CFC on Iraq, June 2002

[GenMarshall]

At the time, I was quite indifferent and kind of apathetic about the whole issue.

 

[amadeus]

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

The most democratic country in Africa is Botswana, which also happens to be the richest country in black Africa (excluding South Africa.)

The most democratic countries in Asia are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. Each one of those countries has a first world economy.

The most democratic countries in Europe and the Americas also have the highest standards of living. Can this possibly be a coincidence?

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

I'm not going to repeat myself.

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

When did the Iraqis ever get a chance to decide they didn't want democratic reform?

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

I think you'd put a quick stop to your neo-fascist nonsense if one of the moderators behaved like the kind of leadership you endorse and had you banned permanently. I could count on one hand the number of seconds it would be before you dress up as Ben Kingsley and start protesting.

 

[amadeus]

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.

I can find an infinite amount of humor in you believing that Chile under Allende and Nicaragua under Ortega were democratic.

 

[The Yankee]

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.

His opinions may not coincide with previous American actions, especially those that took place before he was even born.

Since I was not here in June of 2002, I can only try to remember what I thought at the time, with my more limited awareness (which was rectified quickly soon thereafter).

Those thoughts were rather simple: Hussein was brutal, no doubt. He should be gone. But I was unsure whether the WMD case was real or not. Then, I was a lot more inclined to believe it was true, however, and would hope for there to be an actual coalition (more like the 1990-91 coalition) to clean up Hussein's armies, whatever was left.

I'm not sure how relevant those thoughts are to today or even this thread, actually. But given the realities of this "war on terror," I'd be somewhat inclined to say I'd rather have scrapped the whole thing and put those soldiers elsewhere (perhaps in Saudi Arabia, more in Afghanistan, or anywhere else needed, perhaps Darfur today).

 

[Xenocrates]

Those thoughts were rather simple: Hussein was brutal, no doubt. He should be gone.

... put those soldiers elsewhere (perhaps in Saudi Arabia, more in Afghanistan, or anywhere else needed, perhaps Darfur today).

Saddam was no more brutal than he needed to be. THE US and Britain have proved that Saddam had found the only formula to keep stablity in Iraq. The point is really whether the brutality of Saddam was the reason for the invasion or the ill-advised oil sanctions that hurt the US more than Saddam.

Darfur has oil and there are reports that the bloodshed there are due to foreign-financed groups trying to dominate the region for their chosen backer. The US has it's fingerprints on this one already as does China and Britain.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

The most democratic countries in Asia are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand. Each one of those countries has a first world economy.

Singapore has a first-world economy, but calling it a democracy would be violating the word 'democracy'.

 

[BirraImperial]

I can find an infinite amount of humor in you believing that Chile under Allende and Nicaragua under Ortega were democratic.

Well, Allende was elected by the chilean people, right? and US-Backed Pinochet commited several atrocities and human rights violations. And by Nicaragua, I am not reffering to Ortega, but to several other interventions, such as the US occupation of Nicaragua (1909-1933) that lead to the US backed dictators, the Somozas, who ruled Nicaragua until 1979. They were also not democratic, right?
What I am saying is that the "we support democracy around the world" bs has not always been entirely right.

 

[jameson]

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.

That was essentially my position on the Iraq invasion, articulated in some other places back then (I didn't buy the WMD rationale or the 'link with Al Qaeda assertions really).

Unfortunately, at the time, I was a blithering idiot.

Maybe the invasion and occupation could theoretically have been 'done right'. I'll get to that, but even so, I've come to think that it is the height of arrogance to essentially tell some other poor bastard to go die 8,000 miles away from home because I think it's the right thing to do. I'd never be deemed fit for military service even if I applied, and I wouldn't even apply to join in the first place.
At the time I even argued that just because the Iraqis had oil wasn't a reason to continue having them deprived of their freedom (seeing as there are several other worthy candidates for 'liberation' even now). Freedom is freedom wherever you go, and you just have to go with the feasible rather than the ideal.

As I said, I was a blithering idiot. And I was lacking in basic knowledge about Iraqi society and culture.

But the 'liberation' of Iraq could never have been done right. If making the people of Iraq was the goal, that should have been the publicly stated intention of the Bush Administration in the first place, instead of falling back on it after the Al Qaeda links story didn't fly and no nukes were found. Moreover, the chances of successful postwar reconstruction (requiring a commitment to reconstruction and enough troops on the ground) could not possibly have been achieved with a President in charge who as a candidate publicly disparaged the concept of nation building, and with a Minister of Defense who was busy 'transforming' the army into a nimble, high tech, special forces-heavy kind of military. Never mind that Arab linguists got fired in numbers for being gay even when there was a shortage of them in the first place.

You go into the war with the government you have, not the one you'd want to have.

Warning bells should have rung even before the war, when the chair of the CEA got fired for mentioning a higher estimate of the cost of the war, or when Shinseki was neutered for implying that the number of troops necessary for the occupation was a lot higher than the Administration said it was. Plus the aforementioned lack of honesty wrt the true reasons for the invasion. Or the public grooming of convicted felon Ahmad Chalabi.

I only began to think I was wrong once I saw the first footage on CNN of bombs falling on Baghdad, but now, three years later, three years after 'Mission Accomplished', three years in which the number of Iraqi dead has risen to the tens of thousands, and in which basic security is still lacking in the most populated areas of the country, there can be no more doubt.

So now I guess we better move on to Iran.

 

[The Yankee]

Saddam was no more brutal than he needed to be. THE US and Britain have proved that Saddam had found the only formula to keep stablity in Iraq. The point is really whether the brutality of Saddam was the reason for the invasion or the ill-advised oil sanctions that hurt the US more than Saddam.

Perhaps...though I'd like to believe there can be some government in there that does not have to resort to the tactics that Hussein employed. Oh well, the best chance for that in recent history was squandered when the huge rebellion of 1991 was put down.

Darfur has oil and there are reports that the bloodshed there are due to foreign-financed groups trying to dominate the region for their chosen backer. The US has it's fingerprints on this one already as does China and Britain.

Perhaps it's an idealism in me. Everyone sat on their hands during Rwanda and now that civil strife in Sudan has turned into wanton killing, there is no reason to sit on our hands now.