CFC on Iraq, June 2002

[amadeus]

So I just happened to do a search for my name, to see if I was referenced in any threads that I hadn't posted in. It turns out that I have been, but only a few times. One of these times was in one of Marla Singer's threads, "Iraq Invasion: What CFC forumers thought about it in June 2002." As far as I can recall, I might have been away or just missed the thread altogether. The premise of the thread was to discuss whether our opinion on the Iraq issue had changed since mid-2002. Marla cited a previous thread from that time.

Now, the first reply was actually of one of my quotes from that 2002 thread. I never had the opportunity to reply for whatever reason, so I'm offering it now. Instead of dragging up the old thread with thoughts that are a year and a half old, I'd rather get people's opinions from now.

Yes, of course an attack on Iraq is justified. Any totalitarian power that refuses basic freedoms to its people should be immedately removed by any means.

I stand by this statement.

If given the opportunity, would I have changed history and not invaded Iraq? I don't think so, but this shouldn't be considered an endorsement of the actual plans that were used in Iraq. If I had the power to change those, I likely would have.

 

[FriendlyFire]

rmsharpe:
If any Civfanatics member is in Baghdad right now, I'd encourage leaving...
Heck, I'll probably be the one carpet-bombing Iraqi infantry in the next couple years

Hey I didnt know your were a bomber jock ?
What was your impression of iraq ?
were you stationed inside iraq ?
What do other crew / pilots think now ?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

blah blah blah blah democracy blah blah blah

Then why not play fair and attack a country where there's a humanitarian crisis? Why not advocate armed intervention in the Darfur region? Why not advocate, at the very least, a complete break of all diplomatic, economic, and military relations with Saudi Arabia? Why not advocate an invasion of Zimbabwe instead of just making snappy comments about Mugabe being the new Hitler? Why not advocate an invasion of Vietnam? Laos? Burma? Pakistan? Turkmenistan?

The "it was justified because the people are better with democracy lolz" argument just does not fly.

 

[Rambuchan]

Yes, of course an attack on Iraq is justified. Any totalitarian power that refuses basic freedoms to its people should be immedately removed by any means.

So it's ok to immediately remove the USA by any means then? Wow! That's quite an admission from you. Why didn't they remove the Saudis, Zimbabweans, North Koreans and Pakistanis then?

Nice catchphrase / soundbyte, but it means nothing really if you don't apply it consistently.

EDIT: Crossposted with Pasi.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Why don't you focus on the problems in your own country rather than going half way around the world and spending billions of dollars to try and fix a problem? America has to stop policing the world and getting involved in other country's affairs - sure some have problems, and they may need fixing, but we don't need to be on the one fixing them.

 

[silver 2039]

Yes, of course an attack on Iraq is justified. Any totalitarian power that refuses basic freedoms to its people should be immedately removed by any means.

Thats stupid. No foregin policy can operate on such emotional, idelaistic, drivel. Moral principals have no place in poltics. Foregin policies should be about what benefits and country and its self-intreast. If you carried out foregin policies and you wish it America would be invading half a dozen minor and major (Pakistan, China(?), Vietnam, North Korea , Russia(?)) across the world and that would of course never work. Democracy sounds nice for the ignorant masses but we all know it doesn't exist. There is a ruler, and then there are those that are ruled.

 

[C~G]

Thats stupid. No foregin policy can operate on such emotional, idelaistic, drivel. Moral principals have no place in poltics. Foregin policies should be about what benefits and country and its self-intreast.

Democracy sounds nice for the ignorant masses but we all know it doesn't exist. There is a ruler, and then there are those that are ruled.

So instead of the democracy and emotional and idealistic drive of the masses, it should be the emotional and idealistic drive of ruler?

Sure it's about country's own self-interest but it might be in country's self-interest to operate all over the world destroying totalitarian powers because otherwise they might some day appear into your backyard for fun.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Any totalitarian power that refuses basic freedoms to its people should be immedately removed by any means.

Then why haven't we removed the Saudi government? They're one of the most totalitarian governments in the world.

 

[amadeus]

A point, if I may. This thread was never intended to single out just my opinions, but to reflect on everybody's opinions from 2002. Granted, many of you may not have been around then and actually had no such posted record.

Then why not play fair and attack a country where there's a humanitarian crisis?

I said "by any means necessary," including funding rebel organizations and airstrikes on militarily significant targets.

Why not advocate armed intervention in the Darfur region? Why not advocate, at the very least, a complete break of all diplomatic, economic, and military relations with Saudi Arabia?

If you've actually been reading my posts, you'd know that for some time that I don't believe for a second that Saudi Arabia is our friend. I've stated repeatedly that the Saudi government is an enemy.

Why not advocate an invasion of Zimbabwe instead of just making snappy comments about Mugabe being the new Hitler? Why not advocate an invasion of Vietnam? Laos? Burma? Pakistan? Turkmenistan?

At which point did I identify direct military intervention as being the only solution?

The "it was justified because the people are better with democracy lolz" argument just does not fly.

Leave it to you to say that, considering your sympathy towards among all nations, the GDR.

So it's ok to immediately remove the USA by any means then? Wow! That's quite an admission from you.

The award for the most asinine statement of the day goes to you, Ram. The United States is not a totalitarian country, and any accusation of being such is completely ignorant.

Why didn't they remove the Saudis, Zimbabweans, North Koreans and Pakistanis then?

They being the U.S. Army? I don't think it was ever our responsibility to remove them. You might say it's a conflict of what I said four years ago, but I disagree. I think that people are responsible for improving their own situation, but aiding them in their struggles should be a key point of our foreign policy.

Why don't you focus on the problems in your own country rather than going half way around the world and spending billions of dollars to try and fix a problem? America has to stop policing the world and getting involved in other country's affairs - sure some have problems, and they may need fixing, but we don't need to be on the one fixing them.

The problem with isolationism is twofold. First, there's the event that one of our allies is attacked. Do we support our ally or do we break all military and political ties with them? The latter option would weaken the U.S. economic position and much of the principles America now seems to stand on. Second, should we choose to stay out of everybody's business, they'll merely pull us back in. Can you imagine the uproar if there was a severe humanitarian crisis and the United States flatly refused to acknowledge it at all?

No foregin policy can operate on such emotional, idelaistic, drivel. Moral principals have no place in poltics.

There's no emotion in it whatsoever, it is all a practical solution to many of the third world's problems.

Foregin policies should be about what benefits and country and its self-intreast.

Free and open societies are in the best interests of the United States.

If you carried out foregin policies and you wish it America would be invading half a dozen minor and major (Pakistan, China(?), Vietnam, North Korea , Russia(?)) across the world and that would of course never work.

The world is not a game of Risk. War is not the only policy option availible.

Democracy sounds nice for the ignorant masses but we all know it doesn't exist. There is a ruler, and then there are those that are ruled.

I suppose then you wouldn't mind the recolonization of India?

Then why haven't we removed the Saudi government? They're one of the most totalitarian governments in the world.

To start, both major parties are on the take from Saudi interests. Second, many in the U.S. are so afraid of offending anybody whose skin is darker than our own that we'll swallow our ideas and simply refuse to recognize the problem.

 

[silver 2039]

There's no emotion in it whatsoever, it is all a practical solution to many of the third world's problems.

Haha...and its working real well isn't it.

Free and open societies are in the best interests of the United States.

No. You'd much rather have your Saudi dictatorships and Iraui puppets giving you oil, and your Pakistani "allies" in a strategic region.

The world is not a game of Risk. War is not the only policy option availible.

When you try to impose a system on people that they do not want than war is the only option avaliable.

I suppose then you wouldn't mind the recolonization of India?

Is there really much diffrence between one despot ten thosuand miles or ten thousand despots one mile away?

 

[.Shane.]

A point, if I may. This thread was never intended to single out just my opinions, but to reflect on everybody's opinions from 2002. Granted, many of you may not have been around then and actually had no such posted record.

While I wasn't posting here then, I was posting in other forums and was opposed to the Iraq war at all times.

From 1.20.03

I hope this one will be avoided. The more I've thought about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that its absolutely unnecessary and that it would be nothing other than us just strong arming a country into the ground.

And for every dead Iraqi, how many new terrorists do you think that creates? The funny thing is the way w/ Iraq has nothing to do w/ the "War on Terrorism" and those who can think, be they right or left, know it. If you wanted to go after true supporters of terrorism and do a thorough job of it, well, there's plenty of "good Americans", "patriots", and others to throw in there as well.

Americans have a very skewed, limited, and self-serving view of this "war". We stand to lose a hell of a lot more than we stand to gain.... At least for most of us, that is.

I actually had a lot of better posts than that, but the forum I was posting on, well the search function is a bit FUBAR so I have to try and find them old school.

So, my position hasn't changed at all, much less so than the Administratoins consistent re-writing of why the US went to war. What does amaze me is how much worse things have gone than I imagined.

 

[Mise]

Back in 2002, I was against a potential war in Iraq. When we invaded, I was naively confident that, now that we're there, we might as well sort out a proper democracy. Now, I'm convinced the war was a bad idea, but still think we should stick around and not leave them in the lurch, as Britain tends to do in situations like these.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Why didn't they remove the Saudis

DO NOT WANT

 

[blackheart]

Thats stupid. No foregin policy can operate on such emotional, idelaistic, drivel. Moral principals have no place in poltics. Foregin policies should be about what benefits and country and its self-intreast. If you carried out foregin policies and you wish it America would be invading half a dozen minor and major (Pakistan, China(?), Vietnam, North Korea , Russia(?)) across the world and that would of course never work.

International politics without morals has been the cause of most of the world's instabilities. IE Colonialism in Africa, Coups in Latin America, etc. Acting in self-interest is good and all but few politicians rarely have the foresight to see where their "self-interest" leads us.

Democracy sounds nice for the ignorant masses but we all know it doesn't exist. There is a ruler, and then there are those that are ruled.

Why don't you ship yourself off to North Korea and then come back and tell us if democracy exists or not?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think youve missed the point, Mr Sharpe, about why we invaded Iraq in the first place.
1) Saddam had been directly violating UN resolutions placed at the end of the Gulf War, our pilots engaged Iraqi aircraft almost on a daily basis for twelve years, it was time to DO something, use him as an example to the world to do what the UN says. If he had been allowed to get away with that, then the UN's words are as powerless as the League of Nations' were.
2.) Our most accurate intelligence AT THE TIME indicated that Saddam was not only stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction( one of the UN violations), but also rather vigorously pursuing the creation of an Atomic Bomb. Do YOU trust him with one? That's like giving Babyface Nelson a tommy gun in a room full of cops and expecting him to sit quietly.
A small note, we now know that our intelligence was wrong, yes, we know this, but at the time it had every reason to be believed. Hindsight is 20/20
3.) Again with the intelligence mishaps, but at the time it was also believed that he habored terrorists and sponsored them through the state. Think Afganistan, think Taliban. Alas, we were wrong I think, but on the other hand now all the terrorist flock to Iraq, instead of operating on other places.

Now I have to agree with y'all's points about "well why dont you take out Mozambuqiue, or Saudi Arabia" etc etc. I dont make my country's policy, though, but I'm sure we'll get around to it sometime, i mean we cant do it ALL at once, excepting so is really just poking around looking for a reason to whine.

 

[blackheart]

Now I have to agree with y'all's points about "well why dont you take out Mozambuqiue, or Saudi Arabia" etc etc. I dont make my country's policy, though, but I'm sure we'll get around to it sometime, i mean we cant do it ALL at once, excepting so is really just poking around looking for a reason to whine.

I highly doubt America will be involved in Mozambique because quite frankly, it's insignificant. Saudi Arabia might be a maybe if their regime destabilizes, but as long as they are on friendly terms with us, whatever tyrannies they commit will only be decried in newspapers and protest groups.

America doesn't have a great history of upholding and supporting democracy for other nations when it doesn't benefit us.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Thats my point, we ought to focus more on the nations that really need it because they dont matter, like much of Africa. I think that if the US were to really put a lot of energy into rebuilding Africa both politcally, economically, and archetecually into a 21st Century continent, bettering the lives of millions of people. However, this will have to wait I 'm afraid, since we've got a lot on our plate right now, with the War on Terror.

 

[.Shane.]

What's the saying "those who fail to re-write the past are doomed to repeat it"?

Let's rehash things, shall we?

1) Saddam had been directly violating UN resolutions placed at the end of the Gulf War, our pilots engaged Iraqi aircraft almost on a daily basis for twelve years, it was time to DO something, use him as an example to the world to do what the UN says. If he had been allowed to get away with that, then the UN's words are as powerless as the League of Nations' were.

Daily basis? Aircraft? Laughable. Several times a year, US planes would destroy a radar base where some poor, doomed soul had been ordered to monitor US aircraft.

Yes, what a threat. Sorry, no smilie can capture just how much I'm rolling my eyes.

The primary argument, the mantra of the war drum was "WMD".

2.) Our most accurate intelligence AT THE TIME indicated that Saddam was not only stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction( one of the UN violations), but also rather vigorously pursuing the creation of an Atomic Bomb.

Not true at all. Its been clearly proven the Bush Administration was very selective in the intelligence they chose to use and pass on.

There was lots of intelligence countering these claims, but they did not fit the political agenda of Bush/Cheney.

3.) Again with the intelligence mishaps, but at the time it was also believed that he habored terrorists and sponsored them through the state. Think Afganistan, think Taliban. Alas, we were wrong I think, but on the other hand now all the terrorist flock to Iraq, instead of operating on other places.

Again, no reasonable intelligence showed that he had any links of significance to the Taliban or Al Queda. In fact, Muslim fundamentalists terrorist were as much his enemy as the US's.

The reasons for the war were essentially manufactured. And, in the months/years afterward as this fiasco has unfolded you've seen the Administration back away from everything while trying to re-write the reasons for the war.

Also, 9/11 was a gift to the administration. There are reports and memos by Neocon think tanks that included people in the administration (Cheney, most notably) that advocated the removal of Saddam all written prior to 9/11.

The whole thing is a sham and has turned into a complete mess.

 

[BirraImperial]

Free and open societies are in the best interests of the United States.

Bullcrap. The U.S has intervened and supported dictators and revolutions in Latin America over the last 100 years. Chile and Nicaragua are perfect examples of this.

The world is not a game of Risk. War is not the only policy option availible.

I think George W. doesn't know that

 

[.Shane.]

Bullcrap. The U.S has intervened and supported dictators and revolutions in Latin America over the last 100 years. Chile and Nicaragua are perfect examples of this.

Don't forget Cuba and Guatemala!

"Free and open" societies were certainly not our policy in the Cold War.

A really interesting read on the havoc the US has unnecessarily wrought on other nations over the past 100 years is Overthrow : America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Steven Kinzer.

One of his interesting points of analysis, and I think it holds up, is that Islamic Fundamentalism was something the US largely helped to create.