I'm just talking about Americans, since the original post was formulated.
Globally, the historical reverberations will be lesser or greater depending on each nation's involvement. Obviously, the Iraq War, for Iraqis, will be a very big part of their history. But will Japanese grandchildren or Russian grandchildren focus much on this conflict? Unlikely.
Okay. I was singling out Robbie's comments on the global repercussions of the war, because I thought they needed attention. I follow where you're coming from, though.
As for your main point, all I can do is speculate wildly about how the geopolitical landscape will change in the next twenty years, so I can't really answer you to the contrary, with any definite argument. If things stay roughly as they are, then I'd say you're probably right.
But, if we listen to the odd prediction and imagine new, emergent superpowers in years to come, might these states find use for the middle east, in changing power structures? Who knows.
Okay. I was singling out Robbie's comments on the global repercussions of the war, because I thought they needed attention. I follow where you're coming from, though.
As for your main point, all I can do is speculate wildly about how the geopolitical landscape will change in the next twenty years, so I can't really answer you to the contrary, with any definite argument. If things stay roughly as they are, then I'd say you're probably right.
But, if we listen to the odd prediction and imagine new, emergent superpowers in years to come, might these states find use for the middle east, in changing power structures? Who knows.
Sure -- this is all speculative and we're both operating off of some core assumptions that may prove to be wildly incorrect.
The ultimate political lesson of the Iraq War is still the failure of intelligence. We went to war because we assumed that Iraq was a major threat to this world. As it turned out, Iraq was only a major threat to itself. And that hasn't changed one iota since the day we invaded. Furthermore, Iraq's influence and importance will only further decrease as the world begins to explore alternatives to fossil fuels. Iraq is a nation with a very troubling future.
it seems like most people agree that the "terrorists" in iraq are non-existant, and what is left is a war between sunni and shiite factions, so why not bring our troops homw tonight? we cant still be "fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" if the problem is civil war. i dont think we have to worry about them bringing their civil war here. so if your kid died in iraq today, what did they die for? not our freedom...not our safety..... not the liberation of iraq........ not the spread of democracy........ not so we dont have to fight them here......... not because of weapons of mass destruction...... fact remains that somebody's kid is going to die in iraq tonight. you tell me what they are dying for, and why we cant just bring them home tonight so nobodys kid has to die for NOTHING tomorrow.
it seems like most people agree that the "terrorists" in iraq are non-existant, and what is left is a war between sunni and shiite factions, so why not bring our troops homw tonight? we cant still be "fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" if the problem is civil war. i dont think we have to worry about them bringing their civil war here. so if your kid died in iraq today, what did they die for? not our freedom...not our safety..... not the liberation of iraq........ not the spread of democracy........ not so we dont have to fight them here......... not because of weapons of mass destruction...... fact remains that somebody's kid is going to die in iraq tonight. you tell me what they are dying for, and why we cant just bring them home tonight so nobodys kid has to die for NOTHING tomorrow.
because leaving would throw the country into further choas. possibly leaving the country to some el queda sympathizers or brutal dictatorship that would slaughter the opposite party. (sunni or shitte)
even bush has opened up and is willing to listen to other options from the iraq study group. withrawal will happen based on goals set and reached by the Iraqis.
because leaving would throw the country into further choas. possibly leaving the country to some el queda sympathizers or brutal dictatorship that would slaughter the opposite party. (sunni or shitte)
even bush has opened up and is willing to listen to other options from the iraq study group. withrawal will happen based on goals set and reached by the Iraqis.
i still dont see anything in your statement that anyone would want to sacrifice their children for. and goal set and reached by iraqis? how long to you propose to give them to achieve these goals? is it ok to let another 3000 troops die while we wait for iraqis to meet the goals we set for them? is it ok if another 22 thousand are wounded while we wait? what goals do you have in mind? what exactly are we waiting for?
i still dont see anything in your statement that anyone would want to sacrifice their children for. and goal set and reached by iraqis? how long to you propose to give them to achieve these goals? is it ok to let another 3000 troops die while we wait for iraqis to meet the goals we set for them? is it ok if another 22 thousand are wounded while we wait? what goals do you have in mind? what exactly are we waiting for?
we arent that far of. I want the troops home too. I would love a timeline. picking up and leaving today would only cause more problems. for us and them.
what goals do I have in mind?
secure borders
trained equipt military
strong police force
disarment of militias
peace agreements between top shiite and sunni religious leaders
I have not supported the Iraq war in any form at any time. It was rushed into, badly planned and its foundations are comprised of one Dodgy Dossier, and the manipulation of certain 'leaders'. This war was never about humanitarian aid or the safety of the Iraqi people. It was about a tyrant who was, 'In posession of weapons of mass destruction' (Blair); 'Has substantial links with al-Qaeda' and intent on waging war with the west.
None of which was true. War was declared against the will of th UN (therefore illegal), and without allowing weapons inspectors to finish their research.
If this REALLY was about Saddam's mass graves and crimes against humanity, why have Zimbabwe, North Korea et al not been invaded? Please, answer me without mentioning the gassing of the Kurds/invasion of Kuwait, which was fully supported by the ever-so-brilliant-USA.
secure borders
trained equipt military
strong police force
disarment of militias
peace agreements between top shiite and sunni religious leaders
The first three are achievable, although they require much time and endeavour. The disarmament of militants hypothetically leading to 'peace', is not so. Saying that such a progress is 'not far off' is ridiculous.. staying in Iraq following the current course of action will do absolutely nothing to encourage stability; the war has effectively been lost. No time will swing anything in Georgie's favour.
did you even read this thread? or better yet you can contribute to it. that may be hard for you.
such a worthless dig at the end, really could be done better
I read the parroted material that Kristol, Rush and Hannity originated in the days after the election. The pro war side has been wrong from the beginning and yet still try to maintain some sort of credibility that is long gone at this point. It's time to sack up already, doesn't the spin get old?
None of which was true. War was declared against the will of th UN (therefore illegal), and without allowing weapons inspectors to finish their research..
wrong again. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
If this REALLY was about Saddam's mass graves and crimes against humanity, why have Zimbabwe, North Korea et al not been invaded? Please, answer me without mentioning the gassing of the Kurds/invasion of Kuwait, which was fully supported by the ever-so-brilliant-USA. .
gassing of the kurds and invasion of Kuiwait was fully supported by the USA?
The first three are achievable, although they require much time and endeavour. The disarmament of militants hypothetically leading to 'peace', is not so. Saying that such a progress is 'not far off' is ridiculous.. staying in Iraq following the current course of action will do absolutely nothing to encourage stability; the war has effectively been lost. No time will swing anything in Georgie's favour.
when I said "not far off" I was refering to me agreeing with robbie that I want the troops home.
War objective? Remove saddam and have a democraticlly elected government. check.
how did US lose the war? if we lost who won? saddam? the baath party?
wrong again. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force. The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, Germany and later China all signaled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq. Their position was faulty. Iraq may have been in breach of resolutions, but the case for war was based upon their breach of 1441, which the invasion has proved wrong.
War objective? Remove saddam and have a democraticlly elected government. check.?
Then why not leave? Ah yes, the country is in shambles, thanks to poor planning, badly equipped forces and commanders who fail to admit that there is anything wrong.
Don't get me wrong; it's great that Iraq now has democracy, but is that what they really want? The three groups will not live in harmony just because of a political process candidly forced down their throats and embraced by some whilst laughed at by others.
how did US lose the war? if we lost who won? saddam? the baath party?
Nobody won. It's one of those things that nodody can win. Nobody has benefited from the war (aside from, perhaps, at some stage of invasion, the SUV owners of America).
Not the Iraqi people, for they are still as unsafe as they were under Hussein.
Not democracy, for not even a quarter of the country voted.
Not the troops; for they are still under constant attack and coming home in boxes night after night.
Not peace, for terrorism is on the up. Countries that supported this illegal war (Spain, Britain) have had terror attacks due to their involvement.
Nobody. You toppled a dictator and well done, but there are worse people in the world than Saddam Hussein. If being humanitarian do-gooders is what the war was about, then you have more of a job to do.
......."During war planning with US and British special forces at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in 2002, Mr Tinley says he never saw any hard intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"When I pressed them (US intelligence) for more specific imagery or information regarding locations or likely locations of WMD they confessed, off the record, that there had not been any tangible sighting of any WMD or WMD enabling equipment for some years," he said.
"It was all shadows and inferenced conversations between Iraqis. There was an overwhelming desire for all of the planning staff to simply believe that the Iraqis had learned how to conceal their WMD assets away from the US (surveillance) assets.".......
Its an interesting read. He's now about the 3000th person to come forward and say that the U.S. was bullshitting about the intelligence it had against Iraq. The U.S. gov't is so full of shit its disgusting. If this war gets remembered for anything, it'll be the sheer number of lies slung by this administration to start a war. Well, that and the unmitigated disaster of the "Bush Doctrine" (pre-emptive military action). How ridiculous does that seem now ?
Actually, come to think of it, there's more. I think many people will also remember how the American media turned into a bunch of sychophantic, flag-waving pussies.
Dick Cheney in a scrum : Will somebody here please suck me off ?
U.S. Media : sure, right after we're done with Colin Powell for his incredicle UN presentation.
WTF... ?
Someone else here mentioned a humanitarian argument for attacking Iraq. Right, that would be the proposition that Human Rights Watch ripped to fucking shreds. And that was before Abu Ghraib !! Or before the U.S. lied to the Red Cross about prisoners it was holding and torturing. Or before the discovery of numerous "black sites" run by the U.S. for torture. Or before the whole issue of extraordinary rendition hitting the presses. And speaking of human rights, what about trials for people who have been held in Gitmo for 4 years or longer ? As of two months ago only a handful (literally, out of hundreds) had been charged with anything. The whole humanitarian argument is a farce.
This war will be remembered for a litany of reasons, and if you're a student of history or politics you would do well to remember them, because sure as fuck you know the U.S. will soon be repeating their actions.
how many of you still support the iraq war? I mean, I know 20 years from now when your children or grandchildren read about this debacle and ask you how we allowed it to happen, you are going to lie and say you were opposed to it from the beginning, but as of now, how many of you still think this was a terrific idea? the polls still say 30 percent of the country think things are going well in iraq, i cannot imagine who these people are, but 3 out of 10 people think it is still a-ok, and actually going well, so, if you are still out there, could you please go on the record and explain why almost 3,000 dead soldiers, (that died for NOTHING) 22,000 wounded soldiers (wounded for NOTHING), 55,000 dead civilians, a dictatorship turned into a haven for terrorism, a civil war, a hugely empowered IRAN, and a VICTORY for world terrorism by showing the incomitance of the United States, is i good plan?
I don't think it's a war anymore.
But either way, I do not support it.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
how many of you still support the iraq war? I mean, I know 20 years from now when your children or grandchildren read about this debacle and ask you how we allowed it to happen, you are going to lie and say you were opposed to it from the beginning, but as of now, how many of you still think this was a terrific idea? the polls still say 30 percent of the country think things are going well in iraq, i cannot imagine who these people are, but 3 out of 10 people think it is still a-ok, and actually going well, so, if you are still out there, could you please go on the record and explain why almost 3,000 dead soldiers, (that died for NOTHING) 22,000 wounded soldiers (wounded for NOTHING), 55,000 dead civilians, a dictatorship turned into a haven for terrorism, a civil war, a hugely empowered IRAN, and a VICTORY for world terrorism by showing the incomitance of the United States, is i good plan?
I still support the effort in Iraq. I'm glad that Rumsfield is gone, and I hope Gates can do a better job, ie listen to leadership on the ground in Iraq. As long as there are American troops in Iraq I will support their efforts.
Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force. The United Kingdom and United States attempted to get a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military force, but withdrew it before it could come to a vote after France, Russia, Germany and later China all signaled that they would use their Security Council veto power against any resolution that would include an ultimatum allowing the use of force against Iraq. Their position was faulty. Iraq may have been in breach of resolutions, but the case for war was based upon their breach of 1441, which the invasion has proved wrong..
I'm sure white house counsel and the UN can go back and forth with this for years. If a huge stockpile of WMDs were found everyone would have said bravo. illegal? legal? let the judge decide
Then why not leave? Ah yes, the country is in shambles, thanks to poor planning, badly equipped forces and commanders who fail to admit that there is anything wrong.
Don't get me wrong; it's great that Iraq now has democracy, but is that what they really want? The three groups will not live in harmony just because of a political process candidly forced down their throats and embraced by some whilst laughed at by others.
good question. I dont really know. logically speaking, would you rather live under a dictator where almost everything you did was restricted. or in a democracy where you have choices and freedoms?
Nobody won. It's one of those things that nodody can win. Nobody has benefited from the war (aside from, perhaps, at some stage of invasion, the SUV owners of America).
living in constant fear if saddam's secret police would come take you to jail because you didnt have his picture hanging on the wall. or listening to one radio broadcast or one tv program with saddam giving a speach.
aside from slum areas being overrun by gangs, iraqis are free to think and feel whoever the fuck they want. if and when they take thier country back, they win.
Not the Iraqi people, for they are still as unsafe as they were under Hussein.
have you been there? what do you base this statment on? what you hear in the news? talk to someone who has been there. I havent been there either, but have talked to some soliders who have and listened to someone on this board talk about it. many areas of the country and safe and live in peace. they dont tell you about that on BBC or msnbc
Not democracy, for not even a quarter of the country voted.
and if you are given the chance to vote, it is a democracy. just like in this country, it is your right not to vote if you dont want to. 25%? sounds made up. I remember hearing otherwise. not to mention only about 50% of people vote in the US. last I checked, we live in a democracy.
regardless of any of this, im not cheerleading for bush and saying this a justified war. I'm pissed off because of the bullshit reasons for going to war. WMD shit. I think bush finished off what his father didnt and was pressured by those around him. once no WMDs were found, Bush felt it was justifable to stay and fight el queda in Iraq. I support that.
but I CAN NOT change any of that.
I support the troops on the ground. I support trying to rebuild a country we destroyed. I think we owe it to the iraqis to try and give them a chance by helping rebuild schools, infrastucture, train military, train police, etc. our brave troops went there to remove saddam. did that. tehy stayed to destroy el queda in Iraq. great job there. now I support their efforts to build a bridge out. too many people see this as winning and losing. its not about that.
living in constant fear if saddam's secret police would come take you to jail because you didnt have his picture hanging on the wall. or litening to one radio broadcast or one tv program with saddam giving a speach.
aside from slum areas being overrun by gangs, iraqis are free to think and feel whoever the fuck they want.
have you been there? what do you base this statment on? what you hear in the news? talk to someone who has been there. I havent, but have talked to some who have and listened to someone on this board talk about it. many areas of the country and safe and live in peace.
and if you are given the chance to vote, it is a democracy.
Irak is not free and it is not a democracy. And it wont be a real democracy until the US leaves and does not interfere in their affairs. And what makes you think that people are not being persecuted. Any group that does not comply with what the US goverment is going to be persecuted and this will go on for many, many years.
Taking out Saddam Hussein was not dreamed up — as is sometimes alleged — by sneaky supporters of Israel. Nor did oil-hungry CEOs or Halliburton puppeteers pull strings in the shadows to get us in. And the go-ahead wasn't given merely on the strength of trumped-up fears of weapons of mass destruction: The U.S. Congress authorized the war on 23 diverse counts, from Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice to its record of giving both money and sanctuary to terrorists.
George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.
First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East. And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy — and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.
We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.
Second, at key moments in the 1980s and '90s, the United States signaled that it would appease its terrorist enemies rather than engage in the difficult work of uprooting them. We did little other than file an indictment or shoot a missile at the killers who murdered American citizens, diplomats and soldiers in East Africa, Lebanon, New York City, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Leaving Lebanon, scurrying out of Somalia, and continually flying through Saddam's skies for 12 long years without removing him only cemented the image of an uncertain America.
Third, September 11 changed the way the U.S. looked at the status quo in the Middle East. That attack was the work of terrorists who were enabled by our autocratic clients in the Middle East, and emboldened by our previous inaction. In response, Iraq was an effort to end both the cynical realism and the convenient appeasement of the past — and so to address the much larger problems of the Middle East that, if left alone, could lead to another large-scale terrorist attack in the United States.
Whatever one thinks of our mistakes after Saddam was toppled, those three facts remain central to American foreign policy. Saudi subsidies to jihadists, Pakistani sanctuary for them, and Egyptian propaganda are all symptoms of these dictatorships hedging their bets — hoping their bought terrorists don't turn on them for their own failures and illegitimacy.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won't be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.
We can demonize President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all we want, or wish they presented their views in a kindlier and more artful fashion. We can wish that the United States were better at training Iraqis and killing terrorists to secure Iraq. But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Bush's and Rumsfeld's successors.
And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.
That tough idealism will stay — because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
Irak is not free and it is not a democracy. And it wont be a real democracy until the US leaves and does not interfere in their affairs. And what makes you think that people are not being persecuted. Any group that does not comply with what the US goverment is going to be persecuted and this will go on for many, many years.
U.S. "interferance" is the only thing keeping the country from all-out civil war. If we leave, more will die than if we stay. Is that what you want?
As an Iraqi American and a Army veteran who served in Iraq, I am 100% pledging my support to the mission in Iraq. That country has got serious problems, in the year I was there, I helped rebuild that country in so many ways. I'm proud of what I did and I'll never let anyone try to interpet what I saw with my own eyes. My problem is I'm a humanitarian.
U.S. "interferance" is the only thing keeping the country from all-out civil war. If we leave, more will die than if we stay. Is that what you want?
Worked for America did it not....War for Independance from Britain....followed by a civil war....that paved for the road for your country today....? Maybe the country will not realize itself until foreign people leave...just a thought....not saying it would just a thought in my head at the time....
That is the way I see it right now....I wish some people would imagine your country flooded by foreign troops that have incidently (mostly accidently unfortunaly sometimes brutally and purposely) caused death to many of your countrymen...devestated your country in god knows how many ways...I think you would be pretty pissed of to....
To add-in to the original post I never "bought" into this elaborate scheme from the get-go....hell I was one saying how sectarian violence would engulf the country and the coalition of the foolish would never bring the Iraqi people together....if America is so righteous as some here claim to think it is where are they, for example, in Sudan where Saddam would look like a gentleman compared to current affairs (do not get me wrong I am appalled my country has not done much for this country either but at least we are not in Iraq)...to add-in I 100% believe that the goal/objective of this movement was to remove Saddam/terrorist cell (where I believe there wasn't one...got it right the first time with Afhganistan) is complete and utter bullshit....the entire trail of lies cannot make me believe anything from this moronic adminstartion in the States...cannot wait for the day I do not have to see those dumb fuckers on TV anymore.....sorry for my anger bad day....
As an Iraqi American and a Army veteran who served in Iraq, I am 100% pledging my support to the mission in Iraq. That country has got serious problems, in the year I was there, I helped rebuild that country in so many ways. I'm proud of what I did and I'll never let anyone try to interpet what I saw with my own eyes. My problem is I'm a humanitarian.
Thank You. Now why can't people see the big picture and realize that we are trying to effect generational change in the region. An intolerant violent and backward ideology has taken root in the region not because we are there but in spite of that and it will be through my lifetime before we see its demise. This conflict has been creeping up on us for thirty years. It is not going away any time soon. Does this nation and the coalition have the will and staying power to see this through?
Thank You. Now why can't people see the big picture and realize that we are trying to effect generational change in the region. An intolerant violent and backward ideology has taken root in the region not because we are there but in spite of that and it will be through my lifetime before we see its demise. This conflict has been creeping up on us for thirty years. It is not going away any time soon. Does this nation and the coalition have the will and staying power to see this through?
Great points! The U.S. dropped the ball on pacifying civil unrest and bloodletting between Iraqi's after we toppled the government. But the problems in Iraq should not be blamed soley on the U.S. The majority of responsibilities should fall to the Iraqi's.
The world media is complete bullshit. They frame this conflict in terms of a U.S. failure. Yes, we failed so far - but maybe there was no way we could succeed in the first place with all the problems over there.
Everybody points the finger at us. All we did was take the lid off the cauldron that has been brewing there for 30 years. Why doesn't Europe or others step in with massive support - monetary, troops, and moral.
But everybody condems the U.S. as if we did something wrong by removing one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. I'll never understand the other side's view. It just doesn't make any sense at all.
Exactly. Now, if a dictator is bad because the actions of that dictator restricts freedoms, the inverse of that situation would be one wherein 1) no such dictator and 2) no such restrictions exist. You got #1 right, but #2 was a dismal failure. The situation in Iraq is now worse than it was beforehand, given a context of individual freedoms.
You don't remove a dictator for the hell of it. You remove a dictator to accomplish something positive. It remains to be seen whether or not something positive can come of our actions.
Exactly. Now, if a dictator is bad because the actions of that dictator restricts freedoms, the inverse of that situation would be one wherein 1) no such dictator and 2) no such restrictions exist. You got #1 right, but #2 was a dismal failure. The situation in Iraq is now worse than it was beforehand, given a context of individual freedoms.
You don't remove a dictator for the hell of it. You remove a dictator to accomplish something positive. It remains to be seen whether or not something positive can come of our actions.
well in the beginning, this dictator was removed for violating UN resolutions and the threat of WMDs.
oops no WMDs now what? cant pack up and go, someone needs to be in charge. ok lets have free elections and not let another dictator take over.
newly elected free elections. thats positive.
like you said, it remains to be seen if this works out. I hope it does, but not so republicans can say "we told ya so". and I certainly dont want to go back to a dictator who will gas the opposing party so the democrats can say "we told ya so"
well in the beginning, this dictator was removed for violating UN resolutions and the threat of WMDs.
The latter sure. You know damned well that the former was an argument of convenience.
oops no WMDs now what? cant pack up and go, someone needs to be in charge. ok lets have free elections and not let another dictator take over.
Oops, yes. And while we could certainly "pick up and go", it's not necessarily the best option because, as you say, everyone wants someone to be in charge. The problem is, your "free elections" had nothing to do with putting someone in charge.
Democracy is not a process, it is a culture. There is no culture of democracy in Iraq.
newly elected free elections. thats positive.
Not really, no. An election is supposed to represent the will of the people with a purpose of enacting that will. The Iraqi elections did no such thing. Iraq is now a nation ruled by mobsters and your elections did nothing to prevent or change that.
like you said, it remains to be seen if this works out. I hope it does, but not so republicans can say "we told ya so". and I certainly dont want to go back to a dictator who will gas the opposing party so the democrats can say "we told ya so"
I don't think "we told ya so's" are going to accomplish much in any direction, so there's no reason to really worry about them. And those who take positions based on those kind of issues are inconsequential at best.
However, those with fundamental oppositions to this war are certainly justified in their positions. Iraq was not a truly sovereign state, but it was one full of millions of truly sovereign individuals. The death toll there amongst the civilians population is a crime perpetuated by everyone involved in American democracy. Furthermore, the costs in dollars and lives of the conflict are not likely to be outweighed by its benefits anytime soon, if at all.
Comments
Okay. I was singling out Robbie's comments on the global repercussions of the war, because I thought they needed attention. I follow where you're coming from, though.
As for your main point, all I can do is speculate wildly about how the geopolitical landscape will change in the next twenty years, so I can't really answer you to the contrary, with any definite argument. If things stay roughly as they are, then I'd say you're probably right.
But, if we listen to the odd prediction and imagine new, emergent superpowers in years to come, might these states find use for the middle east, in changing power structures? Who knows.
Sure -- this is all speculative and we're both operating off of some core assumptions that may prove to be wildly incorrect.
The ultimate political lesson of the Iraq War is still the failure of intelligence. We went to war because we assumed that Iraq was a major threat to this world. As it turned out, Iraq was only a major threat to itself. And that hasn't changed one iota since the day we invaded. Furthermore, Iraq's influence and importance will only further decrease as the world begins to explore alternatives to fossil fuels. Iraq is a nation with a very troubling future.
because leaving would throw the country into further choas. possibly leaving the country to some el queda sympathizers or brutal dictatorship that would slaughter the opposite party. (sunni or shitte)
even bush has opened up and is willing to listen to other options from the iraq study group. withrawal will happen based on goals set and reached by the Iraqis.
did you even read this thread? or better yet you can contribute to it. that may be hard for you.
i still dont see anything in your statement that anyone would want to sacrifice their children for. and goal set and reached by iraqis? how long to you propose to give them to achieve these goals? is it ok to let another 3000 troops die while we wait for iraqis to meet the goals we set for them? is it ok if another 22 thousand are wounded while we wait? what goals do you have in mind? what exactly are we waiting for?
we arent that far of. I want the troops home too. I would love a timeline. picking up and leaving today would only cause more problems. for us and them.
what goals do I have in mind?
secure borders
trained equipt military
strong police force
disarment of militias
peace agreements between top shiite and sunni religious leaders
None of which was true. War was declared against the will of th UN (therefore illegal), and without allowing weapons inspectors to finish their research.
If this REALLY was about Saddam's mass graves and crimes against humanity, why have Zimbabwe, North Korea et al not been invaded? Please, answer me without mentioning the gassing of the Kurds/invasion of Kuwait, which was fully supported by the ever-so-brilliant-USA.
The first three are achievable, although they require much time and endeavour. The disarmament of militants hypothetically leading to 'peace', is not so. Saying that such a progress is 'not far off' is ridiculous.. staying in Iraq following the current course of action will do absolutely nothing to encourage stability; the war has effectively been lost. No time will swing anything in Georgie's favour.
such a worthless dig at the end, really could be done better
I read the parroted material that Kristol, Rush and Hannity originated in the days after the election. The pro war side has been wrong from the beginning and yet still try to maintain some sort of credibility that is long gone at this point. It's time to sack up already, doesn't the spin get old?
wrong again. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).
all of which were broken by saddam
gassing of the kurds and invasion of Kuiwait was fully supported by the USA?
when I said "not far off" I was refering to me agreeing with robbie that I want the troops home.
War objective? Remove saddam and have a democraticlly elected government. check.
how did US lose the war? if we lost who won? saddam? the baath party?
Then why not leave? Ah yes, the country is in shambles, thanks to poor planning, badly equipped forces and commanders who fail to admit that there is anything wrong.
Don't get me wrong; it's great that Iraq now has democracy, but is that what they really want? The three groups will not live in harmony just because of a political process candidly forced down their throats and embraced by some whilst laughed at by others.
Nobody won. It's one of those things that nodody can win. Nobody has benefited from the war (aside from, perhaps, at some stage of invasion, the SUV owners of America).
Not the Iraqi people, for they are still as unsafe as they were under Hussein.
Not democracy, for not even a quarter of the country voted.
Not the troops; for they are still under constant attack and coming home in boxes night after night.
Not peace, for terrorism is on the up. Countries that supported this illegal war (Spain, Britain) have had terror attacks due to their involvement.
Nobody. You toppled a dictator and well done, but there are worse people in the world than Saddam Hussein. If being humanitarian do-gooders is what the war was about, then you have more of a job to do.
--Kofi Anan, BBC, September, 2004.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20817682-601,00.html
......."During war planning with US and British special forces at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in 2002, Mr Tinley says he never saw any hard intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"When I pressed them (US intelligence) for more specific imagery or information regarding locations or likely locations of WMD they confessed, off the record, that there had not been any tangible sighting of any WMD or WMD enabling equipment for some years," he said.
"It was all shadows and inferenced conversations between Iraqis. There was an overwhelming desire for all of the planning staff to simply believe that the Iraqis had learned how to conceal their WMD assets away from the US (surveillance) assets.".......
Its an interesting read. He's now about the 3000th person to come forward and say that the U.S. was bullshitting about the intelligence it had against Iraq. The U.S. gov't is so full of shit its disgusting. If this war gets remembered for anything, it'll be the sheer number of lies slung by this administration to start a war. Well, that and the unmitigated disaster of the "Bush Doctrine" (pre-emptive military action). How ridiculous does that seem now ?
Actually, come to think of it, there's more. I think many people will also remember how the American media turned into a bunch of sychophantic, flag-waving pussies.
Dick Cheney in a scrum : Will somebody here please suck me off ?
U.S. Media : sure, right after we're done with Colin Powell for his incredicle UN presentation.
WTF... ?
Someone else here mentioned a humanitarian argument for attacking Iraq. Right, that would be the proposition that Human Rights Watch ripped to fucking shreds. And that was before Abu Ghraib !! Or before the U.S. lied to the Red Cross about prisoners it was holding and torturing. Or before the discovery of numerous "black sites" run by the U.S. for torture. Or before the whole issue of extraordinary rendition hitting the presses. And speaking of human rights, what about trials for people who have been held in Gitmo for 4 years or longer ? As of two months ago only a handful (literally, out of hundreds) had been charged with anything. The whole humanitarian argument is a farce.
This war will be remembered for a litany of reasons, and if you're a student of history or politics you would do well to remember them, because sure as fuck you know the U.S. will soon be repeating their actions.
I don't think it's a war anymore.
But either way, I do not support it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I still support the effort in Iraq. I'm glad that Rumsfield is gone, and I hope Gates can do a better job, ie listen to leadership on the ground in Iraq. As long as there are American troops in Iraq I will support their efforts.
I'm sure white house counsel and the UN can go back and forth with this for years. If a huge stockpile of WMDs were found everyone would have said bravo. illegal? legal? let the judge decide
I agree
good question. I dont really know. logically speaking, would you rather live under a dictator where almost everything you did was restricted. or in a democracy where you have choices and freedoms?
living in constant fear if saddam's secret police would come take you to jail because you didnt have his picture hanging on the wall. or listening to one radio broadcast or one tv program with saddam giving a speach.
aside from slum areas being overrun by gangs, iraqis are free to think and feel whoever the fuck they want. if and when they take thier country back, they win.
have you been there? what do you base this statment on? what you hear in the news? talk to someone who has been there. I havent been there either, but have talked to some soliders who have and listened to someone on this board talk about it. many areas of the country and safe and live in peace. they dont tell you about that on BBC or msnbc
and if you are given the chance to vote, it is a democracy. just like in this country, it is your right not to vote if you dont want to. 25%? sounds made up. I remember hearing otherwise. not to mention only about 50% of people vote in the US. last I checked, we live in a democracy.
regardless of any of this, im not cheerleading for bush and saying this a justified war. I'm pissed off because of the bullshit reasons for going to war. WMD shit. I think bush finished off what his father didnt and was pressured by those around him. once no WMDs were found, Bush felt it was justifable to stay and fight el queda in Iraq. I support that.
but I CAN NOT change any of that.
I support the troops on the ground. I support trying to rebuild a country we destroyed. I think we owe it to the iraqis to try and give them a chance by helping rebuild schools, infrastucture, train military, train police, etc. our brave troops went there to remove saddam. did that. tehy stayed to destroy el queda in Iraq. great job there. now I support their efforts to build a bridge out. too many people see this as winning and losing. its not about that.
Irak is not free and it is not a democracy. And it wont be a real democracy until the US leaves and does not interfere in their affairs. And what makes you think that people are not being persecuted. Any group that does not comply with what the US goverment is going to be persecuted and this will go on for many, many years.
George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.
First, the United States had been far too friendly with atrocious regimes in the Middle East. And when bloodletting inevitably broke out, either internally or between aggressive regimes, too often we cynically played one side off the other. Or we backed repugnant insurgents, with little thought of the "blowback" that would result. We outsourced sophisticated arms and training to radical Islamists fighting against the Soviet-backed Afghan government. We hoped the murderous Saddam might check the murderous Iranian theocracy — and then again sold arms to the mullahs during the Iran-Contra affair.
We breezily called for an uprising of Shiites and Kurds only to abandon them to be slaughtered by Saddam after the first Gulf War. We cynically gave the Mubarak dynasty of Egypt billions in protection money to behave. While we thought we were achieving short-term expediency, American policy only increased long-term instability by not pressuring these tyrants to reform failed governments.
Second, at key moments in the 1980s and '90s, the United States signaled that it would appease its terrorist enemies rather than engage in the difficult work of uprooting them. We did little other than file an indictment or shoot a missile at the killers who murdered American citizens, diplomats and soldiers in East Africa, Lebanon, New York City, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Leaving Lebanon, scurrying out of Somalia, and continually flying through Saddam's skies for 12 long years without removing him only cemented the image of an uncertain America.
Third, September 11 changed the way the U.S. looked at the status quo in the Middle East. That attack was the work of terrorists who were enabled by our autocratic clients in the Middle East, and emboldened by our previous inaction. In response, Iraq was an effort to end both the cynical realism and the convenient appeasement of the past — and so to address the much larger problems of the Middle East that, if left alone, could lead to another large-scale terrorist attack in the United States.
Whatever one thinks of our mistakes after Saddam was toppled, those three facts remain central to American foreign policy. Saudi subsidies to jihadists, Pakistani sanctuary for them, and Egyptian propaganda are all symptoms of these dictatorships hedging their bets — hoping their bought terrorists don't turn on them for their own failures and illegitimacy.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won't be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.
We can demonize President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all we want, or wish they presented their views in a kindlier and more artful fashion. We can wish that the United States were better at training Iraqis and killing terrorists to secure Iraq. But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Bush's and Rumsfeld's successors.
And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes that are antithetical to our values, simply will not go away.
That tough idealism will stay — because in the end it is the only right and smart thing to do.
U.S. "interferance" is the only thing keeping the country from all-out civil war. If we leave, more will die than if we stay. Is that what you want?
Worked for America did it not....War for Independance from Britain....followed by a civil war....that paved for the road for your country today....? Maybe the country will not realize itself until foreign people leave...just a thought....not saying it would just a thought in my head at the time....
That is the way I see it right now....I wish some people would imagine your country flooded by foreign troops that have incidently (mostly accidently unfortunaly sometimes brutally and purposely) caused death to many of your countrymen...devestated your country in god knows how many ways...I think you would be pretty pissed of to....
To add-in to the original post I never "bought" into this elaborate scheme from the get-go....hell I was one saying how sectarian violence would engulf the country and the coalition of the foolish would never bring the Iraqi people together....if America is so righteous as some here claim to think it is where are they, for example, in Sudan where Saddam would look like a gentleman compared to current affairs (do not get me wrong I am appalled my country has not done much for this country either but at least we are not in Iraq)...to add-in I 100% believe that the goal/objective of this movement was to remove Saddam/terrorist cell (where I believe there wasn't one...got it right the first time with Afhganistan) is complete and utter bullshit....the entire trail of lies cannot make me believe anything from this moronic adminstartion in the States...cannot wait for the day I do not have to see those dumb fuckers on TV anymore.....sorry for my anger bad day....
Thank You. Now why can't people see the big picture and realize that we are trying to effect generational change in the region. An intolerant violent and backward ideology has taken root in the region not because we are there but in spite of that and it will be through my lifetime before we see its demise. This conflict has been creeping up on us for thirty years. It is not going away any time soon. Does this nation and the coalition have the will and staying power to see this through?
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
Great points! The U.S. dropped the ball on pacifying civil unrest and bloodletting between Iraqi's after we toppled the government. But the problems in Iraq should not be blamed soley on the U.S. The majority of responsibilities should fall to the Iraqi's.
The world media is complete bullshit. They frame this conflict in terms of a U.S. failure. Yes, we failed so far - but maybe there was no way we could succeed in the first place with all the problems over there.
Everybody points the finger at us. All we did was take the lid off the cauldron that has been brewing there for 30 years. Why doesn't Europe or others step in with massive support - monetary, troops, and moral.
But everybody condems the U.S. as if we did something wrong by removing one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. I'll never understand the other side's view. It just doesn't make any sense at all.
Try asking yourself this question:
What's wrong with a dictator?
alot. no freedoms for one thing.
whats wrong with being in jail? I get to a bed, roof over my head, food, shower. sign me up
but I see you are just trying to make a point.
Exactly. Now, if a dictator is bad because the actions of that dictator restricts freedoms, the inverse of that situation would be one wherein 1) no such dictator and 2) no such restrictions exist. You got #1 right, but #2 was a dismal failure. The situation in Iraq is now worse than it was beforehand, given a context of individual freedoms.
You don't remove a dictator for the hell of it. You remove a dictator to accomplish something positive. It remains to be seen whether or not something positive can come of our actions.
well in the beginning, this dictator was removed for violating UN resolutions and the threat of WMDs.
oops no WMDs now what? cant pack up and go, someone needs to be in charge. ok lets have free elections and not let another dictator take over.
newly elected free elections. thats positive.
like you said, it remains to be seen if this works out. I hope it does, but not so republicans can say "we told ya so". and I certainly dont want to go back to a dictator who will gas the opposing party so the democrats can say "we told ya so"
The latter sure. You know damned well that the former was an argument of convenience.
Oops, yes. And while we could certainly "pick up and go", it's not necessarily the best option because, as you say, everyone wants someone to be in charge. The problem is, your "free elections" had nothing to do with putting someone in charge.
Democracy is not a process, it is a culture. There is no culture of democracy in Iraq.
Not really, no. An election is supposed to represent the will of the people with a purpose of enacting that will. The Iraqi elections did no such thing. Iraq is now a nation ruled by mobsters and your elections did nothing to prevent or change that.
I don't think "we told ya so's" are going to accomplish much in any direction, so there's no reason to really worry about them. And those who take positions based on those kind of issues are inconsequential at best.
However, those with fundamental oppositions to this war are certainly justified in their positions. Iraq was not a truly sovereign state, but it was one full of millions of truly sovereign individuals. The death toll there amongst the civilians population is a crime perpetuated by everyone involved in American democracy. Furthermore, the costs in dollars and lives of the conflict are not likely to be outweighed by its benefits anytime soon, if at all.