The Iraq Thread 2

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Ok, i can respect that, i hate the EU and the US equally

[USSoldier11B 0]

How can you hate America? We invented cholesterol and the internet.

On a more serious note: In a Political Science discusion at my university, I pointed out to the professor early on that Blair was risking his political career by backing a U.S. led coalition in Iraq. Remember this was early on, when the rumblings of action were just becoming public (for all of you who know me to have predicted this war last year to much criticism by Denoir and company) The professor, a PhD and the department head thought that it was a very intuitive comment. Now I am seeing the results of such action in what I consider to be the British public, represented by those members here who are displaying their contempt for Blair's actions. I come to two possible conclusions:

1. Blair was duped by the U.S.

or

2. Blair knows something you don't.

Extremist whining and harsh political rhetoric aside. (C'mon guys, the slippery slope flaming crap is getting old. I am guilty of it too, and if you've noticed, since Denoir's unfortunate incident I have proactively decided to stop being such an ass, if that's possible. The climate around here was getting pretty hostile and finally exploded with the forementioned incident)

Anyways, Blair, being a great many things, is no fool. The Bush Administration has a seasoned and pragmatic cabinet. The hunch I am getting is that these guys know something we don't. I do work in intelligence, and have had a couple briefings that involved info that would cause many of you to blanch. unfortunately, being on my echelon, there is much I don't know as well. I do believe that the WMD angle was a ploy to get past UN bureaucratic red tape. Which dispite the hostilities of many Europeans and liberal Americans...worked.. However, the underlying factor is not clear to me yet. So....this will end up one of two ways.

1. I am right...It will play out that the coalition has an objective unseen to us, and it will come to bear in the future.

or

2. I am wrong...Our elected leaders, appointed cabinet members, Generals, intelligence agencies, etc...are all war mongering fools and are far inferior to the intellect, morals, ethics, and sensibilties of the opponents of these actions.

C'mon folks, the opposition of combat operations in Iraq has nothing to do with Iraqi civilians, except maybe in Boulder or Cal Berkley.

Show a little humility in the fact that big brother probably knows more about what's going on than you do. (I tried not to be an ass there)

I base these reasonings on one key factor of American and probably also a Western European politically scientific fact:

They key objective of elected officials is to get re-elected.

These men gambled their political careers on this war......I doubt that they did such carelessly.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Im sure a lot of people have wondered the same and i have my own suspicions: namely the very 'democratic imperialism' that the original Iraq thread started by discussing.

It is certainly true that the Bush Administration gets a very bad press in europe (it could also be said that europe is pretty badly represented in America right now) and if you combine the entertainment media with the news media then the general impression left of TBA is that they are bunch of mindless or oil obsessed bufoons not fit to run an ant farm.

However much i disagree with the Bush Administration i recognise a lot of the stereotyping in the media here as crude and somewhat unnecessary. If it was all true America would have nuked itself by now

Wolfowitz, Rice and many others in the administration are intelligent and eloquent (if totally wrong on many issues...) and even Bush isnt quite as stupid as he is often made out to be in europe. So what is behind it all? Thats the main (though not only) answer i can come up with- a new imperialism. Its worth remembering that Blair is regarded by many including by some in the labour party as something of a liberal interventionist with some neo-imperial ideas (his big speech on 'saving' africa would probably make USSoldier11Bs blood run cold) so a link up by Blair with pro-interventionist neo-conservative thinkers (some of whom i understand used to be democrats) is not quite as strange as it might at first seem.

A reordering of the middle east (by force if necessary) , increasing freedoms for arab populations and harassing previously tolerated regimes in order eventually to bring about a sea change in arab and muslim thinking and society would be beneficial both to America and the west at large (including Britain). Thanks to the Iraq war the US is already pulling out of Saudi Arabia thus diminishing a major historic grievance between the Arabs and Americans, now there is a major push on the Israel/palestine front towards peace, there is unrest in Iran that TBA is no doubt looking to stoke...

I think many things are related in the middle east and the muslim world and came together to form a cause for the Iraq war. Wolfowitz said it himself, there WAS no one reason for the Iraq war but WMD were decided on to unite as many parties as possible. Im sure different people had different motivations for pushing for or supporting a war, so can we seperate one overiding factor (im not totally excluding oil from the equation)?

[Longinius 1]

"I think his point was that the fat-cats of the religion...the ones not starving, not having a problem getting water, with clean new clothes, are the ones inciting. "

Yes, and my point is that many of the organised religions have the sole purpose of creating these fat cats. Priests that make sure to fill their on pockets on the expense of the common man.

Christianity was that way, and still is to some extent. Same with Islam. Priests abusing those that worship the god to put them selves in a better position.

[Schoeler 0]

Im sure a lot of people have wondered the same and i have my own suspicions: namely the very 'democratic imperialism' that the original Iraq thread started by discussing.

It is certainly true that the Bush Administration gets a very bad press in europe (it could also be said that europe is pretty badly represented in America right now) and if you combine the entertainment media with the news media then the general impression left of TBA is that they are bunch of mindless or oil obsessed bufoons not fit to run an ant farm.

However much i disagree with the Bush Administration i recognise a lot of the stereotyping in the media here as crude and somewhat unnecessary. If it was all true America would have nuked itself by now  

Wolfowitz, Rice and many others in the administration are intelligent and eloquent (if totally wrong on many issues...) and even Bush isnt quite as stupid as he is often made out to be in europe. So what is behind it all? Thats the main (though not only) answer i can come up with- a new imperialism. Its worth remembering that Blair is regarded by many including by some in the labour party as something of a liberal interventionist with some neo-imperial ideas (his big speech on 'saving' africa would probably make USSoldier11Bs blood run cold) so a link up by Blair with pro-interventionist neo-conservative thinkers (some of whom i understand used to be democrats) is not quite as strange as it might at first seem.

A reordering of the middle east (by force if necessary) , increasing freedoms for arab populations and harassing previously tolerated regimes in order eventually to bring about a sea change in arab and muslim thinking and society would be beneficial both to America and the west at large (including Britain). Thanks to the Iraq war the US is already pulling out of Saudi Arabia thus diminishing a major historic grievance between the Arabs and Americans, now there is a major push on the Israel/palestine front towards peace, there is unrest in Iran that TBA is no doubt looking to stoke...

I think many things are related in the middle east and the muslim world and came together to form a cause for the Iraq war. Wolfowitz said it himself, there WAS no one reason for the Iraq war but WMD were decided on to unite as many parties as possible. Im sure different people had different motivations for pushing for or supporting a war, so can we seperate one overiding factor (im not totally excluding oil from the equation)?

Bush isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'll give him credit for being smart enough to pick smart people for his cabinet. The quandary for me is: Whats better? 1) A President who isn't too bright, but who seems to really mean what he says (Bush). 2) A really bright President who doesn't mean anything he says (Clinton). Why can't America just elect a guy who's really bright and means what he says?

I was thinking the other day that maybe the Bush Administration had to fight the Iraq war. I watched a TV program on North Korea's nuclear capabilities. In the program some government officials virtually conceded that "the nuclear genie is now out of the bottle." Given North Korea's propensity for distributing WMD freely to the highest bidder, might it not be possible that they forced the Bush Administration's hand. What if the CIA knew that Saddam had a few North Korean warheads on layaway or something? Among all of the North Korean's potential customers (excluding Al-Qaeda of course), isn't Saddam the one most likely to use the weapons and the man the U.S. would least like seeing buy them?

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]namely the very 'democratic imperialism' that the original Iraq thread started by discussing.

You will find that most Americans are baffeled by this idea. If you know American history, you will notice that the U.S. was quite the isolationist until it was pretty much forced into both WWI and WWII. Yes, America does advocate democracy, for us it is how we live. I don't propose to say that our way of life is right for the entire world, but I do think people should have some degree of civil liberty and be able to pursue their "destinies" as they see fit. Perhaps it is abstract idealism, but it is a cohesive element of American society that most Americans agree on, liberal or conservative. While you see us as democratic imperialists, we see an increasingly socialist Europe where civil liberities that are RIGHTS (privacy, arms, free speech) to us, are being taken away from you. You must understand that the way your society is moving is just as alarming to us (us being non Hillary types) as ours are to you. Understand that all but the most liberal Americans are still conservative by European standards. I don't propose that America be entirely capitalist, because some aspects of society benefit from social programs. (i.e. education) However, Americans are wary of government intrusion into every aspect of their lives. I personally don't want or expect the government to fix everything. I'm not saying that socialism is evil per se, I just don't want it to infringe on my Constitutional rights. I'd like to officially coin the term "democratic imperialism" as a Denoirism. As intelligent as the guy is, he has absolutely no clue about how democracy in America functions, why? because he grew up in a socialist nation and has no experience with it. Personally, I don't really care what kind of gov't other nations have, as long as they aren't oppressing and slaughtering their own people or crashing planes into our national landmarks.

[FSPilot 0]

Hellfish

Quote[/b] ]Because France and the US were, for all intents and purposes, controlled by the US at the time - they relied on the US, to varying degrees, for economic, political and military well-being. Of course they weren't going to throw a fit about a bunch of guys gassing each other thousands of kilometers away when they've got the whole Soviet Army sitting right across the border and a McDonalds on every corner. In the Cold War, you had little to gain and much to lose by questioning US policy.

I'm sure they really cared about that in literally the last days of the cold war.

And I thought the "I was just following orders" defense lost it's credibility after world war two.

Quote[/b] ]Again - at the behest of the US. I'm sure French, German, British and American chemical companies weren't raising issues of humanitarianism and ethics when the US was saying "Well, we know he's a jerk, but he's our jerk, so let's give him some gas. He'll use it on the Iranians and maybe - just maybe - we can destabilize the Iranian government enough to put the Shah back in there". The chemical companies, looking over their shoulder to make sure that this great news, these huge new profits, were really true just saw Uncle Sam winking and smiling at them.

If I'm not mistaken, we didn't hand them "gas". We handed them things that could be used both ways, to create vaccines and also to create a chemical weapon. Either way, "They were just following America" isn't an excuse.

Quote[/b] ]That's just plain conjecture on your part about Kuwait encouraging the Iraqis.

I meant Kuwait encouraged the US to take military action on Iraq (who was in Kuwait at the time).

Quote[/b] ]I mean, you hear GWB talking about how it was a "Coalition" effort to take out Saddan in OpIF. Yes, I suppose the legal definition of a coalition would be two or more countries fighting for a common goal. But come on - Australia and Poland were the only other countries that contributed any kind of force to the war, and even then just a few hundred specops or aircrews. That hardly makes it a coalition in my book. That's like saying poop smells kind of stinky. While it does meet the definition, it doesn't accurately describe what it was.

I remember hearing we had over 60 country's support in this war, actual or "I got your back" support I'm not sure. Don't think it matters really.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that maybe they just DO NOT EXIST!

Didn't you just get done arguing that America is at fault for handing them these weapons? Pick one argument and stick with it. He either didn't have them and we're at fault, or he did and we're at fault.

[hellfish6 7]

Aside from the argument about why this war is being fought. (which even the most consevative pro-Bush Admin. of us agree has little to do with WMD.) I think the conflict is being handled very well by CENTCOM. I really deplore how the liberal elements of the news media are attempting to "Vietnamize" what's happening. I guess the "shock and awe" media orgasm has subsided and now that nothing dramatic has happened they are nitpicking U.S. actions and casualty reports because there is nothing else to report. Sure is a load of crap given the fact that they were begging to be imbedded with combat units a few months ago. American news media doesn't care about "news" all they care about it selling the story. Hence the attempted PFC Lynch media orgy. If there is one thing I dislike about my own nation it is our media. (not that I like yours *coughBBCcough* either)

I think we agree one something - American journalism doesn't exist anymore.

[Harnu 0]

Quote[/b] ]namely the very 'democratic imperialism' that the original Iraq thread started by discussing.

You will find that most Americans are baffeled by this idea. If you know American history, you will notice that the U.S. was quite the isolationist until it was pretty much forced into both WWI and WWII. Yes, America does advocate democracy, for us it is how we live. I don't propose to say that our way of life is right for the entire world, but I do think people should have some degree of civil liberty and be able to pursue their "destinies" as they see fit. Perhaps it is abstract idealism, but it is a cohesive element of American society that most Americans agree on, liberal or conservative. While you see us as democratic imperialists, we see an increasingly socialist Europe where civil liberities that are RIGHTS (privacy, arms, free speech) to us, are being taken away from you. You must understand that the way your society is moving is just as alarming to us (us being non Hillary types) as ours are to you. Understand that all but the most liberal Americans are still conservative by European standards. I don't propose that America be entirely capitalist, because some aspects of society benefit from social programs. (i.e. education) However, Americans are wary of government intrusion into every aspect of their lives. I personally don't want or expect the government to fix everything. I'm not saying that socialism is evil per se, I just don't want it to infringe on my Constitutional rights. I'd like to officially coin the term "democratic imperialism" as a Denoirism. As intelligent as the guy is, he has absolutely no clue about how democracy in America functions, why? because he grew up in a socialist nation and has no experience with it. Personally, I don't really care what kind of gov't other nations have, as long as they aren't oppressing and slaughtering their own people or crashing planes into our national landmarks.

Quote[/b] ]I remember hearing we had over 60 country's support in this war, actual or "I got your back" support I'm not sure. Don't think it matters really.

Unfortunately, weren't most of them places like Zimbabwe?

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Because France and the US were, for all intents and purposes, controlled by the US at the time - they relied on the US, to varying degrees, for economic, political and military well-being. Of course they weren't going to throw a fit about a bunch of guys gassing each other thousands of kilometers away when they've got the whole Soviet Army sitting right across the border and a McDonalds on every corner. In the Cold War, you had little to gain and much to lose by questioning US policy.

I'm sure they really cared about that in literally the last days of the cold war.

And I thought the "I was just following orders" defense lost it's credibility after world war two.

They weren't just following orders, they were ensuring their continued prosperity. And 1982 wasn't the last days of the Cold War - nobody foresaw the collapse of the Berlin Wall by the end of the decade.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Again - at the behest of the US. I'm sure French, German, British and American chemical companies weren't raising issues of humanitarianism and ethics when the US was saying "Well, we know he's a jerk, but he's our jerk, so let's give him some gas. He'll use it on the Iranians and maybe - just maybe - we can destabilize the Iranian government enough to put the Shah back in there". The chemical companies, looking over their shoulder to make sure that this great news, these huge new profits, were really true just saw Uncle Sam winking and smiling at them.

If I'm not mistaken, we didn't hand them "gas".  We handed them things that could be used both ways, to create vaccines and also to create a chemical weapon.  Either way, "They were just following America" isn't an excuse.

Either way, they got their gas from all of us in the west. What form they got it in is kind of irrelevant. And they weren't following America, they were encouraged by America. All dual-use technologies have to go through several State and Defense Department committees before they can be sold overseas.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that maybe they just DO NOT EXIST!  

Didn't you just get done arguing that America is at fault for handing them these weapons?  Pick one argument and stick with it.  He either didn't have them and we're at fault, or he did and we're at fault.

What I was suggesting was that all the Iraqi weapons had been destroyed between 1991 and 2003.

[FSPilot 0]

Hellfish

Quote[/b] ]They weren't just following orders, they were ensuring their continued prosperity. And 1982 wasn't the last days of the Cold War - nobody foresaw the collapse of the Berlin Wall by the end of the decade.

Well the German soldiers weren't just following orders, they were ensuring the continued prosperity of their careers.

Quote[/b] ]Either way, they got their gas from all of us in the west. What form they got it in is kind of irrelevant. And they weren't following America, they were encouraged by America. All dual-use technologies have to go through several State and Defense Department committees before they can be sold overseas.

Again, they did not get gas from anybody. They got materials that could be used to create both a gas and a vaccine.

Quote[/b] ]What I was suggesting was that all the Iraqi weapons had been destroyed between 1991 and 2003.

Even though the UN found them in 1995? And the US and Israelis both conducted attacks on Saddam's nuclear program?

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]What I was suggesting was that all the Iraqi weapons had been destroyed between 1991 and 2003.

Even though the UN found them in 1995?  And the US and Israelis both conducted attacks on Saddam's nuclear program?

You will find 1995 is indeed a year between 1991 and 2003.

[Crazysheep 1]

My question to everyone: Is the world better off with or without the war? I think yes. Civillian casualties pale in comparison to the number of innocents murdered by Saddam.

Of course, we all know how military casualties don't count as tragic unless they're military casualties from the coalition.

[FSPilot 0]

Quote[/b] ]You will find 1995 is indeed a year between 1991 and 2003.

Ok. So they couldn't of destroyed them in 1991 very efficiently now could they?

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]You will find 1995 is indeed a year between 1991 and 2003.

Ok.  So they couldn't of destroyed them in 1991 very efficiently now could they?

No.....they didn't......they destroyed the leftovers of what the US destroyed in 1991 in 1997. What's your point? He didn't say they were destroyed in 1991, he said they've been destroyed since the last last gulf war....between 1991 and 2003.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

USSoldier11B- (on democratic imperialism)

Quote[/b] ]"You will find that most Americans are baffeled by this idea"

Knowing this i equally know that most British people during the time of empire were baffled by American hostility to what they saw as their relatively enlightened and progressive government and would have given a not disimilar response to yours. It takes one to know one perhaps?

Do you think if the Bush administration are 'democratic imperialists' (a term in need of clearer definition to be sure) that the public being 'baffled' by such accusations would especially bother them? I dont, on the contrary thats just how theyde like it.  

Quote[/b] ]"If you know American history, you will notice that the U.S. was quite the isolationist until it was pretty much forced into both WWI and WWII."

Actually i dont notice that at all and i think is a part of a major division of thought between america and most of the rest of the world.

For a start, for many decades the euro americans were concerned with internal expansion west (a diversion not available to most europeans at the time), not to mention the brief blunder into Canada (1812 anyone?- cite British provocations all you like but it boils down to an American invasion of Canada) so America only really started getting down to the dirty business of imperialist expansionism around the 1880s-90s

I surely do not need to mention- the Spanish American War,the Philippines, Haiti, Hawaii, Nicaragua (1912) etc

This is just in a few decades around the turn of the last century (the rest of the twentieth century is well stocked with US interventions) and regardless of the rights or wrongs of these various intrusions into other nations affairs (some of them were certainly inexcusable) it hardly looks like strict isolationism to me!

Frankly i think this idea of great american benevolence and non interference in comparison to europe is more of a historical misconception than a firmly grounded reality. The US has been very generous to its allies throughout history but it has also been decidedly self interested and even greedy at various times.

Even at the height of the British empire people here knew there was a fair amount of self interest in the foreign policies of the British government (to say the least), whereas many  americans seem totally convinced of their great innocence and lack of self interest in foreign matters.

'We went to Iraq to help the Iraqi people, remove a brutal dictator and to protect ourselves' seems to be the typical view. The very IDEA that some people could think it was about oil and an attempt by the US to gain something is so hurtful that americans do indeed seem baffled on this issue by foreign views. Yet governments are not always telling their citizens everything as you yourself concede.

Quote[/b] ]I don't propose to say that our way of life is right for the entire world, but I do think people should have some degree of civil liberty and be able to pursue their "destinies" as they see fit

Yes, i think thats what many or most americans would think and thats all fine and dandy but if the Bush administration uses that very sentiment among the American people to incite support for a selective war of 'liberation' then we're suddenly talking about a whole different ballgame.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps it is abstract idealism, but it is a cohesive element of American society that most Americans agree on, liberal or conservative. While you see us as democratic imperialists, we see an increasingly socialist Europe where civil liberities that are RIGHTS (privacy, arms, free speech) to us, are being taken away from you.

It becomes a lot less abstract when people start dieing over it no? It is i think the very fact that your constitutional framing of rights is drilled into everyone and your 'way of life' is so ingrained into society that makes it from outside appear in some respects more dangerous. A good point made in an intersting article that i read recently was that more Americans believe FAR more zealously in living and spreading the 'american way' than communist russians did in marxism even at the very height of the cold war. Given your nations historic paranoia over communism (in retrospect of course) can you not see how it is possible for 'us' (large parts of the world) to reach a similar state over a bellicose and powerful america?

Quote[/b] ]You must understand that the way your society is moving is just as alarming to us (us being non Hillary types) as ours are to you.

A lot of the EU directives and expenditure is just ludicrous and major reform of the system is needed. But dont forget when the US first emerged it was a male racist slave owning 'white is right' society. Yes we have a long way to go to get things sorted

An important point is that the EU was not the one to invade Iraq and begin 'nation building' in a totally foreign land. We are only forcing our way of life on ourselves- in fact come to think of it there IS really no european way of life, there is too much diversity for that and too much has yet to decided (dont forget that John Locke 'the philosopher of freedom' was english )

---------------

Schoeler- nice theory on the N.K. Iraq link but i tend to think that if there was any firm (or even tenuous) link TBA would be only too happy ,would it not ,to present it to the world? So without some proof of a nuclear link id be rather skeptical on that.

----------------

Well sorry for this rambling post- i hope Americans take it in the spirit it was intended .Not intended to bring America low and im not suggesting (as some do) that europe is somehow overwhelmingly 'better' but maybe id like to just bust a few old misconceptions that are overdue for busting anyway. Europe is messily governed at the moment, i accept that. Can you accept that america has had a messy history of foreign policy that has not helped its image?

Im sure if US citizens held their government to such strict account on foreign policy issues as they do domestic issues that they would have a foreign policy to be proud of (well more so anyway).

[hellfish6 7]

Hellfish

Quote[/b] ]They weren't just following orders, they were ensuring their continued prosperity. And 1982 wasn't the last days of the Cold War - nobody foresaw the collapse of the Berlin Wall by the end of the decade.

Well the German soldiers weren't just following orders, they were ensuring the continued prosperity of their careers.

Quote[/b] ]Either way, they got their gas from all of us in the west. What form they got it in is kind of irrelevant. And they weren't following America, they were encouraged by America. All dual-use technologies have to go through several State and Defense Department committees before they can be sold overseas.

Again, they did not get gas from anybody.  They got materials that could be used to create both a gas and a vaccine.

Do you actually read what I'm writing?

I write about dual use technologies and the fact that it's irrelevant if Iraq got bottles labelled "Sarin" or bottles labelled "Sarin OR aspirin - take your pick" and you say that they got no gas from anybody. That is what I just said! If someone gives you a dual use technology, they are essentially giving you the means to produce a gas. How is that different from just handing it over? It's not, really. I mean, I could waltz into the bathroom right now and make a blister agent with household products. If you gave me those household products, knowing they could be used to make gas and knowing that I'm going to make gas with them, doesn't that basically mean that you've given me a chemical weapon?

And no, German soldier's weren't just following orders. They were making a living. They were supporting a wife and 2.3 children and a dog. That is why they were "just" following orders. Same with France and Germany and everyone who ignored the Kurdish gassings. They were supporting millions of people who didn't want to lose their nuclear deterrent, the VII and V US Army Corps sitting on the inter-German border or their McDonalds on every corner. It's easy for an unmarried student to say "I'm gonna protest this, and risk being arrested for civil disobedience" because they don't have a whole lot to lose. A man with a wife and children and a mortgage DOES have a lot to lose. His entire well being relies on him not being arrested, on maintaining the status quo, and on remaining employed. Think of France and Germany as having 40 million wives, sons and daughters to support, and their way of life was provided by the US. Would you protest, risking losing all of that?

And, as someone mentioned earlier, 1995 is somewhere between 1991 and 2003. Thence, it is entirely possible that Iraqi chemical weapons could have existed and could later have been destroyed.

[FSPilot 0]

Hellfish

Quote[/b] ]I write about dual use technologies and the fact that it's irrelevant if Iraq got bottles labelled "Sarin" or bottles labelled "Sarin OR aspirin - take your pick" and you say that they got no gas from anybody. That is what I just said! If someone gives you a dual use technology, they are essentially giving you the means to produce a gas. How is that different from just handing it over? It's not, really. I mean, I could waltz into the bathroom right now and make a blister agent with household products. If you gave me those household products, knowing they could be used to make gas and knowing that I'm going to make gas with them, doesn't that basically mean that you've given me a chemical weapon?

My point is that people go around moaning "Ohh well America gave him those gasses in the 80's!" It's incredibly annoying because we didn't give him any gasses and we weren't the only ones giving him them in the first place. Yes, he was an American ally in the Iran-Iraq war. But did we ship him artillery shells filled with chemical agents? No.

Quote[/b] ]And no, German soldier's weren't just following orders. They were making a living. They were supporting a wife and 2.3 children and a dog. That is why they were "just" following orders. Same with France and Germany and everyone who ignored the Kurdish gassings. They were supporting millions of people who didn't want to lose their nuclear deterrent, the VII and V US Army Corps sitting on the inter-German border or their McDonalds on every corner. It's easy for an unmarried student to say "I'm gonna protest this, and risk being arrested for civil disobedience" because they don't have a whole lot to lose. A man with a wife and children and a mortgage DOES have a lot to lose. His entire well being relies on him not being arrested, on maintaining the status quo, and on remaining employed. Think of France and Germany as having 40 million wives, sons and daughters to support, and their way of life was provided by the US. Would you protest, risking losing all of that?

Yes, they were just following orders if we go by your argument.

You're saying that France and Germany didn't do anything about Iraq because they didn't want to make the US mad.

Well, German soldiers didn't do anything about concentration camps because they didn't want to make their superiors mad. They had kids to feed and they didn't want to get in trouble. France and Germany had countries to feed and they didn't want to get in trouble.

I don't see how if you use the "they didn't want to make the US mad" argument you don't put them on the same level as German soldiers.

Quote[/b] ]And, as someone mentioned earlier, 1995 is somewhere between 1991 and 2003. Thence, it is entirely possible that Iraqi chemical weapons could have existed and could later have been destroyed.

It sure is. But they didn't do anything to prove that they did. If they didn't have these weapons it wouldn't of taken war threats to get inspectors back into Iraq.

[Schoeler 0]

Do you think if the Bush administration are 'democratic imperialists' (a term in need of clearer definition to be sure) that the public being 'baffled' by such accusations would especially bother them? I dont, on the contrary thats just how theyde like it.  

To be perfectly honest with you, if the worst accusation the world can make about us Americans is that we are imperialistic in our desire to spread democracy and freedom to other nations so that they might enjoy the same standard of living we do, then I for one am damned proud to unashamedly admit that I wear those accusations as a badge of honor.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]"If you know American history, you will notice that the U.S. was quite the isolationist until it was pretty much forced into both WWI and WWII."

Actually i dont notice that at all and i think is a part of a major division of thought between america and most of the rest of the world.

A bit of an oversimplification really, like all nations with the ability to project power at some point in history (Britain, Spain, France, Russia, Germany etc..) the U.S. has held both isolationist and expansionist stances.  Our last true shot at overt imperialism and exploitation occured during the Spanish American War in 1898 and the Phillipine Insurrection in 1912 (I'd like to point out that we stopped this kind of crap much sooner than most of Europe).

Quote[/b] ]This is just in a few decades around the turn of the last century (the rest of the twentieth century is well stocked with US interventions) and regardless of the rights or wrongs of these various intrusions into other nations affairs (some of them were certainly inexcusable) it hardly looks like strict isolationism to me!

Most of those interventions had to do with Cold War realpolitik and battling communism, containing the Soviet Union, creating buffer zones etc..  Right or wrong, no one can deny it worked.  They really weren't true attempts to colonize.

Quote[/b] ]Frankly i think this idea of great american benevolence and non interference in comparison to europe is more of a historical misconception than a firmly grounded reality. The US has been very generous to its allies throughout history but it has also been decidedly self interested and even greedy at various times.

All countries no matter how benevolent, or how generous operate in their own self interest first and foremost.  Its an axiom of international relations.  Name one that hasn't and I'll show you a country that no longer exists.

Quote[/b] ]Even at the height of the British empire people here knew there was a fair amount of self interest in the foreign policies of the British government (to say the least), whereas many  americans seem totally convinced of their great innocence and lack of self interest in foreign matters.

I think your average American is altruistic and an idealist.  Our government however, and thank God, looks out for our best interests despite this.  We've stepped on a lot of people to get where we are, and maybe that isn't right, but who hasn't?  Sure I'd like to see a more moral American foreign policy, but I have too little faith in the nature of mankind to expect that to happen in this century.

Quote[/b] ]'We went to Iraq to help the Iraqi people, remove a brutal dictator and to protect ourselves' seems to be the typical view. The very IDEA that some people could think it was about oil and an attempt by the US to gain something is so hurtful that americans do indeed seem baffled on this issue by foreign views. Yet governments are not always telling their citizens everything as you yourself concede.

Again, I think most Americans really believe this and supported the war for just that reason.  Our government had other motives, but the American people, most of us at least had much purer goals in mind.  Its the job of governments to shiled dirty little secrets in foreign affairs from the eyes of the people.  All governments do this.  Realpolitik despite that little blip in the 90's has raised its ugly head and declared its invulnerability to progress.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You must understand that the way your society is moving is just as alarming to us (us being non Hillary types) as ours are to you.

A lot of the EU directives and expenditure is just ludicrous and major reform of the system is needed. But dont forget when the US first emerged it was a male racist slave owning 'white is right' society. Yes we have a long way to go to get things sorted

An important point is that the EU was not the one to invade Iraq and begin 'nation building' in a totally foreign land. We are only forcing our way of life on ourselves- in fact come to think of it there IS really no european way of life, there is too much diversity for that and too much has yet to decided (dont forget that John Locke 'the philosopher of freedom' was english )

I'll give you Euros some time.  If you do manage to become a federalist superpower on the order of the economic and military strength of the United States, I have little doubts that you will begin projecting your power around the globe in the aim of asserting and protecting your own interests.  Just wait until you get supercarriers!  

Quote[/b] ]Schoeler- nice theory on the N.K. Iraq link but i tend to think that if there was any firm (or even tenuous) link TBA would be only too happy ,would it not ,to present it to the world? So without some proof of a nuclear link id be rather skeptical on that.

Perhaps not, who among the Bush Administration would want to admit that our intelligence failed to detect North Koreas nuclear ambitions in time?  Who wants to admit we bought them off with a few 4 billion dollar reactors only for them to give us the finger?  Who wants to admit that nuclear weapons have now been loosed upon the world by an unstable regime and God only knows who they have given them or will give then to.

My strongest theory on the governments reason for the war is that we needed to replace the Saudis after 9-11.  They are simply too unstable for us to cozy up to anymore.  Also, why not kill two birds with one stone and get rid of Saddam?  Plus you get the added benefit of a stable democracy in the region set up however you choose it to be, and God willing, offering itself as a shining example for nations on the edge like Iran and Jordan.

Quote[/b] ]Im sure if US citizens held their government to such strict account on foreign policy issues as they do domestic issues that they would have a foreign policy to be proud of (well more so anyway).

I think your average U.S. citizen is Joe Six Pack and frankly doesn't give a damn about foreign affairs as long as it doesn't interrupt monday night football, or the local traffic at Hooters.

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]

My strongest theory on the governments reason for the war is that we needed to replace the Saudis after 9-11. They are simply too unstable for us to cozy up to anymore. Also, why not kill two birds with one stone and get rid of Saddam? Plus you get the added benefit of a stable democracy in the region set up however you choose it to be, and God willing, offering itself as a shining example for nations on the edge like Iran and Jordan.

Yes... that is an ideal. But I don't think it's realistic. You can't give people freedom if they don't want it. With freedom comes responsibility - for yourself, your actions, your livelihood and your government - and some people can't accept that. Some people want the government to feed them, pay them a standardized wage and to tell them how to vote. We will have to wait and see how Iraq deals with responsibility for the first time in it's modern existance, but so far it doesn't look good.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Im sure if US citizens held their government to such strict account on foreign policy issues as they do domestic issues that they would have a foreign policy to be proud of (well more so anyway).

I think your average U.S. citizen is Joe Six Pack and frankly doesn't give a damn about foreign affairs as long as it doesn't interrupt monday night football, or the local traffic at Hooters.

Very sad, yet very true.

[Schoeler 0]

Iraq and Iran are both pretty well suited for membership in the circle of modern nations (by western standards LOL!, they may very well consider themselves modern and probably do) Iraq was actually quite secular and Iran has a majority population of young people clamoring to shake off their theocracy. Iraq is going to take a few years to get up to speed just because they were oppressed for so long, but Iran before the revolution was well on the path to respectability from our viewpoint, it could change overnight with the right catalyst. Jordan is close, Syria not so close, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are a long ways away. Who knows what will happen, change in government ultimately resides in the decision of the populace it represents as no matter how many troops we deploy to convince them, or to achieve that end by force, you can't force people to believe in something they don't.

[PFC_Mike 2]

I don't think the EU can become a major power, ever. Too many national governments need reforms. If the EU had the military capacity perhaps they would invade something, but just as more butter = less guns more bloated social welfare = having to lease Ukranian aircraft to tranport your piddling army. BTW I am not saying that German/UK/European soldiers aren't capable they just don't have the money, equipment, training, and by extension, morale.

The best reasons for invading Iraq weren't WMD, a point that The Economist has been arguing for more than year.

I think that the most dangerous weapons in the Mideast are Israeli nukes. After that, the Iranian(North Korean/Russian) nuke program.

I think that the Iraqi resisters underestimate the will of a leader convinced that God talks to him (Bush.) The US is not being lead by a person who is willing to take substantial casualties and spend a lot of money in Iraq.

[NurEinMensch 0]

You are for the most part right, as far as today is concerned, but the EU is under constant reforms, we're working on reforming our armed forces, gaining strategical transport capabilities and such, even we in Germany realized we need to boost military spendings and we will do so.

Heck, suddenly there's talk about us getting aircraft-carriers, even tho I don't think we will in the end, but that we talk about it is something that wouldn't have happened a few years ago.

The European Rapid Reaction Forces (or whatever they are called) are ready soon and the conflict in Congo is the first test to see how capable Europe is on its own.

Europe today is different from Europe 10 years ago, and we're developing with amazing speed, amazing at least if you keep in mind how much problems and debating european integration creates.

[FallenPaladin 0]

The Quest For The Oily Grail

Chrchrchr

[NurEinMensch 0]

Hilarious!