikrit (North, East, South, & West, somewhat) here's the evidence and it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with us because Saddam is a bad man anyway".
On top of that, we put it in the form of an ultimatum. You're either with us or against us. Ally or Enemy.
Later, the administration continued to make the same case: The United States will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.
Please don't try and make excuses for Bush by muddying the waters with this humanitarian crap. Bush was selected to office after having campaigned on a more ISOLATIONIST foreign policy, not a nation-building one. Iraq 2.0 was supposed to be about WMD. The fact that it was really about spreading democracy and having a non-Saudi nation in the mideast to treat as our backyard is part of PROBLEM with Iraq 2.0, not part of the justification.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote: Heh. That's cute, dude.
Did you even read the rest of my post? We decided to act alone, and at that point the only people the american government is directly responsible to are the citizens that it represents. Should we take into consideration what other countries think? Yes, without doubt we should. My point wasn't that their opinions aren't important but that the prior point raised does change what we did and didn't change it before we did it. So the prior point that I was responding to is just finger pointing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, because making a comparison with another invasion the world largely opposed is invalid -- unlike, say, comparing an invasion with holding to a peace treaty.
Heh.
No - Britain VIOLATED a peace treaty and a mutual protection treaty by giving ANOTHER country's land to an aggressor. And the land they gave was crucial to Czech defense, which allowed Germany to invade unopposed.
I suppose it's easy to buy peace with other people's lives for you, isn't it?
quote:I love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war while we were able to enlist the aid of, what, Australia? And that's one of the most impressive names on that list, to my knowledge.
Though I just love how we got some of the support for that war. Bribing Turkey's government to ignore the will of, what was it, 98% of its people so we could use their military bases was a really classy move. Shows our respect for democracy when it disagrees with us.
Russia's a "usual" ally? I forgot about that cold war thingy and all the help they gave in Bosnia - you know, that war that France and Germany agreed with but most of the rest of the world opposed?
And you get to decide what countries' opinions are worthy? I noticed you failed to mention Britain on that list. Give it a rest. Two of the "allies" you mentioned were making a lot of money off Sadaam. Both of them pressed to continue sanctions after Sadaam was ousted because they make money off the sanctions.
43 nations is not ignoring the rest of the world, nor is it acting unilaterally.
I still wait to hear what number of nations would be enough for you. Or are we supposed to get unanimity?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Please don't try and make excuses for Bush by muddying the waters with this humanitarian crap. Bush was selected to office after having campaigned on a more ISOLATIONIST foreign policy, not a nation-building one. Iraq 2.0 was supposed to be about WMD. The fact that it was really about spreading democracy and having a non-Saudi nation in the mideast to treat as our backyard is part of PROBLEM with Iraq 2.0, not part of the justification.
If you are going to judge the war, you have to judge ALL the effects of the war, those central to the core justification and those peripheral to it.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think Tom is right. The answer to the thread's title question depends on two things. One, what outcome do you think the war will have? Two, what are you willing to accept to achieve that outcome? Many people on both sides of the issue have pre-determined answers to both those questions, which tends to make the first question's answer obvious.
----------
Tresopax,
quote:Presumably because they wouldn't have done this had we not invaded their country. When you invade a country and the people of that country strike back against you, you can't claim total innocence.
I'm not sure why the death of four Americans would be cause to reevaluate, though, when we've already overlooked the hundreds and thousands of dead Iraqis resulting from Bush's decision.(Italicization mine)
I'm going to call you on the words I've italicized. The 'people' of Iraq struck back at Americans? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? Given that most of the insurgents are either former Hussein military personnel or foreign newcomers, I think it is. Secondly, this happened in Fallujah (sp?). You know what that city is known for, among other things? It's known for one: most benefitting from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and two: for being most worried about the majority in Iraq coming to power.
It would be more accurate to say "when the people of the city that gained the most and have the most to lose from American victory" strike back at us.
quote:It's not like these people just randomly attacked our people because they happened to be standing there. They attacked our people because we invaded their country.
And if we weren't there, they'd be brutally oppressing the majority of Iraq, growing fat and wealthy from the blood of their own countrymen.
I'm just saying that one possible assumption this quote of yours makes, that those people would be peaceful, productive citizens, is utterly incorrect. -----
JohnKeats,
quote:It might have been worth that price to round up Al-Quaida (sp?) cells around the world and find a way to make Islam our ally against terrorism in general.
There is something to be said for gathering much of international terrorism into Iraq to face (largely) Allied military. I'm kind of on the fence on that one, though, and that was not what I wanted out of the war to begin with anyway.
And while your latter point is a laudable goal, I have to ask everyone who says this: how? The typical answer is either "I don't know" or "Well this certainly isn't how". I'm curious what you think would work.
I agree with you that the original justification of the war was mishandled. But I mean that differently than most people, I think. I don't think that the proper response to Hussein's mocking and obstruction of weapons inspections teams was to keep doing the same thing that was already being met with noncooperation and obstruction. I do think that WMD should not have been the thing America needed to get off its duff and do something.
------
Ed,
quote:Not to raise Godwin from the dead, but should the Germans of the 1930's have thought that only German opinions mattered on invading Czechslovakia?
You know what's cuter? This ridiculous comparison. Let's see...comparing Nazi aggression to Gulf War 2, that's one ridiculous comparison. Two, comparing people who dismiss world opinion to Nazis, that's another one. Now that's cute. The answer to your question is "no" since there was no real world government, then or now. Germans should not have based their decisions and approval or lack thereof on world opinion.
Put Godwin back until you're able to use him with some semblance of coherence:) "masturbatory attempts at elitist pseudo-patriotism"? Who are you strutting for?
quote:I love hearing this. You don't think it's at all significant that our usual allies such as France, Germany, and Russia all opposed this war while we were able to enlist the aid of, what, Australia? And that's one of the most impressive names on that list, to my knowledge.
Who says France and Russia are our usual allies? You? Also, you can't on the one hand say, "We should consider world opinion," but when we have over two score allied nations, in the same breath say, "Well they don't count." It's on the one hand insulting to those nations, and on the other hand it's hypocritical.
Heh. (This is what people do when they want to say they're so much smarter than the idiot they're arguing with, and it's actually silly they're stooping to their level. Isn't it?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
John,
I agree with your frustration-to use a milder term-with Bush's flip-flopping on reasons for the war. While humanitarian reasons were mentioned prior to the war, by no means were they the heavy-hitting reasons. Now it seems to be reversed.
And 'selected'? Come on, he won that election. The frigging Chicago Herald (I forget the exact name) did its own recount and had Bush winning over Gore in Florida.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:If you are going to judge the war, you have to judge ALL the effects of the war, those central to the core justification and those peripheral to it.
And I believe I've done just that. The humanitarian crap is all fine and dandy. I approve of it... sortof. As in, I suppose many Iraqis are better off today than they were two years ago.
I assure you thousands of them are not.
And I'm not convinced that was worth the price we've paid and they've paid and all of us seem to be bound to pay for an indefinite amount of time into the future.
Those "peripheral" objectives might have been accomplished in any number of several different ways if we had not started the war on the "main" objective. It's hard to say, seeing as how Iraq 2.0 was pitched as self-defense when in fact it really wasn't.
[ April 01, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Rakeesh, regardless of whether or not Bush actually received more Florida votes than Gore (and I doubt that any one source can really give you a definitive answer to that question because of the insane circumstances that surrounded FL '00) President Bush was selected by the Supreme Court to be the President of the United States, so my verbiage is correct.
[ April 01, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
John,
Yes, strictly speaking you're correct. I should've been more specific. I was talking about the assumption that usually goes along with that choice of words, that Bush was incorrectly 'selected' to be POTUS. Usually it is assumed-incorrectly-that Bush did not win the Florida vote, and that therefore his selection was wrongfully made. That's what I meant, and say what you will about the circumstances in Florida (I agree, it was nuts, I live here), there have been scores of sources who said Bush won Florida's electoral votes, and none I've heard of who said Gore won more votes in Florida than Bush.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As in, I suppose many Iraqis are better off today than they were two years ago.
I assure you thousands of them are not.
My original reaosn for supporting the war was that we should have done it the first time. Taking out a dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors and killed thousands of his citizens is a good thing. When weighed against the costs, it becomes clear that Iraq is in a far different category than most dictatorships.
As for the thousands who are not better off now, I'm not going to dispute that. I would bet most people in the country ARE better off when you factor in the constant possibility of brutality from Sadaam's regime.
The issue of whether Bush lied is a different issue from whether the war was justified, and should not be minimized. But it does not change the basic equation that the world is better for Sadaam not being in power any more.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But it's a very important thing to question motives. I'm making no moral comparisons here (though undoubtedly some people have made a similar comparison), when a crime-figure sponsors an orphanage or a playground or something, I don't just say, "Well the world's a better place."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rakeesh, regardless of whether or not Bush actually received more Florida votes than Gore (and I doubt that any one source can really give you a definitive answer to that question because of the insane circumstances that surrounded FL '04) President Bush was selected by the Supreme Court to be the President of the United States, so my verbiage is correct.
Only if you would be willing to say the same thing about Gore had he prevailed in the court cases he initiated to seek repeated recounts until he got the result he wanted. Especially when you consider the election board attempted to change the rules for how votes were counted AFTER the election.
The Supreme Court did not select Bush. They ruled against blatant post-election attempts to change the results.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The issue of whether Bush lied is a different issue from whether the war was justified, and should not be minimized. But it does not change the basic equation that the world is better for Sadaam not being in power any more.
Then lets just make sure we don't use the fact that the "war was necessary" to prove that Bush was great or right.
I'm just sayin'.
I think the war was probably necessary, but I still think the way that the Bush administration handled it was crappy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree. But the topic of THIS thread is, "Was it worth it?"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I repeat.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag:
The question of whether the world is safer without Saddam is nearly irrelevant to my objections to Iraq 2.0. My problem is that I would have preferred an Iraq 1.5 (whatever that means), or at least have 2.0 turn out to have been about what we said it was about, thereby maintaining our credibility among the peoples of the world and my faith in leadership here at home.
Rakeesh:
Fair enough to point out that "selected" usually means "didn't win". For future reference I don't make any assertions about who won how many votes in Florida '00. And I generally don't believe anyone who does. The little amount of research I've done on the debacle leads me to believe that I don't have any reason to trust anyone about any recounts. The Supreme Court decision itself is enough for me to find the circumstances of his (election, if you prefer) objectionable enough to warrant the occasional selection verbiage.
[ April 01, 2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The notion that Iraq is better off without Saddam is predicated on the notion that it will now have a democratic government, and not just another tyrannical government or just plain anarachy for years and years. At the moment, with terrorism and tribal conflict, this is very much in question.
The notion that the world is better off is predicated on the idea that Saddam is more of a threat than the support for terrorism that our preemptive strike will create. Given that we could fairly easily contain Saddam, and that he had no WMDs to hand out, and that we are having a much more difficult time stopping terrorism, this assumption is very much in question too.
We must also consider the possibility that by taking out Saddam, we simply handed extremism another country to take over.
[ April 01, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Here is something I have heard little discussion on in the news, president, and elsewhere. It is my personal justification.
Cry all you want "No blood for oil," but if oil is the blood of democracy, and an enemy of America has one of the richest supplies of oil, I think we should enter a new age of colonialism.
Having a "sweaty toothed crazy mad man" in charge of the Iraqi oil is downright scary to me. Us striking also re-asserts our strength and sends a message that we "can and will topple you."
I think the ripple effects of this war will be positive. I think the majority of the Iraqis are thankful. I think now that the schools will have a western influence, then the children will not grow up with blind hatred that dances on corpses.
Granted, there are other oil rich countries that we could attack, but Saddam gave us a precedent. I think our actions are ringing all the way to North Korea in our favor.
We just better win and not pull out and leave the freedom loving people alone to be rounded up-- like we did in Iraq 1.0.
[ April 01, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Us striking also re-asserts our strength and sends a message that we "can and will topple you."
That was the terrorist plan in 9/11 too.
The problem is that we think they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we should appease them," when in reality they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we must destroy them before they do." This is how we interpretted 9/11, and I see no reason to think that's not how other Arabic nations will interpret Iraq.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Caleb/John Keats,
For what it's worth I agree with what you are saying on this subject nearly 100%
AJ
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Good point Xaposert.
I hope we win, because it doesn't look like there is any other alternative at this point.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
For what it's worth, Banna, I appreciate it. Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Can anyone help me with this...
Back in Middle School, I had a math teacher who I really respected, say that we have already invented cars that get like 300 miles/gallon, but the government made it illegal because of what it would do to the world economy.
I heard that again in college from a professor who was smart, but I had less respect for.
Is this hick-town anti big government hype, or has anyone else heard about that?
Since oil is the best resource the Middle East has, and we are so dependent on oil, I think the solution to the Middle East is to introduce a world that needs MUCH LESS oil and let their economy starve unless they get better at production.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"The problem is that we think they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we should appease them," when in reality they will interpret it as "they can hurt us, so we must destroy them before they do." This is how we interpretted 9/11, and I see no reason to think that's not how other Arabic nations will interpret Iraq."
There are a few difference betwwen the events of 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion that makes this point invalid. First, 9/11 did little to our country as compared to the changes we have initiated in Iraq and Afghanistan (sp?). They sucker punched us, so we kicked the crap of them to show them we were not afraid to do so. This is the best way to handle a bully on the playground and these actions send completely different messages.
Second, they are not able to destroy us. I don't mean to sound cocky but it would take alot more than Al-queda and Iraq put together to actually take us out. And by us, I mean more than the US, I mean free democracies around the world. What they refer to as the incideuos west. They can hurt us by targeting our civilian populations, but militarily speaking there just is no way.
Third, we are not out to destroy them in the classical sense. We are there to remove certain violent aspects of their society. We do not want to change their religion or society except in that we wish to remove the aspects that are dangerous to us. And incidentally these are the same aspects that are dangerous to their own civilian populations. We want to destroy their terroist networks and infrastructure, not their people. This is a clearly stated goal and will be made more so when we eventually withdrawl from Iraq.
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
quote: The notion that the world is better off is predicated on the idea that Saddam is more of a threat than the support for terrorism that our preemptive strike will create. Given that we could fairly easily contain Saddam, and that he had no WMDs to hand out, and that we are having a much more difficult time stopping terrorism, this assumption is very much in question too.
That would be a very good argument for why we should focus on terrorism instead of unrelated military dicatorships. Except Saddam did support terrorism, and was thus a very important part of the war against terror.
Of course terrorism will increase in the short run after we start attacking terrorists. But in the long run, after Ba'athists in Syria and Iraq and radical mullahs in Iran have lost power, Islamic terrorism will stop being a threat on the scale that it was beforehand.
quote: We must also consider the possibility that by taking out Saddam, we simply handed extremism another country to take over.
If we do our job right creating a liberal democracy in Iraq, hopefully that won't happen.
[ April 01, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Bartleby147 ]
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Bartleby147, welcome to Hatrack!
I don't agree with the way you're constructing and/or overstressing connections between terrorism and Iraq. Going by your logic, I can easily construct just as many connections, or plenty more, between terrorism and the United States.
To me, the war on terrorism and the Iraq war are two completely different things. The current endless repetition of using the two in the same sentence is a great example of brainwashing; effective too, as many people have fallen into this trap.
The war on terror is one of the hardest wars ever fought. It is quite likely that it can never be "won". How can you choose to ignore the many, many expert voices out there who say that the war on terror was considerably weakened by the Iraq war?
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
Thank you for your very friendly welcome
I think I need to clarify my position. I think it’s not really terrorism that we’re currently fighting against. Terrorism is only the method that our enemies are using to achieve their goals, and it’s what the terrorists are trying to achieve that I’m so opposed to: a medieval state where the Koran is the only law and it’s a capitol offense to teach a girl to read.
For me, Saddam’s regime was just as odious as the new world order that Al Queda is trying to create, and must be combated (not necessarily militarily) just as resolutely. This is the reason that I don’t condemn the Jewish terrorists in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s as harshly as I do the Arab terrorists operating in Israel today. The Jews used terrorism as a means to create a liberal, democratic state where people of all races and religions are free to vote, run for office, and practice their religion freely. Conversely, the primary goal of groups like Hamas is to destroy Israel and replace it with a state in which it would be a crime not to be Muslim.
All that aside, Saddam really does have a very sordid history of supporting Islamist terrorism. He’s been giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for years as well as operating state-run training camps for the PLO. As much as I resent being misled by the Bush administration, I truly believe that replacing Saddam’s government with a liberal, free Iraq will have positive results for the region, the United States, and the world as a whole.
And as for your claim that the war in Iraq can never be won, I would cite the examples of Japan, Germany, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the other states in which America, after much battle and hardship, has been able to build real constitutions and democracies. It can be done; it’s been done before. So why should we doubt our ability to grant such a boon to a country that clearly needs it so dearly?
[ April 01, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Bartleby147 ]
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
Hey, sorry that the welcome wasn't friendlier! I was in a big rush. Still am, so just a quick clarification on my part:
I was saying that I think the "war on terror" is extremely hard to win (not necessarily the Iraq war; and again, to me these two are very different.) Just look at the long history of terror organizations like the IRA or ETA. Has any "war" against such groups ever really been successful? What I'm dreading most is the--hopefully remote--possibility of ALL those guys eventually coming together. Imagine a worldwide net of sleeper cells that's hitting at random with an ever increasing level of technological sophistication... The "war on terror" is an utterly difficult, hugely ambitious operation. It will take much more effort worldwide, not only of the US.
What's happening in Iraq (by the way, as far as I know the Hussein regime wasn't all that devoted to the Koran) is not only depriving the "war on terror" of badly needed resources, in my view it's actually strengthening the enemy in this "war on terror".
[ April 02, 2004, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Sal ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
This thread makes me want to vomit.
Can I ask a few questions?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Back in Middle School, I had a math teacher who I really respected, say that we have already invented cars that get like 300 miles/gallon, but the government made it illegal because of what it would do to the world economy.
I heard that again in college from a professor who was smart, but I had less respect for.
Is this hick-town anti big government hype, or has anyone else heard about that?
Nevermind the questions. I think the views and exchanges in this thread really deserve some reflection.
The wrinkly folds of even the brightest cerebrum can't warm some kinds of black-hearted callous rationalizing.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
rivka,
I don't get it. At all.
fallow
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
fallow, despite 50+ years of claims to the contrary, the reason why there are no cars that get 200 miles to the gallon is that they never existed. Not that some evil conspiracy of car-makers has suppressed them, or to prevent a collapse of the economy, or any other supposed reason.
quote: As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat.
A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch.
Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The person who can produce a 200+ MPG car will make more money off it than the oil companies will be able to bribe him with. Think of the potential savings not just to average drivers but to other business as well (long haul truckers, for example). Especially when you consider that at that efficiency, it might make generators cheaper than power off the grid (not sure - I'd have to run a lot of numbers I don't want to).
Dagonee
Posted by Bartleby147 (Member # 6149) on :
Wars against terrorist groups have definitely been won before. Magsaysay did it against the Huks in the Phillipines and the British did it against the Mai Mai in Kenya, to name a few examples. It's definitely hard, but I think that the United States has the resources to effectively win the war against Islamist terrorism. The question, like it was in Vietnam, is whether we have the willpower to see it through.
Although Saddam did support terrorism, it's true that his government was not a theocracy and was definitely not all that devoted to the Koran. But I think that replacing a dictatorship with a Western liberal democracy will be a great help in that war against Islamism. The new Iraqi state is a message to countries like Syria and Iran that says "yes, it's possible to be a devout Muslim and still embrace religious freedom and democracy. And what's more, if you do, your quality of life is going to be a whole heck of a lot better than it is under the mullahs and Assads." From what I've read, this is already starting to happen. Kurdish anti-Ba'ath protests have kicked up a few notches in Syria over the last few months in response to the liberation of the Kurds across the border in Syria.
When the Arab street sees a free, prosperous country right next door, how long do you think it will take before they start wondering why their countries don't look like that? How long do you think it will take before they start realizing that if the Iraqis can do it, they can too?
Fallow, what that has been said here makes you want to vomit? What do you disagree with?
[ April 02, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Bartleby147 ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Welcome Barlteby.
I disagree that the war in Iraq is an attack on Terrorism. That is unless you include states that terrorize their own people.
The donations Hussein made to PLO families have been rumored, but from everything I've seen, been very limited. Many Saudi Princes, Emir's and other leaders gave, and give more. There was never any PLO training camps in Iraq. There was one camp in Norther Iraq that did terrorist training, but this was in an area on the Iranian border, patroled by the US No-Fly Zone. Hussein had no way of either helping or hindering them.
Hussein did run a Secular state. He feared and imprisoned any clerical challengers since he did not run a Muslim government. Add that to his attacks and illegalization on anything Shiite' and you will see that he was Osama's --a strict Shia Muslim-- enemy.
There is a song that was popular on country stations shortly after 9/11. One line proudly states, "I don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran." I do not want the world to think that all Americans, especially those in our government feel the same.
Great amounts of resources went into toppling the dictator Hussein and removing this evil, repressive, cruel government. That is a good thing.
I am all far doing that.
But when the President of the US, or anyone else, says we did this as part of our war on terrorism, I cringe. Either they are lieing to us, or to themselves, or just repeating what others have said without knowing what is going on.
That is fine if you do that.
It is scary when anyone in the top levels of our government does that.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Back in Middle School, I had a math teacher who I really respected, say that we have already invented cars that get like 300 miles/gallon, but the government made it illegal because of what it would do to the world economy.
Didn't this happen in an episode of The Lone Gunmen?
[ April 02, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Rivka,
I'm still befuddled. I didn't get your post in the context of the other posts I was reading. I'm sure I missed something. Apologies for asking again as I'm probably being a dunderhead.
A little help?
fallow
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
fallow, look up a few posts. It refers to a question asked by Alexa.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)