but in what manner were they antagonistic?

Let's see.....after Gulf War I, so this doesn't include gassing thousands of people.
Shooting at our planes in internation airspace? Paying money to the familes of suicide bombers? Refusing the UN inspectors? Congratulating the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists? Looking at us the wrong way? Being an ugly son of a bitch that was just asking for it?

Now they have to clean up the results as best they can, and if they can make it out of there with a secular, democratic government in place, I'd say it was a success.

Yes, but there are people declaring it a success already. The war itself cannot possibly be construed as successful based on the original goals.

I agree with you that *IF* a stable democratic government is created in Iraq, I can definitely see calling the overall net effect a success. Of course I would consider bringing democracy to North Korea or China much more of a success, but we can't just go in and kick the asses of those countries, can we?

Also, if you look at the U.S.'s history in building democracies, we're not exactly batting a thousand.

hey, at least we try

hey, at least we try

And in this case (and all the others) I think it'd be a lot more successful AND noble if we "tried" with enough allies to actually make it a long-lasting success, instead of doing it ourselves until it no longer suits our interest, then folding up shop and letting the warlords take over again.

By antagonistic, I was not considering internal conflict. (Though, to me, the human rights violations within Iraq were enough to go to war over. My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.)

I forgot about the no-fly zones. That's a good one. I'm not sure that I'd count the suicide bomber thing, but it's important to note, anyway. Same thing with the UN inspections thing, though we continue to get varying reports about that even from the inspectors themselves.

Congratulating the efforts of the 9/11 terrorists?

Hell, half the Asian world did that.

The rest I'll ignore.

My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.

Well, you have to remember the UN had it's chance. It failed to fulfill it's purpose, and it goes to show what a joke it actually is.

Though, to me, the human rights violations within Iraq were enough to go to war over. My position has always been that the US didn't have the right to attack, but the UN did.

You know, I completely missed that you felt this way throughout all of our discussions about Iraq. So you would have supported the effort if the UN orchestrated it and if the explicit reason was to remove a tyrannical dictator committing human rights atrocities? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth; just trying to be sure I understand correctly. Do other people agree with this? Because I kind of had the idea the Bush trumped up the WMD thing in order to go in when the real motive was to deal with human rights violations. I didn’t think it was right to do, but my guess was that he didn’t think he could get enough support on human rights alone. I’m saying this based on very little knowledge, and if more people would have supported a UN action to go into Iraq, I’d be very interested in knowing that.

> The reasons for the war were WMD's among other things.

The stated reason was that this was a war against terrorism. Bush stated Iraq had links to Al Queda, and the implication was we had to get rid of their vast stockpiles of WMD before it was given to terrorists. Turns out the whole thing was a lie from begining to end. Bush cynically used 9/11 to get America to go along with his plan and now is trying to rewrite history as to why this war was justified.

This war was not about WMDs, lots of countries have WMDs. This was not about getting rid of a dictator, there are plenty of dictators in the world. Neither explains why we went after Saddam. This was about money. And more than that this was about hegemony.

you forgot 'IMHO'

This was about money.

What exactly do you mean by this, and how with such certainty? Even with the blunders that this administration has made, I still don't believe this was about money. Spreading Democracy maybe (edit: though I don't believe so), but not pure greed.

This war was not about WMDs, lots of countries have WMDs.

Yeah, and long ago they all agreed that nobody else would get them.

This was not about getting rid of a dictator, there are plenty of dictators in the world.

That was one of the reasons. Should we invade every country that has a dictator? No, it's not feasible. That was just another strike against Iraq, as was the human rights issues. Let's be honest. No country is going to start a war over human rights, but since we're going in there anyway we might as well put an end to that too. The main reason was the growing threat Iraq posed to the US and our allies. Militarily, Saddam was no match. But his open support of terrorism, his refusal to prove that he's WMD-free, and his control over a vast amount of oil is a threat to the world. I don't care if we went into Iraq based on oil alone. Having a crazed dictator controlling the world's energy is not a good thing. We don't want that bastard to be holding the world by the balls in the future when he does have nukes. To say that Bush wants oil for himself is just ridiculous. The oil is staying in the hands of Iraq, but now it'll be controlled by sensible, elected leaders that hopefully aren't hell-bent on destroying the infidels or conquering the middle east.

So you would have supported the effort if the UN orchestrated it and if the explicit reason was to remove a tyrannical dictator committing human rights atrocities?

I don't know what international law has to say about this, but, in my mind, it doesn't matter. Yes. I would have totally supported the war (other than your general ``War is Hell'' ideology) if it had been orchestrated by the UN in reference to human rights and other countries had signed on for it. I realize I've said little here to that point, but that's the case. I supported the attack on Afghanistan, even, until it turned out to be a ``we're going to remove this government and do little else about ensuring peace'' fiasco. For that, I even somewhat supported the US going alone (before the fiasco part), although I thought it would have been good to at least acknowledge the offers of the international community. There would still be issues with a war, as Iraq was one of the very few secularly governed states in the Middle East, and, as far as terrorism goes, the religious states seem to be of bigger concern. I think it would be hard under any circumstance to establish a new secular government in Iraq, but I think the route the US has taken makes it especially hard.

My main problem with the war on Iraq is that the Bush administration obviously used the whole terrorism thing to get backing for his pet war. (I have as big a problem with them using it to erode personal rights within the US, but that's a different thread.)

However, as [censored] pointed out, the UN once again proved themselves to be toothless. I don't understand why they can get behind sending large numbers of troops to Yugoslavia but not to Iraq. I hate the fact that the UN seems unable to do anything, but, for now, it's the best we've got. Maybe it's time to dissolve it and form a new international body. Of course, the last time an international governing body dissolved World War II happened.

Honestly, the ``lots of small offenses'' argument is the only one that makes sense to me (regardless of the international support issue), and it makes a not unreasonable amount of sense. I still wouldn't have supported it, as I believe that only one of the ``small offenses'' is true.

Too bad it was an argument that the Bush administration used only when all of it's big red herrings proved to be untrue, and then tried to retcon and claim that's what they said the whole time.

(Note that I'm not intending to say that massive human rights violations, etc. are really ``small offenses''. I'm just paraphrasing the idea of ``there are a bunch of reasons that all add up to cause''.)

Very interesting. It turns out that you and I are not as far apart on this as I’d gathered, which I find quite encouraging. I suppose that the difference was that I started out with a fair amount of trust in Bush, whereas you did not. I’m totally bitter about this whole “what are the reasons for going to war thing”, even perhaps more so than you simply because I really believed everything that was said.

Still, burned as I am, I don’t think Bush’s motives are/were as bad as people are making out. However, due to his administrations lack of integrity, it’s really hard to know the truth now isn’t it?

(I have as big a problem with them using it to erode personal rights within the US, but that's a different thread.)

I too find this a much more disagreeable problem.

The primary arguement used by Bush was that Saddam had WMD's and that they are trained on the US and other countries. We have yet to see any evidence of these WMD's despite the 'dossier' shown to many governments.
Now the claims are that Saddam's capture is a great benefit to the Iraqi people. No mention of WMD's.
I did hear someone say that now Saddam would lead them to the WMD's.
Didn't the US have 'credible evidence' of the location of WMD's? If they couldn't find them before, despite this evidence, why will they be able to find them now?

I hesitate to say that it's more disagreeable. We are talking about killing people, Iraqis and western soldiers, versus what could be described as an inconvienience.

But there are positive aspects to the war and I cannot find any in the erosion of civil liberties. And I find it amusing (in a very black way) that we're supposedly protecting the American Way of Life by getting rid of it.

Ferretboy said:
> What exactly do you mean by this, and how with such certainty?

Well, it could just be coincidence that all of Bush's and Cheney's friends are in the oil business and are making money hand over fist for contracts that the government has awarded them and that other firms that aren't as friendly with the people in the administration have been largely locked out. And it might be coincidence that there are plans of establishing a semi-permanent armed guard to protect the oil interests there until such time as the United States has "paid" for its war with Iraqi oil. It could be coincidence, but you would have to pretty naive to believe these thoughts did not cross Bush's mind before the war. But alas, internal motives of people are hard to "prove" unless they are stupid enough to say it, but they can sure be implied by their actions.

Now, as for proof of this being about American hegemony, that there is plenty of. The people in Bush's administration have been urging and planning this for years, and that has documented.

The-guy-who-may-not-be-named said:
> Yeah, and long ago they all agreed that nobody else would get them.

And we largely ignore that. And it appears that Iraq doesn't have any anyway. Strange that, considering Bush said he knew where they were and everything.

> The main reason was the growing threat Iraq posed to the US and our allies.

He was no threat to us. His "support of terrorism" amounted to paying some families in Palestine. He had no way of hurting us. The inspectors had found no signs of WMDs and both Scott and Blix believed he had none. And his "control over a vast amount of oil" has nothing to do with being a danger to anyone, although it certainly was an opportunity for us.

> now it'll be controlled by sensible, elected leaders

Haha, you are an optimist I see. Saddam was secular, for all his faults. As soon as America is gone religious zealots are going to take over that country. We will have created a monster we will have no hope of containing. To believe Iraq is capable of democracy in our lifetime is not based in any understanding of the culture over there.

I wish you would argue at this level all the time man; when you put your mind to it and stop trying to be offensive you are pretty decent at this.

"a monster we will have no hope of containing"

You know I think that the Iraqis whose relatives were killed/tortured/gassed just might remember who got rid of him if or when that time comes. They are in the majority in Iraq.

-Zeke

But we helped put him in power in the first place, knowing that he was a monster.

I hope you're right, but I doubt you are.

Also, the majority are largely fundamentalist Shiites who might feel that supporting the Saud monarchy might outweigh that.

I don't really know. But it's certainly a situation much too complex to be controlled or predicted; not easily, anyway, if at all.

I'm sure we knew he wasn't a choir boy, but I don't think we knew he'd gas thousands.

Personally, I believe that in the long term, fundamentalist regimes are self limiting. They usually become corrupt, entrenched bureaucracies (theocracies I suppose is a better word) and eventually fail from within. I think Iran is well on the way to that goal. The danger comes in the end days when power is slipping, those in power start to fear and do dangerous/horrible things to consolidate & maintain power. I posit that corruption & power are pervasive in all forms of government. It's just that in a democratic state there exists a check on corruption called the ballot box.

-Zeke

By all accounts, the Ba'ath party killed basically all of the intelligentsia in Iraq following its 1963 coup, the interrogation and torture parts of which were probably led by Saddam Hussein himself. But they were against the Communists, so....

...we forstalled the people who had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed right at us from taking an oil rich nation in a strategic location.

It's easy to try to judge history. I'm certain many bad deeds have been done under our auspices. I don't believe that history can be simplified nor made less grey.

-Zeke

Yeah, ever since Farm Aid...

You would have thought that Saddam would have made sure that Garcia was still alive though before he took up the disguise.

You're so angry.

My psychiatrist says that she detects a distinct pattern -- that I consistently take anger towward BBS members and displace it at high-ranking members of the current administration. I'm not sure I buy that. What do you think?

Why do people in general panic at the first sign of resistance.

Ummmm... First sign?

The most recent Iraq war was one of the shortest in history, and an incredible success.

Hmmm, you are speaking in the past tense, but the war isn't over.

Now you are pissing and moaning about a few car bombs! Please, wait a little while to see how things work out.

I almost want to think that you are pulling my leg here (not like *I* would ever pull anybody's leg!)

BTW I read that essay and found it to be completely unrealistically optimistic about human nature.

Wait a minute. What happened to Pollyanna "Please, wait a little while to see how things work out. "? I'm confused.

You can't expect dictators to like you just because you give them free food and medicine. The only way to properly deal with a despot, is to remove him by force.

So, when does the invasion of North Korea begin? What, you say they have no oil? Just stupid WMD???

From your comments it seems you see our current president as a dictator,

No, i think he's just an unqualified, smug, completely incurious, self-satisfied, rich boy draft dodger. Oh, and I don't like him. I don't think we are living in a dictatorship, but I *am* very concerned that our cherished democracy seems to be sliding in the direction of a republic. That is not American Progress (tm).

and if you really do want him to stop, you know what to do. Its the only way to be sure.

Hmmmm. Make sure to move to a county with electronic voting?

Soooo, after blithley discounting Soros essay as not in keeping with your (angry?) ersatz-darwinian, hardball view of the world, what did you think of Soros core assertions vis-a-vis The Shrub Doctrine?

(to me, that would be this part: "Those principles can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails. The United States is unquestionably the dominant power in the post-Cold War world; it is therefore in a position to impose its views, interests, and values. The world would benefit from adopting those values, because the American model has demonstrated its superiority. The Clinton and first Bush Administrations failed to use the full potential of American power. This must be corrected; the United States must find a way to assert its supremacy in the world." )

The Shrub Doctrine? ?

"You must throw balls to sink them."



-Zeke

edit: err, sorry, that's Beiruit.

Heck... it took us at least five years to catch [......] I was amazed at how quickly Saddam was actually found.

The territory of Iraq is as big as California, so that's fair. I didn't know when he'd be caught, but I wondered if it might have happened earlier. Like maybe if we went in without the "rolling buildup" decried by so many left-leaning generals and with more than six people who could speak the language.

As far as the "left's" cry for more troops?

As I suggested, it wasn't just "the left" that thought that Rumsfeld was being a cocky jerk. Never mind enough troops to *maybe* find Saddam. How about enough troops to secure key objectives -- maybe prevent the bad guys from grabbing RPGs and such from unsecured dumps?

Well you can thank your pal Bill Clinton

I'm going to resist saying something really hurtful here and will instead just offer this news bulletin:

Bill Clinton is not my pal. Got that?

for scaling back the military so much.

Funny how even some ex-Reaganauts beg to differ . Clinton gets credit where he doesn't deserve (like for "prosperity" in a fatally-flawed bubble economy), so why not just take some *other* credit away?

I think there used to be a "six degrees of kevin Bacon"-type dictum on Usenet about how many posts could be posted in alt.whatever before someone *had* to mention the word "nazi". I am starting to feel that a similar rule exists in any on-line discussion of US politics -- can not go over 114 posts before Clinton/Clintons are mentioned!

It seems to me the left wanted Bush to initiate the draft just so they could have something to beat on him about and try to make the war look more like Vietnam.

And where exactly did you get this idea from??? I don't know what it was like when *you* were drafted, but I didn't like it at all -- wouldn't wish it on anybody. Course, with the long rotations, I am thinking that Reserve and NG re-up rates are not exactly going to reach all-time highs in the next few years, so where does that leave Clinton's all-volunteer force? If Vegas bookies started taking on odds on when the first lottery will occur, I would not be shocked.

No matter how this was handled the "left" would have found something to complain about.

Me? I did not have to look very far! I just *hate* having my president lie to me, fark up relations with just about everyone, neglect important commitments to other countries (remember Afgan....um, how do you spell that?), and put the lives of well-meaning but naive teenagers at risk.

While the performance of the military in the initial conflict really showcased the technical and organizational prowess of today's US military, the mess of the subsequent civilian administration if a broadly acknowledged cruel joke. Oh, and the governing council -- all those disinterested pure patriots who *assured* us there were WMD.

It's a mess. Interesting to hear a medic from an NGO on NPR yesterday. I (very roughly) paraphrase: "Wake up people! I took a woman in an ambulance to the hospital (in Basra, I think he said). During our 30-minute trip we were stopped 3 times at roadblocks/checkpoints manned by heavily-armed Shiite militias. British and Italian troops? None to be seen! You folks aren't looking at what is going to happen next"

You can probably find the audio of this gent on npr.org if you want to gauge the fairness of my paraphrasing. Anyhow, this is from somebody who has actually been there and who saw signs of much factional conflict ahead. Fun, fun. It is *cool* now in Iraq. Next summer? Not so cool. I envy no one there.

With respect to that Soros essay (which I like a lot) and the section of iit that I dropped in another post that includes "The world would benefit from adopting those values, because the American model has demonstrated its superiority." I was amused recently when a friend sent me a copy of "The Scramble for Africa" by Thomas Pakenham wherein the struggles of the various Livingstones to bring Christianity to deprived natives is detailed. I've just started the book, and there's certainly more to it than that, but the parallel to current American we-know-what's-good-for-you righteousness could not be escaped.

In reply to:

---

Soooo, after blithley discounting Soros essay as not in keeping with your (angry?) ersatz-darwinian, hardball view of the world, what did you think of Soros core assertions vis-a-vis The Shrub Doctrine?

---

I like your writing style. I wish I could put my thoughts on paper as learnedly. Maybe, others wouldn't be so quick to ignore my posts.

Seriously, I think Soros is correct in his analysis of what the President and other leaders appear to be doing. The funny thing is that this is what he said he would do. [paraphrase] "We will take the fight to them, not wait for them to come here and fight on american soil" - Bush [/paraphrase]
I understand that you have a problem with the media portrayal early-on that this was about WMD. Mostly, what I heard at the vast majority of press conferences from the President was that Saddam was an evil man and if he didn't tell us about his weapons program and allow inspections then we would do it by force. When Iraq didn't comply he did exactly what he said he would do, President Bush used force. What bothers you more, the fact that Bush does what he says he will do, or uses the American Military machine for the purpose that it is intended for?

Personally, I dislike wars, but I understand the reasons that the human race has been at war with each other for thousands of years. I really don't see the point in going against the grain... others disagree and that is one of the best things about life. Variety!
Maybe I'm just a little bit lazy and isolationistic - do feel free to tell me I'm going to regret it. So for all those activists out there protesting wars, the internal combustion engine, eating meat, using wood, digging for stuff, and children... RELAX..... it will all be fixed someday. I'm sure of it.

We are talking about killing people, Iraqis and western soldiers, versus what could be described as an inconvienience.

Well, consider all the people that died establishing and then defending our freedoms. Now they're just giving them away. I do NOT consider it a slight inconvenience.

Nor I (I was exaggerating the point), but the point is that we're talking about people dying versus restrictions on what people are allowed to do. And I'm not thinking about those unfortunate bastards who are held in military prisons without due process. They lie at the intersection of the war and the removal of rights.