The Iraq Thread 2

[Tamme 0]

Some americans and some of the soldiers did support the war because they wanted to help the Iraqi people. It doesn't matter what the real reason was, only thing that matters is why the people supported it. If the people think it was about helping the iraqis Bush will get 4 more years. (That ain' good)

[Scorpio 0]

Indeed. It would of greatly helped the cause if Bush had actually gone in their for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Therefore US soldiers find themselves thinking that they are fighting for the Iraqi people. It's a big mess...it would have been much better if Bush had actually gone in there for a good cause.

Oh and a question...WMD can be moved, right? What was Bush thinking when he wanted to find them... they surely would have been hidden somewhere or smuggled over some other border before the US had attacked. I'm don't know much about these WMD devices...but right now in my mind they are look like scud missles...and can be moved. Then again, I might be wrong. Maybe they're not so portable.

[denoir 0]

Oh and a question...WMD can be moved, right? What was Bush thinking when he wanted to find them... they surely would have been hidden somewhere or smuggled over some other border before the US had attacked. I'm don't know much about these WMD devices...but right now in my mind they are look like scud missles...and can be moved. Then again, I might be wrong. Maybe they're not so portable.

WMD can be moved but not the infrastructure that is required to produce them. The type of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq was accused of having has a very limited shelf life. So if they can't find any infrastructure, it's extremely unlikely that they'll find any WMD.

[Schoeler 0]

I don't think most Americans supported the war out of fear of WMD.  I think most educated Americans supported the war for the benefit of the Iraqi people.  T

Oh, that's utter crap. The reasons why Americans supported the war was because of Iraq's alledged WMD and their alledged terrorism links. The "helping the Iraqi people" is pure revisionism. Take a look at the original Iraq thread and refresh your memory.

I think many educted Americans, (at least the ones at my school) who supported the war didn't buy into the WMD argument at all. We supported the war to help the Iraqis and get rid of Saddam. If you don't believe me, feel free to dredge up any of my pre-war posts in the old Iraq thread. So, at least for me and for the people in my circle, I don't think its utter crap or revisionism at all.

Now TBA claiming it was more about the Iraqi people, is revisionism, and I plan to hold them accountable for no WMD being found this November.

[Schoeler 0]

I don't think most Americans supported the war out of fear of WMD.  I think most educated Americans supported the war for the benefit of the Iraqi people.  That benefit, we all understood would take 3-5 years to be fully realized.  Since 3-5 years haven't passed by yet, we aren't all that concerned about the current chaotic situation in Iraq, it was something we always expected.  Now, if we find out TBA blatantly lied to us, people will be held accountable.

You don't expect me to believe this do you? If this was for the good of Iraqi people then it would have gone through with the support of the UN.  The US would not have disabled Iraqs essential infrastructure (power, and water facilities) during the proces either.  

Bn880, this may come as a shock to you, but a lot of Americans don't support our involvement in the U.N. at all. Personally, I think we should have waited for U.N. approval, but for many Americans, they couldn't give a shit one way or the other what the U.N. decided. It all comes down to how you view sovereignty.

Also, if you'll note, the U.S. went to great lengths not to disable the Iraqi infrastructure. Look how wishy washy they were about bombing Iraqi TV. It was however, a war, so damage to some of the infrastructure was unavoidable. Most of the damage was actually done by sabotage after the war.

Quote[/b] ]Most people were supporting it because of the WMD/terrorism threat, you don't go in helping a people when they don't ask, and the world strongly disagrees. (higher education has very little to do with common sense and social problems)

Oh, you mean like in France in 1944? Or how about at Auschwitz? The jews didn't ask because they weren't exactly able to. Should we not have helped them? Does this mean America did the right thing by not intervening in Rwanda? Cambodia? Chile? Bullshit! Civilized nations have an obligation to step in when genocide is occuring, or oppression is blatant and drastic human rights violations happen on a daily basis, whether they were asked to or not.

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: You HAVE found Bush lied to you, what are you waiting for, him/them to prove they did not? Because they can prove somehow they did not, if they actually want to cover their tracks at all... the government will always win out in it's own court system.

I'm waiting for next November. Also, how much expereience do you have with the American court system? Judging by that statement, not a hell of a lot. The American government can, and very often does lose out in the judgments of our independent judiciary. I can provide you with several thousand links to Supreme Court and Federal District Court opinions if you don't believe me. I study this stuff as I'm going to law school soon, so I'd be happy to help educate you on this matter.

[denoir 0]

I think many educted Americans, (at least the ones at my school) who supported the war didn't buy into the WMD argument at all.  We supported the war to help the Iraqis and get rid of Saddam.  If you don't believe me, feel free to dredge up any of my pre-war posts in the old Iraq thread.  So, at least for me and for the people in my circle, I don't think its utter crap or revisionism at all.

Now TBA claiming it was more about the Iraqi people, is revisionism, and I plan to hold them accountable for no WMD being found this November.

Ok, but how large percentage of the US population would you say belong to that circle of "Well educated Americans".

Democracy is not the rule of the wise but the rule of the mediocre; the rule of the sheep. So any objections some intellectuals have about politics is very irrelevant. It's those glued to FOXNews that count.

[Bluesman 0]

Don't know if this is OT for this thread but judging from a few of Bush latest comments about Saddam and 9/11 it seems to me like he is a bit hm bitter with some of his colleagues.

I wonder if he plans on making some changes in certain departments. My personal guess is that he might rely more heavilly on Powell in the future.

Any guesses on this?

BM

[ralphwiggum 6]

it's been speculated that there are some political struggle between hawks(Rumsfeld and Wolowitz) and doves(Powell and Rice). maybe Bush is now realizing that hawks might not have correct answers.

[Bluesman 0]

it's been speculated that there are some political struggle between hawks(Rumsfeld and Wolowitz) and doves(Powell and Rice). maybe Bush is now realizing that hawks might not have correct answers.

Does he dare do changes like that so close to the election though?

Can a president replace a vice president btw?

BM

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]Most people were supporting it because of the WMD/terrorism threat, you don't go in helping a people when they don't ask, and the world strongly disagrees. (higher education has very little to do with common sense and social problems)

Oh, you mean like in France in 1944? Or how about at Auschwitz? The jews didn't ask because they weren't exactly able to. Should we not have helped them? Does this mean America did the right thing by not intervening in Rwanda? Cambodia? Chile? Bullshit! Civilized nations have an obligation to step in when genocide is occuring, or oppression is blatant and drastic human rights violations happen on a daily basis, whether they were asked to or not.

Well you are reaching pretty far now making these comparisons. The obligations would have been met by the UN as a whole if necessary. Trust me if Jews were being massacred and burned in ovens etc. the UN would act responsibly. This is totally different, and all this BS about mass graves in Iraq is just to mislead people, doesnt everyone remember the facts anymore? It was during a war that someone decided to fight against Saddam and his government, and he used some "wonderfull" (as usual) modern weapons to get rid of the threat.

Ok so Saddam was not cooperating very well after being cheated by the west, so sanctions are put in place which in turn murder thousands in Iraq. But after all the weapons were removed/destroyed, and they were cooperating quite well in January+, after just 2 months of threats?

I don't know how you can compare the situation in Iraq to other places where ethnic clensing took place.

EDIT: As for Americans not wanting to be part of the UN, I believe you but if you think that is a good thing: human progress as a whole doesn't lie just in technology for the rich and a few dozen countries who can get by well, progress is made through laws, agreements, institutions (such as UN), and of course the education/archival system. If you are not respecting some important institutions or laws which came from horrific experiences in the past, then you are going back in time, waiting to experience everything all over again... this time WW3 on a grand scale.

When you drive on an "empty road" at 3am and you get a red light, remember not to think you are a better judge than the law was and drive on, because the law exists for a reason. A reason that might really not be clear at 3am when you want to get to bed, but it's there and quite deadly. Ok so I'm referring to the ICC and other issues like Nuclear/missile agreements from which the US of A withdrew.

The US is not going to become the center of the world, therefore it should not be acting unilaterally across its borders. What you do inside is your beeswax, as long as you are not burning arabs.

[Schoeler 0]

I think many educted Americans, (at least the ones at my school) who supported the war didn't buy into the WMD argument at all.  We supported the war to help the Iraqis and get rid of Saddam.  If you don't believe me, feel free to dredge up any of my pre-war posts in the old Iraq thread.  So, at least for me and for the people in my circle, I don't think its utter crap or revisionism at all.

Now TBA claiming it was more about the Iraqi people, is revisionism, and I plan to hold them accountable for no WMD being found this November.

Ok, but how large percentage of the US population would you say belong to that circle of "Well educated Americans".

Democracy is not the rule of the wise but the rule of the mediocre; the rule of the sheep. So any objections some intellectuals have about politics is very irrelevant. It's those glued to FOXNews that count.  

Not very large, maybe 10-20%

But, to counter EiZei's earlier statement, I think most Americans care deeply for the Iraqi people, or they would stop sending their sons and daughters over to Iraq to get themselves killed.  I think our resolve to finish the job and, to do it right speaks volumes for the character of the American people and their concern for the welfare of other civilizations.  I mean Christ, we are paying for it in billions in tax dollars and the lives of our loved ones.  Does anyone really think we'd continue doing this if we didn't care?

Also, Denoir, there is a theory to international relations (political science) that states that even though the majority of the population is totally ignorant with respect to international relations, they actually make wise and informed decisions.  The reason being that the small percentage of informed persons act as "opinion leaders".  Thus, when an ignorant person starts considering an issue in I.R., they go to their intelligent friend and ask their opinion on the issue.  Being an ignorant sheep, they simply accept that opinion as their own and actually make the same choice as the wiser more informed person.  I can't remember what the theory is called, but I'll try and find some sources for you.  It is interesting though and it has significant historical and statistical backing, so its something to ponder.  Democracy may just be the "safest" decision-making system after all.

[denoir 0]

But, to counter EiZei's earlier statement, I think most Americans care deeply for the Iraqi people, or they would stop sending their sons and daughters over to Iraq to get themselves killed.  I think our resolve to finish the job and, to do it right speaks volumes for the character of the American people and their concern for the welfare of other civilizations.  I mean Christ, we are paying for it in billions in tax dollars and the lives of our loved ones.  Does anyone really think we'd continue doing this if we didn't care?

Oh please. Your soldiers are professional soldiers, not conscripts. It's their choice that they are in the military it's not some form of "sacrifice of the people". Furthermore, the people are not the ones sending them into Iraq. Bush is.

And yes, you care "deeply" for the Iraqi people, just as you cared "deeply" about the Afghan people two years ago and how you cared "deeply" about the Vietnamese people 30 years ago.

You are not doing this because you "care", you are doing this to build a political, economical and military base of power. That was true for Vietnam and that is true for Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Also, Denoir, there is a theory to international relations (political science) that states that even though the majority of the population is totally ignorant with respect to international relations, they actually make wise and informed decisions.  The reason being that the small percentage of informed persons act as "opinion leaders".  Thus, when an ignorant person starts considering an issue in I.R., they go to their intelligent friend and ask their opinion on the issue.  Being an ignorant sheep, they simply accept that opinion as their own and actually make the same choice as the wiser more informed person.  I can't remember what the theory is called, but I'll try and find some sources for you.  It is interesting though and it has significant historical and statistical backing, so its something to ponder.  Democracy may just be the "safest" decision-making system after all.

Democracy is the most stable decision making system but it is far from the optimal. Plus the sheep don't go asking just intelligent people, they go asking whoever appeals to their sheepish nature. The masses can easily be manipulated. The rise of Hitler is a good example. Or if you wish for a more modern, take how Bush convinced the Americans to go to war.

The people listened to his fiction about WMD and terrorism and blindly believed it. And many still do. The willing suspension of disbelief is one other very prominent characteristic of the large masses.

[Schoeler 0]

Oh please. Your soldiers are professional soldiers, not conscripts. It's their choice that they are in the military it's not some form of "sacrifice of the people". Furthermore, the people are not the ones sending them into Iraq. Bush is.

You forgot, our soldiers and their families are also voters. The government in effect works for them. If American public opinion shifted to the point where the sacrifices our troops are called to make became too great, those troops would be coming home. Try as hard as you like, but Vietnam offers a living example of this fact.

Quote[/b] ]And yes, you care "deeply" for the Iraqi people, just as you cared "deeply" about the Afghan people two years ago and how you cared "deeply" about the Vietnamese people 30 years ago.

Our government may not care for those people, but American citizens do. Afghanistan was about getting rid of a terrorist threat. After that was neutralized, Americans started being concerned about helping the Afghanis. Who would want that threat to re-emerge? We are spending billions to help both socieities. As for Vietnam, that was all about stemming the comunist tide and the domino theory.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Also, Denoir, there is a theory to international relations (political science) that states that even though the majority of the population is totally ignorant with respect to international relations, they actually make wise and informed decisions. The reason being that the small percentage of informed persons act as "opinion leaders". Thus, when an ignorant person starts considering an issue in I.R., they go to their intelligent friend and ask their opinion on the issue. Being an ignorant sheep, they simply accept that opinion as their own and actually make the same choice as the wiser more informed person. I can't remember what the theory is called, but I'll try and find some sources for you. It is interesting though and it has significant historical and statistical backing, so its something to ponder. Democracy may just be the "safest" decision-making system after all.

Democracy is the most stable decision making system but it is far from the optimal. Plus the sheep don't go asking just intelligent people, they go asking whoever appeals to their sheepish nature. The masses can easily be manipulated. The rise of Hitler is a good example. Or if you wish for a more modern, take how Bush convinced the Americans to go to war.

The people listened to his fiction about WMD and terrorism and blindly believed it. And many still do. The willing suspension of disbelief is one other very prominent characteristic of the large masses.

Hey, its not my theory, I just stated the premise. I'll find the source for you, it does offer examples of how the theory works better than I can.

Quote[/b] ]You are not doing this because you "care", you are doing this to build a political, economical and military base of power. That was true for Vietnam and that is true for Iraq.

I don't think your average American gives a shit about economic, military and political bases of power. That is mostly the concern of the government looking out for our best interests through the pursuit of realist foreign policy. Most of your average folks care only about threats to themselves or doing what seems morally right.

[denoir 0]

Your people care because your government uses it as an excuse. It's exactly because people don't give a shit about political conquest. So they present a "save poor ****** people from an Evil madman blah blah blah". And then they show pictures of a smiling ***** kid eating a cheese burger.

It's the same manipulation crap. And as soon as the interest of your government fades, the interest of the people fades too. Just look at Afghanistan. Who in America today know or cares about that the country has now reached the worst condition in over 50 years. That country, those people and that society is so completely fucked. They were in a bad shape and had a bad government, but now it's at least ten times worse. And who cares about that today? No, now you are caring deeply about the Iraqi people who want freedom and democracy.,.

[Major Fubar 0]

OK, as a mod I shouldn't really step into this debate, but I can't hold my tongue: to say that the majority of the American people "care" for the Iraqi people is just pure rubbish. OK, maybe NOW they do, out of a sense of guilt of what the US has done to Iraq and after GW's propaganda machine successfully convinced the American public that the war was never about WMD, but saving the "poor huddled masses" of Iraq from that evil boogeyman Saddam.

Was I imagining those people I saw walking through the streets of America waving placards to the effect of "Kill those Iraqi bastids!", both during GW1 and GW2? OK, they probably don't represent the majority of Americans, but the represent a significant percentage. Of the remaining (non-hostile) percentage, the spilt would be much larger towards those who are indifferent to the plight of the Iraqis than to those who actually care. And my conclusions don't come from watching "leftist commie" news networks, but from "Mom and apple pie" networks like CNN.

Am I saying that in America today the average citizen is howling for the blood of Iraqis today? No. Am I saying that during the two military actions and post-S11 the majority of Americans embraced the propaganda that Iraqis were the bad guys? Yes, I am...

And for the record, there is no way on God's Green earth that you'll ever convince me the freeing the Iraqi people was ever the primary agenda of either Gulf War. It's like busting into someone's house to rob them, and finding a husband beating his wife. If you kill the husband to save the wife, she will be very grateful, and people will say what a swell guy you are, but it doesn't change the fact that your original goal was to burgle the home. Ousting Saddam was very good for the Iraqi people, but doesn't absolve TBA from their sinister and selfish motives.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/19/sprj.irq.main/index.html

-Iraq's former defense minister surrenders after negotiation.

-oil fires

-3 U.S. soldiers killed in ambush near Tikrit

[Scorpio 0]

Bah, I thought it was Baghdad Bob.

Speaking oh which, where is he?

[joltan 0]

Bah, I thought it was Baghdad Bob.

Speaking oh which, where is he?

He surrendered over a month ago - but obviously the US wasn't interested in him, so he's free. Which in my eyes just proves that the US don't have any interest in cleaning up Sadam's mess. He held other governement positions before, and I'm sure while you couldn't take his 'daily radio show' for serious, he knew a lot about the inner workings of the iraqui government.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/20/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Akila al-Hashimi, a member of Iraq's newly established Governing Council was shot early Saturday morning and is in critical condition, local police and officials told CNN.

[denoir 0]

That's the second one if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not really surprised considering the composition of the ruling council and the fact that the major Shia factions are not represented.

At least the situation is better than Afghanistan where the council members have NATO soldiers as bodyguards because they don't trust any Afghani to hold that position.

[walker 0]

Hi all

We are nearly at the end of September and Still the WMD has not been found.

Quote[/b] ]Let me reiterate if the US and UK administrations don't come up with the proof of WMD it does not matter if the administrations lied (straight criminal behaviour) or were stupid (criminal neglegence) both are resignation matters in a true democracy and if they dont resign then a true democracy must remove them by Vote of No Confidence for the UK and Impeachment for the US otherwise they are no diferent than Sadams Regime.

I feel the adminstrations have until the end of September to come up with proof of WMD or their legitimacy as administrations is lost.

I do not feel our democracies both the UK and US will have any legitamacy if they atempt to remain in power without finding the WMD. So we will have to lose these lame duck administrations in that case.  It is a cheaper option than having them continue on unable to govern.

At the very least Iraqi citizens will be within their rights to make claims for compensation for loss of life property and earnings. Their first port of call should be the personal fortunes of the members of the adminstrations. As a tax payer in one the countries involved I would prefer that the members of an adminstration that fails to come up with proof of WMD have their personal fortunes so reduced as to cause them to live in a council / housing project before I pay for it.

We then come to the matter of investigating a possable war crime this would be for the future Iraqi government or better a referendum of the Iraqis to decide. It may well be that such a government decides that the removal of Sadam was worth while venture.

They have to pull their fingers out and find that WMD to stand a chance of staying in power and prevent our taxpayers from having to cough up for their (mistakes or lie) does not matter which.

The costs of recompencing a few Iraqis pails into insignificance though when we look at the true economic costs of this adventureism.

Already it apears that if you are a Taxpayer in the US you can say good by to your pensions and healthcare for the next 50 years as your debt level spirals into the trillions; mostly off the back of ever increasing Iraq occupation costs. I fear the same for my own country. I fear both our countries will be in hock to the banks for a long time. I remeber the last time the UK was under World Bank Economic Direction was very bad as thousands lost their jobs and homes. I think if the US has dose of this it will make the great depresion look like a picknic.

Add to that loss of US Military confidence if as it looks this turns into something worse than Vietnam and things look very black for both our countries.

The biggest sadness for us in the UK is that the current administration much like the US's previous Democrat administration are an economic success but never the less it apears we may loose them as the latest opinion polls and the recent bye-election showed they have lost their core support. the only hope for us it that our Primeminister will resign leaving the cabinet and our current chancelor in power.

Kind Regards Walker

[hellfish6 7]

I, for one, haven't lost confidence in the US Military. I think they did as well as they could with the idiots that were making the decisions. Yes, we proved to the world that we could deploy three divisions thousands of miles away and take over an entire country with those same forces in about a month. But three divisions wasn't enough to occupy the country - and we're learning the hard way that a lot more troops are needed and a lot better political guidance required before things start changing.

And of course, nobody in America is going to get impeached. I wish Bush would get impeached, but it's not going to happen as long as his fellow Republicans remain in control of the Congress. The American people don't impeach the President - the American House of Representatives does.

[walker 0]

Hi Hellfish6

I, for one, haven't lost confidence in the US Military.

Are US profesional soldiers/voters upset at being left in Iraq after the planned date?

I think they did as well as they could with the idiots that were making the decisions.

Given time (two or three years) could an Iraqi leader achieve a Ho Chi Mihn?

Yes, we proved to the world that we could deploy three divisions thousands of miles away and take over an entire country with those same forces in about a month. But three divisions wasn't enough to occupy the country - and we're learning the hard way that a lot more troops are needed and a lot better political guidance required before things start changing.

In order to achieve the desired occupation troop levels (probably 5 times what is there now) will the US have to reintroduce the Draft?

And of course, nobody in America is going to get impeached. I wish Bush would get impeached, but it's not going to happen as long as his fellow Republicans remain in control of the Congress. The American people don't impeach the President - the American House of Representatives does.

Are the US about to go into elections for the Senate or for Congress?

Is the current senate majority a slender one?

Is there an air apparent being readied as Republican presedential candidate?

Is the US and UK at the start of a Vietnam style nightmare?

Perhaps a look at the historical data at US involvement in the start of that conflict might be in order. What was the situation six months into action after the Air Cav were introduced?

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

Meanwhile, human shields looking at jail time...

[brgnorway 0]

Meanwhile, human shields looking at jail time...

Somehow this doesn't surprise me the least. It's a bloody shame!