Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
if i recall, thats why they investigated our leaders and government decisions ... to see if it was right to "act in foreign policy" the way they did
The Iraq War and social progress
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
if i recall, thats why they investigated our leaders and government decisions ... to see if it was right to "act in foreign policy" the way they did
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Of course. But somebody else burned down the figurative neighborhoods here.
Further: there's a few dozen other First World nations besides the U.S. out there in the world. Why couldn't one of them come in and provide some police? Turns out the opposite happened--they buggered off after their offices got hit by one or two suicide bombers. By which I mean literally one or two.
How is this a problem?
What you're ignoring is the fact that the various interests of the Iraqi people are currently in conflict with one another. It's impossible to have their interests (plural), in mind. Life or liberty. Pick one.
With Saddam's boot firmly planted on the nation's face, it was impossible for the Iraqi people to have both at the same time. Which interest do the Iraqi citizens value more? Life or liberty? Which, once again, brings us to the real reason Saddam had to go: we had to get rid of him in order to ask the Iraqi people which of those two things they wanted most.
And I'm fine with the cost in human life, because it was a one-time cost. Whereas Saddam's existence, and the sanctions, were both ongoing costs. Each of which outweighed the current minor costs of the liberation and the insurgent dirtbags. If we can get a reasonably stable democracy working over there, the human cost will drop to near-zero for a great many years.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Yes but this idea of a working democracy is becoming a bigger and bigger if. The current government is trying to arrest other high members of government right now and the whole country seems to be flirting with another throwdown between religious secs. The US government horribly botched the whole situation, possibly beyond the point of being able to repair it.
´We´? It seems to me that it´s up to Iraq to establish ´a stable democracy´. That might be a bit of a problem, considering that Iraq never had one in the first place; there simply isn´t a democratic tradition. Slight oversight on the part of the 2nd Gulf War initiators?
Second, since the 2nd Gulf War was de facto only supported by the US and UK, any other support received after the deed was a lucky plus indeed. That such support was to be conditional should come as no surprise.
Third, the various interests of every people living in the same state are always in conflict. That´s just a given. (And when you have no democratic tradition that may very well escalate into violent conflict.)
Fourth, the 2nd Iraq invasion has de facto resulted in a destabilization of the country: al Qaeda activity only started after Saddam´s regime was toppled (Saddam was never involved with al Qaeda), various national insurgencies surfaced, and Iran influence in the country has decidedly increased following the invasion (especially among the Shiite population).
That said, I think it´s safe to say that the majority of the Iraqis wouldn´t want to go back to the previous situation, so everybody just will have to deal with it.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Of course. But the ending hasn't yet been written. You can't make a judgement until the "if" resolves itself.
Now it is. The problem with Saddam was that his control was so tight it was impossible for the People to overthrow him. And not for lack of trying, either.
So what?? Two centuries ago the UNITED STATES didn't have a Democratic tradition either. Some centuries before that, America's forefathers in England didn't have a Democratic tradition either. Democracy had to get started somewhere along the line. "We've never had one" does not logically lead to "we should not have one". True, Iraq has never had one, but the only way to have one is to start trying to.
On the contrary. If other nations disagree with the way we're doing things, they should step in and do it right. What's the U.S. gonna do, shoot British interlopers who get in the way?? I think not.
Then it seems we agree. Saddam going bye-bye was an improvement.
You are missing the point: you can´t establish ´a stable democracy´ in another country; it needs to grow by itself.
I beg to differ here. The American Revolution was directed against British parliament. The whole point of it was the the American colonists didn´t want taxation without representation. (Not to mention nobody argued the Iraqis shouldn´t have democracy.)
Nor is that relevant. The US and UK established a fait accompli. And what gives other nations the right ´to step in´and do it right´? The whole invasion was undertaken on a false pretext anyway. That said, the situation is there now, and no matter how many foreign ´helpers´ interfere, it´s up to the Iraqis to make it work.
Wow! A stoney silence from all those who usually rush to condemn America.
Maybe there is something I don't understand here, what with me being right-wing and thus scientifically proven to be not as smart as you clever guys! Perhaps you can explain it to me
Um. You posted that first post at almost 2am on a Wednesday morning, my time, dude.
Also, nothing I said implied or was meant to imply whatever the hell it is you're talking about so even if it wasn't 2 in the morning the best you'd have gotten out of me would be some snide dismissal of your irrelevant point, so perhaps the "stony silence" would be preferable.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
That article was filled with so many blantant lies its not really worth commenting on.
In any case, dictators are known for being able to funnel effort into pet projects. The question is what was the cost of having a dictator benefactor as the foundation of your success? Well, we know exactly what the cost. was.
Hitler build the Autobahn, a marvel of innovative civil engineering.
Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Stalin build the Moscow subway
Mao provided free public education
Kim brought home the best in SK actresses.
Was any of this worth the collateral damage? Was any of this really sustainable without that collateral damage? Was any of it actually real in the first place? No. No. No.
In any case, dictators are known for being able to funnel effort into pet projects. The question is what was the cost of having a dictator benefactor as the foundation of your success? Well, we know exactly what the cost. was.
Hitler build the Autobahn, a marvel of innovative civil engineering.
Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Stalin build the Moscow subway
Mao provided free public education
Kim brought home the best in SK actresses.
Was any of this worth the collateral damage? Was any of this really sustainable without that collateral damage? Was any of it actually real in the first place? No. No. No.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Its like the more you people say it, the more you forget your original deciet.
Initial participants in the Invasion included:
United States
UK
Australia
Poland
All acting witht the voted upon blessing of the United Nations.
Initial participants in the occupation (2003) included:
Slovakia
Lithuania
Italy
Norway
Hungry
Netherlands
Portugal
New Zealand
Thailand
Phillipines
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Iceland
Romania
El Salvador
Bulgaria
Moldova
Albania
Ukraine
Denmark
Czech Republic
Spain
South Korea
Azerbaijan
Singapore
Macedonia
Latvia
Kazakhistan
Mongolia
Georgia.
Thats just countries that came in during 2003, the invasion ended in May that year so those are nations that had boots on the ground within seven months of the invasion or better, so in other words you can save your breath regarding them not being initially onboard. Thats 35 nations, how many military operations have such physical participation? And thats just physical participation mind you, that says nothing about thers supporting in other ways including the UN votes.
The simple fact is Iraq was one of the largest international operations ever attempted, and it wasn't just the US who was on the hook to see it through.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Irrelevant. They were there. They were there from the beginning. They pledged their support before the invasion even happened. They voted the sanction the invasion in their own legeslatures in many cases and in the UN.
If anything, the people who signed on just for the occupation have more responsibility for it.
Despite this, I see nobody heaping blame on the Netherlands and Romanias of the world for whatever occupations failures are being discussed (real or invented).
Ironically, many of the people talking about the failure of the occupation in Iraq are the exact same ones who hold up international innitatives like Iraq as the optimal way things should be done, failing to realize the international community dropped the ball entirely.
If you want to blame to US for the world's failure fine, there is nothing I or anyone can say that will change such minds. At the same time there can be no denying the US (and a few others) sank in their share of resources. Can we say the same for the international community as a whole, each participant or supporter supposedly equal in the eyes of one another?
If anything, the people who signed on just for the occupation have more responsibility for it.
Despite this, I see nobody heaping blame on the Netherlands and Romanias of the world for whatever occupations failures are being discussed (real or invented).
Ironically, many of the people talking about the failure of the occupation in Iraq are the exact same ones who hold up international innitatives like Iraq as the optimal way things should be done, failing to realize the international community dropped the ball entirely.
If you want to blame to US for the world's failure fine, there is nothing I or anyone can say that will change such minds. At the same time there can be no denying the US (and a few others) sank in their share of resources. Can we say the same for the international community as a whole, each participant or supporter supposedly equal in the eyes of one another?
aelf
Ashen One
Yeah, kill (inadvertently or otherwise) loads of them first, then ask.
I beg to differ. If you think it's full of "blatant lies" then you ought to elaborate, Mr Expert.
What, you sleep rather than posting on civfanatics?
That sin aside, all I was implying was that we agree with one another. We think alike.
The Iraqis burned down their neighbourhood, and they got the consequences. A tough life lesson for them to learn, but they are better people for it now.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
No.
More important point: The coalition? Seriously? the COALITION?
I guess the pain is lessened for each when the sting is spread for all.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The Ba'ath regime was "the Iraqis"?
Was it only the Ba'ath regime elements that fought against America post-2003?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What has that got to do with the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War?
You were about to start whitewashing Iraqis by pinning all the blame on the Ba'ath party. I'm just pointing out that when the house of cards fell down, it wasn't just the Ba'ath party who fought to defend fascism and aggression.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Nobody's denying that. (Well, maybe the "fascism" bit, but god forbid you feel obliged to use words as they're actually defined.) But you argued that the destruction done to Iraq was simply their reaping the whirlwind, but the actions in question were all carried out by Hussein's dictatorial Ba'ath regime, not by "the Iraqis", collectively. The fact that non-Ba'athists later participated in insurgent violence doesn't change that- not least because these actions were no more carried out by some collective national entity than Hussein's invasion. So my scepticism stands.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
i get your point ... but seriously do you think the US gave much attention to how the Netherlands or Romanians wanted to do the reconstruction and transition to Iraq control... seriously
the British and Australians have done things differently in Iraq and Afghanistan , with some success, while still working closely with the US, but the others were their just to support the US, like Japan who went unarmed (practically) and required Australians to guard them
the Australians are there just because ... thats the deal... we go where the US goes
even the British kept saying we stand WITH the US shoulder to shoulder, its a US adventure, they got help and support from just about everyone
and really what do you seriously think Iceland can do apart from lending support and legitimacy to this US adventure, that is what the US wanted, they wanted a long long list of supporters for their position and they got what they wanted
