quote:Originally posted by Austin Powers: Of course I see that past leaders have made tragic mistakes - our own past is the most horrendous example of that, I agree.
But do you really want to tell me that Bush's intentions were good when he started a war without a justified cause? (And when he lied to the international community about the WMDs thus undermining the future credibility of his own politics?) Sure, the war was overdue, but I don't understand why GWB's old man didn't finish the job properly after the first Gulf war anyway? It would have been much easier then than it has been now.
I NEVER said Bush was justified in his reasons for War: WMD and threat to the US. I HAVE said that freeing Iraq from Saddam should have been reason enough and was loooong overdue. As to America being "dangerous" by invading Iraq, I'd wager that the total casualties in this war have been FAR less than the victims of Saddam's reign: many of wich were children.
The reason GB1 didint finish the job was because public and international support wasnt there and the biggest mistake was made by Schwartzkopf (sp?) during the cease fire, he allowed Iraq to continue to fly (and buy more!) helicopter gunships to "protect their border from invasion". Saddam wasted no time using those gunships to kill all the rebels THE COALITION asked to rise up against him. For Washington's part, they dumped all responsibility for the cease fire on Schwartzkopf with no direct washington oversight. Someone should have caught the mistake. Nice huh? I've seen interviews with american soldiers that were stationed only a few miles away from where the rebels and kurds were getting wiped out and were ordered not to assist our former allies. Our taking Saddam was long overdue. Combine a porly drafted cease fire with poorly enforced trade restrictions on Iraq and you get the force the US encountered (and still fight) the second time around. Lying to the interntional community is a intresting point and was certainly a stupid move but what about France and Russia lying about supporting Saddam against restrictions? Russia had military experts stuck in Iraq hen the invasion started even! Not that two wrngs make a right by any stretch, but two of our biggest critics were trading illegal partners with saddam. It's easy for the majority of americans to be dismissive towards them when their motivations are so clear.
If you've really read my other posts, you'll see that I'm no Bush supporter (particularly because of his domestic policies) but that I think we'll be stuck with him for another four years like it or not.
A prediction for the future: While the international community rushes in to assure Iraq's future is democratic (and west-freindly, no doubt) Afghanistan will go largly ignored and either the US or UN will be back there for "peacekeeping" before the close of the decade.
I dont, however see the european fears of the US reaving through the middle east one country at a time making colonies and israel freindly territories. It's not going to happen. THe US now has a foothold in the region to launch operations against our enemies and THAT is definitely an underlying reason for the invasion in the first place. This is my third time through this post editing for typos so enjoy my diligence.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Actually, I'm surprised no one's flamed WizArtist for making anti-EU comments. Where are all the pro-Europeans screaming warmongering, nationalist bigot?
Probably attacking Jason.
Does anyone truly believe that Finland has the same clout as Der Faterland? Also, does several CENTURIES of hatred and fighting become non-issues in a couple of decades? You know there are still people hacked off at the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand or the reign of Vlad the Impaler. Like the American government... I don't trust it or the EU, or the UN.
It's been my experience that the masses are sheep led by a few that offer them the delights of selfindulgance and avarice for their support. That is why "Majority Rule" tends to BAD DECISIONS
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
"This is my third time through this post editing for typos so enjoy my diligence."
And, yet, I still count at least twenty of them (and that's being generous).
"I HAVE said that freeing Iraq from Saddam should have been reason enough and was loooong overdue."
So, do you also believe that we should, as soon as possible, overthrow the governments of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran (Ayatollah Khamanei), China, and the Sudan, to name a few? How about leaders in countries we traditionally hate, but who have started trying to be nice to us, like Libya, or like President Khatami in Iran? Maybe we should invade Russia while we're at it. They may not be communist anymore, but we never did like them, and it's not like they're really that better off than they were twelve years ago.
So, essentially, my question to you is: Once we start invading countries on the basis that they have bad leaders, where do we stop?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Once we start invading countries on the basis that they have bad leaders, where do we stop
Well, TSN, I don't think President Bush would authorize the US Military to invade the United States and overthrow his administration ... but we can dream, can't we?
posted
Y'know, you don't always have to make the extremely obvious joke.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not to mention Zimbabwe, where Mugabe rules with an iron grip...and remember Liberia? Wasn't Charles Taylor responsible for more than 10,000 deaths? And didn't he get off scot-free with a trip to Sierra Leone?
posted
If anyone thinks that this war was ever about anything other than petroleum, Israel, and money, A) they are dead wrong, B) they've flunked history, and C) they should really think about taking a couple of critical thinking courses.
US motivations in the middle east weren't even close to approaching humanitarian concerns, and if they had been (as was stated above) there are several regimes currently functional on the planet presently taking far more atrocious actions against their own citizenry you would think might make them a higher priority. I'm not saying Sadaam wasn't a brutal and cruel dictator, and that in many ways his people were suffering. But we all know that, really, that isn't the reason why we're there.
So what then? Enforcing UN resolutions? That kind of goes out the window when the UN asks you not to invade. Removing an imminent threat the the US population? Haven't seen hide nor hair of any imminent threat. This was and always has been about controlling resources and money. An argument could be made that in some way this is protecting American interests, but no one that I've heard is making that argument. And even if they were, I'm not so sure Joe Average in America is really reaping the benefits. Especially if his Reserve Unit is activated and he gets shipped off to Iraq to rebuild Iraq's (oil) infrastructure throughout the unforgiving desert in 115� F heat.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: So, do you also believe that we should, as soon as possible, overthrow the governments of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran (Ayatollah Khamanei), China, and the Sudan, to name a few? How about leaders in countries we traditionally hate, but who have started trying to be nice to us, like Libya, or like President Khatami in Iran?
Nope: I dont think the US is the "world's policeman" or that it's some kind of mainfest destiny that American ideals should dominate the world....nor do I think that UN resolutions have any meaning any more. Any country with enough clout can (and has) violated resolutions in the past with no consequences. The UN was originally meant to act as both a forum for settleing diffrences without war and policing/ enforcing the decisions it made. It does neither.
As to the US invading, I'm torn. On one hand, it's looong overdue. We should have invaded during the first gluf war, or at least after they tried to kill GB1. Our removing Saddam is something I think we'd really have to have done eventually. Backing down would only have led to Saddam feeling more invincible and rallying the Arab world further against the west. If nothing else, freeing Iraq SHOULD gain us a ally in the arab world (though we're sure not doing a very good job making freinds via Bush's admin.). On the other hand, we are focusing a LOT of attention and rescources on Iraq, building up a huge deficit and leaving Afghanistan behind like a albatross necklace and have not caught Bin Laden. Also, several of my freinds are serving "over there" and the body count is stacking up day by day. Our very own Griffworks is serving "over there" right now, in fact.
Regardless of the reasons why we're in the region or what the original motivations were, we ARE there for the long haul. We (and the whole UN) need to make both Iraq and Afghanistan a stable democracy and a military ally. Most of all, we need to make the people living in that region our freinds and trading partners so their quality of life improves and the underlying reasons for terrorism are eliminated.
As to invading anywhere else....we should have invaded Saudi Aribia if we were going to invade anywhere. It wont happen because of Saudi oil: that's where Bin Laden and middle-eastern terrorism's support is and always has been.
quote:So, essentially, my question to you is: Once we start invading countries on the basis that they have bad leaders, where do we stop?
I'd say that we invaded based on two things: one is that SAddam's regime was a proven enemy to the US and two was that GBJr needed something we could win to both follow up the easy victory in Afghanistan and to divert attention away from his curtailing of civil liberties in the name of "Homeland security" and not catching/ killing Bin Laden. Where do we stop? We stop with a free Iraq, some kind of international presence in the region to assure the government doesnt topple and whaen Bin Laden is dead or caught and his organization is broken. That doesnt mean invading everywhere but it surely will make the US unpopular with many governments that harbor terrorists.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"I dont think the US is the "world's policeman" or that it's some kind of mainfest destiny that American ideals should dominate the world."
Then where's the justification for invading Iraq? If we did it because SH was a bad man, we're being "police". If we did it because he violated UN resolutions, then why do we support Israel's doing the same? If we did it because he was a threat to us... well, he wasn't.
You can't just say "well, we don't have a specific justification, but we're happy with the results, so it's okay".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
NO you cant: we had two good reasons and blew the chance both times.
Well we suport Israel and condemn Iraq because one is our pal in the neighborhood and the other has tried to kill our president. Crappy reason, but there you are.
I sure dont think Israel deseves theie preferred status, and who knows? Once Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, they may even fall out of favor. We can hope.
As to our unlimately being justified: HIstory will be the judge of that. Rooseveldt was called a fool and a warmonger by congress prior to he Pearl Harbor attack for wanting the US to enter WWII and history may well say that BUsh was a fool for setting this precedent in US history.
The most I can do is vote against him.
I DO think that we have the chance because of the war to improve the region and our relations with it (again, it'll have to be handled far better to actually work).
Here's a question for you: if, -for instance- Syria were found to be harboring Bin Laden and refusd to surrender him to a world court, would invasion be justified then? I ask because it may yet become an issue the US has to face.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I don't honestly know much about how the World Court works, so I'm not sure how a situation like that is typically handled. But, should the US just up and mount a unilateral invasion as anything other than a last resort? No.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
WEll, I dont think it'll be *quite* so rash but I can forsee the situation happening. If Bin Laden were to hide in any arab country, that country's leaders couldnt just hand him over: their own people would rise up against them.
I wonder if we'll see something around....late aguust or so.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Not to mention Zimbabwe, where Mugabe rules with an iron grip.
But Mugabe's a black 'elected' [sic] president and therefore is always right about everything. And anything we try to do that is against him is just a futile attempt by the white imperialist oppressors to crush black people. Or so I'm told.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic