Was Bush right all-along?

TomF

The seeming development of a Kiev-like, popular, long-term street-demonstration against Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the recent popular success of elections in Iraq make it look to me that Bush was right all-along to put a very large and very aggressive American (read "democratic") presence into the middle of the Arabic Middle East. The nearest recent large event I can think of to compare it to is the period after collapse of the Soviet Union and its Empire, although maybe a closer analogy is the period after the French Revolution when French armies bloodied the noses of "reactionary states" around them who tried to stop the revolution and its spread of the revolutionaries versions of "liberty, equality and brotherhood" into the wider Europe.

Imagine if the French had successfully landed in 1796, or had brought a much larger force in 1798 to Ireland and did some serious bashing of the British Army and the Militia in Ireland. The whole history of this part of the world could have been hugely different.

Here's an snippet of an interesting article on the post's subject:
"The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has triggered widespread unrest, but the very same act would not have elicited any notable response three years ago. Clearly, both fear and practice have been undermined by recent events in the Middle East. More specifically, the new American involvement in the Middle East -- indeed, the much maligned Greater Middle East initiative - seems to have empowered the Lebanese nation."
http://www.techcentralstation.com/022505D.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

vibe666

er, no he wasn't. I'd love to back it up with some rhetoric, but i really can't be arsed.

Memnoch

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

that seems to be the extent of your response to anyone suggesting that the US/Israel are up to no good. It's not like they haven't been up to no good in the past or haven't had people murdered. This kind of arguement is not only weak but it shows a complete and utter lack and inability to debate a point. So next time instead of throwing out veiled insults that don't amount to anything why not try and actually make a point? Also it would be nice if you could specify who exactly these people are that you constantly refer to. Currently anyone who thinks the US does anything underhanded is a tin-foil hat type according to you it would seem.

and the fact that the EU don't recognise them as a terrorist group bothers me even more.

the fact that no one has taken the US or UK to court over their crimes against humanity and crimes against peace should bother you more.

MrJoeSoap

One word: OIL.

Capt'n Midnight

Was Bush right all-along?

No. He's still considered a wishy washy liberal by the neo-conservatives.

Have a read of "The Prince" by Machavelli on the subject of the territories taken over by New Princes, the reactions of people would not supprise people from the past, so why does it supprise people now ?

joseph brand

No.

He is a big kid.

Still can't believe so many years of History in America, all under the rule of one family, . . .no, not the Baldwins, . . .the Bushi (Plural for Bush).

No more Bush, let's have a Brazilian

Dinner

I always thought he was right. I think this arguement that it was only about oil is ignorant and narrow minded. Getting rid of Saddam = good thing.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

TomF wrote:

The seeming development of a Kiev-like, popular, long-term street-demonstration against Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the recent popular success of elections in Iraq make it look to me that Bush was right all-along to put a very large and very aggressive American (read "democratic") presence into the middle of the Arabic Middle East.

Two points

1 - There was a large and very sucessful democratic presence in large parts of the middle east 50 years ago till american foriegn policy and intelligence services very successfully managed to destroy it (Iran, Iraq etc). The idea that America is bringing democracy to the middle east is laughable considering they are the reason the region has been largely undemocratic for the last 50 years.

2 - American foriegn policy, both democrats and republicans, has been to destablise the region, and keep it in a constant state of control, to protect the most important part of the middle east, the oil. America long ago lost the moral authority to meddle in the Middle East.

To sum up, Bush doesn't have a clue what he is doing, and the neo-cons that control him are only interested in keeping the region weak so it can be easily controlled. How can Bush be right when he doesn't know what he is doing :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Arabel wrote:

I always thought he was right. I think this arguement that it was only about oil is ignorant and narrow minded. Getting rid of Saddam = good thing.

Getting rid of Saddam = Good Thing

That is probably exactly the same logic Bush bases his forigen policy on :rolleyes:

A more real world example would be

Invade Iraq + Have no clear plan of action once war is over + Have no clear understanding of region + Have no clear understanding of the different politics of the country + Kill large amounts of civilians + Have no plan or method to deal with the rise of terrorists + Have no plan of method to bring country together + Plan to stay in country for long term + Leave country in worse state than when you arrived = Bad Idea

Neuro

The US only sees fit to 'liberate' nations when it benefits itself in some way. The US wasn't too concerned about Saddam in the late seventies and eighties when the US-friendly Shah of Iran was deposed in the Iranian Revolution. The US was hoping that Iraq would wipe out the Iranian theocracy during the Iran-Iraq war.

In fact, the US spent most of the Cold War installing military dictators in South America, the Middle East and Africa to try and stop the spread of Communism.

For a country whose stated foreign policy is to spread 'freedom' and 'democracy' around the world, they seem to have no interest in Africa whatsoever, the continent with the greatest number of despots and military dictators. But then again, with the exception of Nigeria, there's not much oil in Africa!

Nor do they seem to be concerned about free elections in Pakistan, a country whose president was overthrown by the military and who are known to possess nuclear weapons. But that's probably because they're supposedly helping the US to search for Bin Laden and his cronies.

We shouldn't be so naive as to believe that the US is interested in spreading democracy around the world. Yes, Iraq is a better place without Saddam, but his removal was merely coincidental. The real aim was to secure a new base of operations in the Middle East as their long time ally, Saudi Arabia, was becoming increasingly unstable. Spreading democracy is not an end in itself for the US, it's a means to some selfish end!

Orizio

No.The reasons for invading Iraq doe nor work on any level.If it was to fight terrorism then Saudi Arabia(who currently provide half of the suicide bombers in Iraq,and obviously funded Al-Queda) and Iran/Syria(who fund Hezbollah and now militias in Iraq)should have been on the firing line before Saddam.Not that Bush cares about fighting terrorism considering his support for the house of Saud and Uribe and his complete inaction in Darfur.Of course,as the Brits found out in the north quickly fighting terrorism on the front lines doesn't work but cutting funds to terror groups,working on poverty/illiteracy and having a strong intelligence system do.Considering the fact that the CIA themselves agree that Iraq is a future terrorist training ground,the fight against terrorism in Iraq has only helped the terrorists.

Nothing needs to be said about the WMD's.They weren't found,because there weren't there.

Next the idea that this was some kind of humanity mission is ludicrous.Again if bush cared about helping a people he would have went after N.Korea or at least attempt to help in Sudan,or Congo in 2001.He doesn't because any intelligent politician will not put his power in danger for 'humanity'.

Why did it happen?Oil,Bush's legacy,a whole new market to sell everything in and a pack of deluded but powerful neo-cons controlling the White House are the reasons.

Flukey

Arabel wrote:

Getting rid of Saddam = good thing.

That could have been done with one man, one gun and one bullet, and that bullet might not have even had to have been fired. There was no need for the invasion. Was Bush right all along? Certainly not and that is proved more and more each day. He liberated many innocent Iraqis alright, of their mortal existence.

ressem

Are there no other reasons why the US might have invaded Iraq?

My devil's advocate view would be that the administration decided that they will have to put heavy pressure on the Saud family to go against the hard line wahhabi leaders, that have a reputation for trying to export strict sharia law, for example to Indonesia, and sponsoring militant groups.

Perhaps invading Iraq is about easing the vice that the Sauds have on the US economy so economic pressure can be applied. E.g bargaining with the construction of water pipelines from Turkey (water from desalination costs more than oil in Arabia, and demand is skyrocketing as the urban population grows) and helping or hampering the attempts being made by the recent rulers to increase economic activity other than oil.

The king depends heavily on support of the main clans, so making these people aware that the states has a short term oil alternative might discourage an OPEC 1970's type price hike in retaliation for such demands.

A Dub in Glasgo

Was Bush right all-along?

No

Dinner

Flukey wrote:

That could have been done with one man, one gun and one bullet, and that bullet might not have even had to have been fired. There was no need for the invasion. Was Bush right all along? Certainly not and that is proved more and more each day. He liberated many innocent Iraqis alright, of their mortal existence.

They tried that, they had SAS and probably Seal teams in their trying to get him, but they never could definatley say if it was him or just a look a like. They tried to end the war before it started by using cruise missiles to hit the building where he and his other high ranking people were gathered.

The Iraqi people have more freedom now then they ever did before, the women dont have to fear rape camps, everyone needn't fear that they will be murdered in their beds so that Saaddam could rule with an iron fist.

Wicknight wrote:

That is probably exactly the same logic Bush bases his forigen policy on

Yous seem to be under some impression that leaving Saddam in power would be a good thing, please tell me you aren't that ignorant. If he was left in power what would happen? Sometime down the line he would have died, and one of his sons would have taken power and I can only imagine that it would lead to more trouble when the other one would probably have tried to take power.

I dont recall anyone ever saying that it would be an easy or quick war, it was always going to be long, but unless you are an idiot, you should see that things have improved, the elections were a success, terrorists have resorted to kidnapping GI Joe, they are increasingly more desperate because any time they show themselves they are obliterated.

Flukey

You are right Arabel, the Iraqis no longer have to fear attacks from Saddam. Now they have to fear attacks from the coalition forces and terrorists. As I said already, a lot of Iraqis have been liberated by the coalition, of their mortal existence. This was exactly what was predicted before the invasion by those who opposed the war and just about everything else predicted has come to pass too. Terrorism has increased, not reduced. There were no WMDs. Innocent Iraqis are still being killed, only now by the coalition forces and terrorists that were not event there prior to the invasion. The country is far more unstable now than it was before the invasion. We are a long way from peace and democracy there, despite the token elections. Every objective set for this war has not been achieved and in many cases worsened. Saddam may be gone and that is a good thing, but for a lot of people things have only got worse. I am not advocating a return to the old regime, just pointing out that the new one is far from what we were all promised as are conditions in the country, but exactly what people opposed to the invasion predicted, except maybe a bit worse.

Dinner

Of course Iraq was more stable with Saddam then it is now, thats because if you put a foot wrong in the old regime you got killed. I dont think that peace will be there anytime soon, but Iraq would always have to be faced, and its problems would not have gone away, just ignored. I would much prefer to face Iraq sooner rather than later.

I believe that terrorism in Iraq is being defeated, it'll just take a while. The people that you say are being robbed of their mortal existance are turning on terrorism too. Here are just 2 links that show that the Iraqi people are trying to defeat terrorism too.

A wave of Anti-Insurgency

Iraqi Villagers kill 5 insurgents

Flukey

The terrorism is only a new thing there Arabel, that has started since the invasion and indeed because of the invasion. You are right that all dictators keep a certain amount of stability, but the way it has gone now is far beyond the fact that Saddam is no longer there. What has happened is not just filling the gap that Saddam has left; there are many other aspects to it reacting to issues that the invasion has created.

Dinner

Yeah I know this type of terrorism is new but under Saddam it was a differant type of terror, it was a terror where you were afraid to say anything for fear you were talking to some sort of spy.

I know that there are many reasons why this terrorism is happening but the point I was making is that the public are continuing to get behind the US and UK, the police force are finding their feet, and the army played a fair role in the felluja assault. Terrorism is being overpowered.

Zombrex

Arabel wrote:

Yous seem to be under some impression that leaving Saddam in power would be a good thing, please tell me you aren't that ignorant.

Why is the only alternative to not invading a country, be supporting it :rolleyes:

Sometime there is no way to get the best out come. The best out come would have been for Saddam to go and for Iraq to become a peaceful and free country. That was never possible

America needs to stop doing thing like this because it cannot get this mythical outcome of democracy through out the world, and just ends up causing huge mess.

Arabel wrote:

If he was left in power what would happen?.

The exact same thing that happened the 30 years he was in power. Nothing changed.

Arabel wrote:

I dont recall anyone ever saying that it would be an easy or quick war, it was always going to be long, but unless you are an idiot, you should see that things have improved, the elections were a success, terrorists have resorted to kidnapping GI Joe, they are increasingly more desperate because any time they show themselves they are obliterated.

The US went into Iraq with no idea of what to do once they were there. As a result they have very nearly thrown the country into civil war, and it is more luck and the strength of the Iraqi people that this has not happened.

America are very very bad at doing things like this. So they need to stop.

If you have a skin cancer growth on your leg, that is bad and something should be done. But you don't want me cutting your leg off with a chainsaw and you nearly bleeding to death, because that is the only solution I can come up with.

The rest of the world does not want the US hacking away at regions they know nothing about, in the name of democracy, with the famous last words cry of "Something must be done!"

popinfresh

The Iraq war has been a complete disaster. I'm probably on my own here, but I think the world (USA in particular) would be a potentially safer place with Saddam Hussein still in power. Why? Because now the US actully is an evil empire that's invading Arab-countries. Which was the jest of Ossamma's arguments. All Bush is doing by invading Iraq/Afghanistan (and lets face it, probably Iran) is giving terrorists reason to hate the US even more than they did before. He acheived absolutely nothing by invading Iraq, the place is on the brink of civil war, people are dying everyday. I hate to say it, but in my opinion, the only way to rule a country such as Iraq, is with an iron fist. Which is what Saddam was doing. No that he's gone the country has gone to hell. I don't think anything good came of the Iraqi war. Unless of course you take into consideration the hidden motivs of the US government. :rolleyes:I simply refuse to beleive that the most intelegent country in the world would have invaded Iraq in the name of peace and freedom. (Any CIA personal that has since left the CIA said there was no evidence of WMD). I mean, if normal people talking on the internet can see the flawed and stuid logic given to us to justify invading Iraq, surely the most intelegent government in the world also foresaw this...

Elessar

TomF wrote:

Was Bush right all-along?

HAHAHAHA

You're a funny guy.

vibe666

if the US was bothered with anything other than oil they'd have stepped in during the yugoslavian or chechnyan 'problems' but no oil, no interest.

Flukey

Operation Iraqi Liberation

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Neuro

This thread is degenerating into the kind simplistic pro-war/pro-Saddam dichotomy that was evident in the media before and during the war.

Just because an individual disapproves of the war, does NOT mean that they approve of Saddam's rule over Iraq. Yes, Iraq is a far better place now that Saddam has been deposed but we have to question WHY the US wanted to get rid of him. Was it?

A: Because the US believes that everyone has a right to freedom/democracy etc.

B: That by getting rid of Saddam the US would get a foothold in the Middle East allowing it to excerpt control over the region and thereby guarantee oil supplies that are absolutely critical to the US economy.

(Yes, I know that the US only gets a small percentage of its oil from the Middle East but the supply/price relationship of oil is what's known in economics as highly inelastic.)

It's a little like Actua Reas and Mens Rea in criminal law:

- Actus Reas: what action did the accused perform.
- Mens Rea: what was the intent of the accused in performing the action.

In the case of the Iraqi war:

- Actus Reas: the US invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam and installed an interim government before allowing the populace to elect its own.
- Mens Rea: to remove a dictator whose continued control of Iraq was an embaraassment to the Bush family, to install a pro-US government that would allow the US to base its forces in Iraq to secure oil output in the region and keep a close watch on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.

Neuro

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think the poster was referring to the Yugoslavian Civil War of 1991.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

m1ke

My opinion is a bit of a fence sitter, partly because I can't help being optimistic. If you had asked me before the war, I would have said no way... but if US foreign policy in the middle east manages to produce a viable political unit. That the centrifugal forces in Iraq don't rip it apart into civil war.

I will judge this a success when there have been two consecutive elections in Iraq that hold up to high standards of international scrutiny. Furthermore, i'll judge it a success if the level of terrorism doesn't threaten the functioning of the state.

It's a tall order but it actually looks possible because...
a) the assault on iraq was concluded pretty quickly
b) the regime was disolved quickly... a little too quickly actually, it left a dangerous power vaccum that distablished the region... they should have envisaged this happening in the event of their easy initial invasion.
c) They managed to pick of most of the leaders inc. Sadam and wisely haven't made any martyrs out of them
d) There has been a provisional election and they're trying to hammer out a political unit.

If you had asked me would this have happened before the war I would have said no way. But I think a lot of people need to admit to themselves that so far everything has more or less gone to plan. It would actually be nice if the US managed to transform this region into something better... and I actually hope that they do.

Dinner

Neuro wrote:

we have to question WHY the US wanted to get rid of him. Was it?

A: Because the US believes that everyone has a right to freedom/democracy etc.

B: That by getting rid of Saddam the US would get a foothold in the Middle East allowing it to excerpt control over the region and thereby guarantee oil supplies that are absolutely critical to the US economy.

Where is answer C: All of the above.

No matter what the motivation for the war, which by the way I dont believe was only oil, I will always support it, because if on the off chance it was only about oil then they at least are trying to do a good deed along the way.

Thats just me and I dont expect anyone to be convinced just because of what someone said on the internet.

Boggle

You could always argue that perception of intent is much more important than the intent itself. Regardless of what bush intended, there is a perception that his motives were ill-founded among much of the world outside Iraq (including here). To be honest, if we have reason to doubt him, how do you reckon the rest of the Muslim world feel about his actions?

While few would argue that Sadam was a good leader, I don't believe anyone would argue that he was the worst leader in the world. By this logic, then why choose iraq first if there were no personla/financial motives??

Hairy Homer

TomF wrote:

The seeming development of a Kiev-like, popular, long-term street-demonstration against Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the recent popular success of elections in Iraq make it look to me that Bush was right all-along

Ironic that you should raise Lebanon as an example to start off this article. Because until the recent assassination of Hakiri, it could be held up as an example of the peace and prosperity that can be generated with the presence of an alien and not entirely welcome army overseeing things.

Syria has been the power broker in Lebanon for years and its presence there has resulted (eventually after many years) with a reduction of tension and a return to the peace and prosperity for which Lebanon was famous until the 1970s.

But, let's face it, a foreign army isn't going to be welcome for ever, especially if it has long-standing bitter enemies in the population at large.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Syria's scheming in Lebanon but if you want a role model for how an invading army can bring a TEMPORARY peace, the Syrians are your boys.

Funny the Yanks don't seem to see it that way.

galactus

Iraq car bombing causes carnage

This is no-one's definition of peace.

Neuro

Boggle wrote:

While few would argue that Sadam was a good leader, I don't believe anyone would argue that he was the worst leader in the world. By this logic, then why choose iraq first if there were no personla/financial motives??

It's further proof that Bush's stated intent (freeing an oppressed people) was not his true intent (securing a power base in the Middle East).

And as you say, while his stated intent and his actions are incongruent, his true intent and actions are not!

Neuro

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't think hosting a meeting on an airforce base in Ohio for Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman (both alleged war criminals) and the Prisident of Bosnia four years after the start of the war seriously constitutes intervention.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

vibe666

the problem there though is the same everywhere else the US 'intervenes' i.e. air strikes.

you don't see US peacekeeping forces in yugoslavia or chechnya now do you? it's all down to the UN now that there's nobody left to shoot.

the US is nothing more than a playground bully. only the first to help when it comes to blowing sh1t up and getting it's own way, but nowhere to be seen when genuine good needs to be done.

Flukey

Let's look at the reasons we were given for the war and see how they completely do not stand up to scrutiny. First of all let me state clearly that I am as glad as anyone that Saddam was gone. Also I am not in any way anti-American or pro-Saddam, a common mis-placed accusation thrown against anyone that opposed the war. Instead of addressing the issues, that is what people do and try to dismiss our points that way. America is a wonderful country with wonderful people and many wonderful things about it. As you will see it is only the people in power and their foreign policies that are at fault. Those that oppose the war are against the foreign policies of America in the Middle East, not America itself. I don't agree with every single policy of every Irish government, as I am sure you don't, but does that make us anti-Irish?

First of all, this war was decided on long before GWB even came to power, trying to finish the job his Daddy started. Also the first US cabinet was full of people tied to oil companies, so whatever about the French, they had a huge interest in Iraqi oil. Did you know there is a tanker out there which was named after one of the oil company Chevron's senior people? The tanker is called Condoleeza! One guess as to who it was named after. Also one of the first thing the invading troops did was to go in and secure the oilfields, telling us that this was only being done in case Saddam would try and set them alight. Yeah, right!

We all remember how Osama Bin Laden was public enemy number 1 and then suddenly with a bit of jiggery pokey, GWB suddenly out of nothing put Saddam into that position and overnight Osama was forgotten. This war was planned long before 9/11 but those events gave GWB a perfect excuse to launch it, but he'd have found another one. We were told of the great ties between Osama and Saddam, which in actual fact were about as close as those between Osama and GWB!!

Let's deal with the weapons. First of all, were they any? We know the answer to that one. Then any weapons that did they did have and the technology to make more, were supplied by who? Yes, principally the USA amongst others, not least Britain. In about 1983, the then Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and his deputy George Bush, sent an envoy to Baghdad, to supply Saddam with arms. The envoy was one Donald Rumsfeld! Why didn't the USA invade Britain as they are known for definite to have WMD's? Equally why did Britain not invade the USA as they are the country that have most of them?

Another charge against Saddam was that he was a threat to his neighbours and had invaded some of them. He invaded two. Kuwait, we all remember. The other was Iran, which they invaded with the full blessing and encouragement of the USA, which is why the aforementioned visit to Baghdad happened. So they can only really complain about the invasion of Kuwait. Incidentally the USA also gave its support to one Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting with the Mujahadeen against the Soviet invasion of Iraq. If Kuwait's main export was something like rice and not oil, the allies would not have said anything about that invasion either. Meanwhile another Middle-Eastern nation, Israel, known to have weapons of mass destruction, again supplied by the US, has invaded every country bordering it. Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. Are they not a threat to their neighbours? Iraq was accused of defying UN Resolutions. They did indeed. Israel however, has defied dozens of resolutions and no threats were ever made against them. America and Britain and other nations that are known to have WMD's have invaded many countries and America itself is the only country to have ever dropped 'the bomb.' There are many countries around the world that do have weapons of mass destruction and have invaded countries, but America has not said a word about. Saddam was also accused of proliferating arms, while it is the USA which is the country in the world most responsible for sharing and selling weapons technology. Another small reason for the war, as with the original Gulf War, was to act as a shop window for arms to countries that might be interested in purchasing them.

Saddam was called a dictator, as he certainly was. He got to power though with the help of America, particularly with that of the CIA headed up by George Bush. He was accused of attacking his people particularly the infamous gassing, again a valid charge, but at the time, although it was well known about, America and Britain hardly batted an eyelid over it. Saddam was correctly vilified for killing his own people but ironically, now GWB has moved in and is doing the job for him! Any Iraqi that has lost family members in the past 2 years, won't be consoling themselves with the fact that Saddam is gone and will not see GWB as being any better than him.

He was accused of starving his people, because of the sanctions. The sanctions were of course put in place by the UN and supported by the USA who constantly refused to remove them. They obviously were not going to effect Saddam as he was never going to starve, so what were the purpose if they were only going to hit those that they were supposed to help? So the USA was far more responsible for the poor state of the country than Saddam was, though he had his part.

There are many countries out there that are a lot harder on their people than Iraq, like Saudi Arabia, but their regimes get the full backing of the USA. Saddam as we said was installed by the USA and they have installed plenty of others, often in place of democratic governments, while they claim to want to bring democracy to the world. The dictator, General Pinochet was brought to power in Chile in 1973 with the assistance of the USA in place of a democratically elected government. President Salvador Allende was overthrown with the help of the CIA, a fact admitted later by the USA. He was shot on the steps of the Presidential Palace, by a man in a Chilean army uniform. This was possibly one of the CIA agents involved in the coup that were dressed in Chilean soldiers uniforms. Pinochet, also a pal of Margaret Thatcher, went on to commit some huge atrocities against the people, but nothing was said. Henry Kissinger has a lot of blood on his hands over this amongst other things. Some of the countries and regimes supported by the USA make Saddam look like a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize! As for democracy, we all know that GWB himself was not elected in the 200 election and only got in through his pals in the supreme court, effectively mounting a coup to take power. There were no international calls for him to stand down or threats to invade and return the democratically elected President Gore to power. When that type of thing has happened anywhere else, the USA itself is the first country to start calling foul! It is ironic that the supposively two greatest democracies in the world have heads of state that were not elected and only got the jobs because their fathers held it before them! Democracy was to be brought to Iraq. Since the recent Iraq election Saudi Arabia had a very limited one, in which women were not allowed to partcipate in. There was no outcry over that.

I could go on, but basically every charge levelled against Saddam could be levelled against the USA, Britain or many of its friends and nations they have supported to a far greater extent, but nothing has ever been done to about those countries. Once again I am glad that Saddam has gone, which is the only positive thing to have come out of this war. If the main objective was to get rid of him, why did they not all pack up and go home the day after he was toppled, in April 2003? We were told the war was over in May 2003, from the deck of an American aircraft carrier, but they are still there and still fighting and killing the people they were supposed going in to liberate. While some of them may be, those they are fighting are largely not the outlaws and supporters of Saddam that they are portrayed as. Most are just ordinary people trying to get rid of the invading forces in their supposedly liberated country!

So in short, not one of the reasons we have been given for the war stand up to any scrutiny and also have not been applied as reasons to attack countries to which these reasons would be very appropriate, including the USA and Britain themselves! Saddam is gone, which is good, but an invasion and occupation was nto needed for that. Today we had the biggest terrorist atrocity since Saddam left, although of course the whole idea of getting rid of him was to stop terrorism. It has continued to get worse and the same mistakes are being made over and over again. Every allied bomb dropped or shot fired is more encouragement for the terrorists and makes it easier for them to point to the allies as the bad guys and swell their own ranks. Far from being a war on terror, this is a war for terror, as the longer it goes on, the more terrorism we are getting and there is a lot being stored up for later use, possibly a bigger 9/11. So apart from Saddam going, not one of the objectives given for the war has been achieved, but then maybe a lot of the ones we weren't told about have been!!!

Operation Iraqi Liberation. (amongst other things!)

Dinner

vibe666 wrote:

only the first to help when it comes to blowing sh1t up and getting it's own way, but nowhere to be seen when genuine good needs to be done.

Except when marines are the first to put boots to ground to deliver food and water after the tsunami, except when they are always the first to be called upon when something goes wrong and still are criticised.

Yes they are never around to do good. :rolleyes:
*sigh*

Dinner

Flukey wrote:

Operation Iraqi Liberation. (amongst other things!)

Just a small point, but wasnt the actual operation called Operation Iraqi Freedom rather than Liberation. I'm not trying to be a smartarse just wondering if it was changed to suit that phrase.

Flukey

That is what it was called publicly Arabel, yes, but as we all know the public reasons given were not up to much.Operation Iraqi Liberation is far more appropriate.

Dinner

Right so it was just made up then.

m1ke

Most of the arguments against the war in iraq on this thread, even the more well thought out ones can be summarised as follows: US actions are hypocritical, therefore wrong. And that even though it is possible that many good things may result from US actions in Iraq, the end doesn't justify the means.

I don't feel that this sort of attitude can help solve world problems, it just paralyzes any possible positive action. This is perhaps why Bush resorts to constantly lying about his domestic policy(i'm also willing to accept the fact that he's a total plank who is being played by his officials). Perhaps if we could overcome this collective psychological barrier as europeans we wouldn't have turned a blind eye to the waves of genocide, disease, poverty and countless millions of people who have died as a result of our inactions in the last few short years. Europes heritage has always been that of war, genocide and holocaust... the only thing that has changed between 1945 and now is that we drown it out by covering our ears and getting on our collective high horses and lecturing the US about who is hypocritical and who isn't hypocritical. At least the US is trying to stabilise one region(the middle east) in the world... if iraq can be stabilised it will provide a base from which the rest of the region can be stabilised, the palestinians can get some form of justice and syria and iran can look into what their future will be like if they don't take the route libya has and cooperate.

popinfresh

Of course the US is gonna invade Iran, it's only a matter of time really. If the motives of the US is to "spread freedom" (the propegandic reason), then their current attitude towards Iran says blatently that they want to invade Iran. On the other hand, if the invasion of Iraq was economy based, then it makes sense that they are gonna invade Iran. It's really that simple.
However, I find what the US is saying ATM to be quite interesting. Whereby they're not preparing the nation for invading Iran. I think they'll treat Iran differently than Iraq. To invade Iran they're gonna need a bit more of a clever way of doing it. I.e. They tell Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities (secretly of course) Inevitably Iran will strike back, then the US invades Iran "in defence of Israel"

Easy Peasy Lemmon Squeezy :cool:

mr_angry

I think its unfair to say that Europe isn't trying to stabilise the Middle East, especially when they are trying to find a peaceful resolution to the concerns in Iran. The EU are clearly going for the "carrot" route whereby they offer Iran improved trade agreements etc., whereas the US are going with the "stick" approach whereby they demand sanctions and possible military intervention. Unfortunately, the two sets of actions are so disjointed, neither may have the desired effect, and the two sides are so opposed in what they think is the best approach, the issues are unlikely to be resolved.

I think it would be untrue to describe Bush's actions in the Middle East as "correct". Firstly, the basis of the invasion was the "45-minute deployment of WMDs". Seeing as these were never found, its hard to justify the case in hindsight. True, they could have been dismantled, buried, and hidden, but in my world its a case of innocent until proven guilty, and hence the burden of proof was on the coalition - a burden they failed to make good on. However, I have no problem with the deposition of a man like Saddam, but the methods employed to do so, and some of the baggage that came with it was something I found very difficult to stomach. There were good and bad points to the invasion - I'd find it hard to say it was fundamentally a good or a bad thing.

Secondly, I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe the Middle East as "stable". And if you can't do that, I fail to see how you can credit Bush with making it stable. If anything, I think there are even tougher times ahead in our lifetime, and it will take an unimaginable amount of courage from the people of that region to overcome their problems and create a better future. I think its important to recognise the bravery of the civillian population - its not Bush who's out there amidst beheadings and car-bombs, and its not him who risks being hit by some kind of bombing as he protests in Lebanon. Credit where its due.

m1ke

I think its unfair to say that Europe isn't trying to stabilise the Middle East, especially when they are trying to find a peaceful resolution to the concerns in Iran.

I wonder how effective the EU carrot would be without the big US stick in the background.... in brief, on Iran, the EU are definitely the junior partners. But I think there US is going to pursue its foreign policy goals through mostly soft power in the next 5 years, they can't manage so many consecutive wars... but no doubt in a few years they'll go after their next objective.

I think it would be untrue to describe Bush's actions in the Middle East as "correct".

Ok so your definition of justification for war wasn't met here.... well mine wasn't either. However, I got over it and now want the US to be even more pro-active because they're succeeding at what they're doing.

Secondly, I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe the Middle East as "stable".

I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe the world as a stable place. Just look at the last couple of years: massive genoicde in Rwanda, gulags in north korea, war in the Balkans on Europes doorstep, genocide in Darfur(happening right now yet we don't hear jack about it)... the list just goes on. I say give the US some time to stabilise the place, it's not going to be perfect but if they manage to create a viable political unit there, it will have been worth it. So I say give them some time before judging them, there are some really good possibilities.

I think its important to recognise the bravery of the civillian population - its not Bush who's out there amidst beheadings and car-bombs, and its not him who risks being hit by some kind of bombing as he protests in Lebanon. Credit where its due.

I think the civilian population have very little to do with it... they're just trying to survive, like I would be if I was an Iraqi. It's leadership (both US and Iraq and allies in cooperation), Iraqi civil society. I think when most people praise the courage of the Iraqi people etc.., they're really just channelling their feelings about the positive things occuring in Iraq away from people who deserve credit i.e the US(not just bush, but everyone involved and on the ground inc. military and civilian aid workers and security gaurds all doing their bit in Iraq atm).

ionapaul

As happy as I am that Saddam and his murderous regime is gone, that the Iraqis are on the road to a better future and that things seem to be looking up in the longer-term in the Middle East, I can't bring myself to give credit to Bush or his administration. They didn't remove Saddam or promote democracy for atruistic reasons, but for selfish ones - the same reasons every single country (including Ireland, or even those wonderful Scandinavians!) does anything foreign policy related. The positive things that may result are by products of the US following its national interest in the Middle East. Hopefully (in the longer term) it can be seen as a 'non-zero-sum' game: the US will have a strong ally in the region and a military base while the Iraqis will have a democratic government that does not gas, rape or murder their own people en masse.

Of course, in the shorter term, it will be tough as the insurgency, made up of ex-Baathists and Sunnis upset at losing the dominance enjoyed under Saddam and foreign terrorists (that is what they are) sponsored by Syria and Iran, will be hard to defeat. Think of how hard it was for the British to combat the IRA, who may have had 10% support in the island of Ireland - the insurgency surely has the same level of support (but not much more) in Iraq.

Blub2k4

Does this site www.newamericancentury.org not validate all the tin foil hat theories?
It is the site of conspiracy theorists dreams!
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm is their statement of principles and here is the list of signatories:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

It's all there in black and white, I dont know why the debates tend to go on so long.

Neuro

ionapaul wrote:

As happy as I am that Saddam and his murderous regime is gone, that the Iraqis are on the road to a better future and that things seem to be looking up in the longer-term in the Middle East, I can't bring myself to give credit to Bush or his administration. They didn't remove Saddam or promote democracy for atruistic reasons, but for selfish ones - the same reasons every single country (including Ireland, or even those wonderful Scandinavians!) does anything foreign policy related.

Exactly! But then, all human action is borne out of self-interest.

ionapaul wrote:

The positive things that may result are by products of the US following its national interest in the Middle East.

It's really a form of reciprocal altruism (which really isn't altruism at all) and it's for this very reason that the US will never take an interest in Africa and other parts of the world like it; intervention there would not benefit the US in any immediate or substantial way.