Was the War in Iraq Justified

[bathsheba666]

I am sure he was truthful and said, France, Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, etc. etc.

Uncharacteristically modest here, I thought.
Anyone missing from your list?

 

[BasketCase]

While agreeing you that an isolationist US isn't what anyone really needs, I think you'll find that no one was yelly or screamy demanding the US to get involved.

My history teachers--and the textbooks used in my history classes--disagree.

The US got involved because it became impossible for it to stay out in WWII.

Impossible in what way?? Because a couple thousand people at Pearl Harbor got killed? Because a few hundred civilians were killed by German U-boats on the Atlantic? Those people died because the U.S. was exporting oil and other materiel to the enemies of Japan and Germany. All we had to do was stop messing around in other countries' business and go home.

Nobody said we should be doing that. Except for Germany and Japan, of course.

The world as a whole has committed a very gigantic flip-flop on what they want U.S. policy to be. Which, actually, was a necessary thing, because now the entire world has seen both sides of the coin.

Dear rest of world: Do you want the U.S. involved in the rest of the world, or do you want us to pack up and go home and leave you the hell alone to solve your own problems? The rest of the world has now seen that both options have problems, and the world's solution is to flip-flop in the hope of somehow getting their cake and eating it too.

Which will never happen.


So you see, ladies and gentlemen: neither total peace nor total war is acceptable. Sometimes, the U.S. military is going to have to step across another nation's sovereign borders and kick some ass, and that is simply the way it's going to be.

 

[BasketCase]

its called Battleship diplomacy Basketcase. The threat of violence if done right is as effective as the use of violence.

You've never played poker, have you....?

A bluff is worthless if your opponent knows your bluffing. And a master player will sometimes take a chance and call you in order to find out if you're bluffing.

The threat of violence must be genuine (at least part of the time) in order to be "done right", as you put it. The threat of violence must sometimes lead to actual violence in order to work. Otherwise your opponent is going to call you; Saddam is going to tell you "go to hell, I'm going to keep building nukes", you're going to put your Ace-King-Queen-Jack-Nine on the table and fold and look like an idiot, and Saddam will win the pot.

 

[Verbose]

My history teachers--and the textbooks used in my history classes--disagree.

Really? Your textbooks describe the rest of the world as "yelly and screamy"? I somehow doubt it, but it might explain a few things.

 

[BasketCase]

Not in those exact words, no.

 

[Verbose]

Not in those exact words, no.

Didn't think so.

But seriously, I'm one of these characters who miss my "benevolent hegemon". And I'll grant that the end of the Cold War complicated the situation of how to remain the hegemonic power of the western world considerably for the US.

But the main problem would seem that the in particular the GWB administration never understood the nature of the US leadership role as a "hegemon". Hegemonic powers may be militarily powerful but their position is not based on the ability to exert force. Really, Bush's crowd has hurt the foreign policy standing of the US no end.

The US has disastrously failed to present a vision of where it wants to lead the "free world", and to plot a course. By now the damage has been done, and it can't rewind the tape to do over and do better either. The damage is done, and looks like it's going to last for quite a while.

What's came out of the GWB administration started as some form of "candid" statement of the fact that the US would from now on only act in self-interest, with no regard for the collective interests of its allies. These were simply assumed to do what they were told to do (where the US leads, the other will automatically follow, the neo-con "billards" theory of foreign policy, which turned out to be anything but automatic).

Of course the US can blame everyone for being mean, self-interested bastards, but that's not a very impressive argument. If the US wants to lead, it serioulsy needs to work out where it's headed and what's in it for those they propose to lead.
The US remaining sole superpower indefinately is a fine vision for the US, but not in itself compelling for anyone else. So, either come up with how others benefit from this, or scrap the whole "leader of the free world" thing. As much as everyone else being self-interested, this has been about the US defaulting on its own leadership role, apparently from lack of understanding of the basis for it.
If the US simply wants to order people about, it can probably arrange things to work like that as well eventually, but that will be a very different, far nastier world.

 

[MobBoss]

Uncharacteristically modest here, I thought.
Anyone missing from your list?

Considering that the USA tied with that huge military exporter Libya for selling military hardware to Iraq during the period in question, yeah, there are still a few more than sold much more than the USA did. USA and Libya were tied for 9th overall on the list.

 

[mythmonster2]

No flame war needed, Mythmonster--I got the short and sweet answer for ya. And the irony in it is just delicious.

Half a century ago, your solution was precisely what America was doing. We were isolationists. The result? The rest of the world got all yelly and screamy, and demanded that we help them solve their problems.

Why are we meddling in world affairs today? Because you told us to.

Well, yes, I know that we were isolationist before. However, if the world got "yelly and screamy" at us, as you put it so delicately, we could just ignore em! Yeah, I've got a strange political mind. Hey, I'm 12, you can't expect me to understand all the nuances of government, or if I spelled "nuance" right!

And, wait, what do you mean by "because you told us to."

 

[Elrohir]

Yes or no... I vote a resounding NO

Going by what we know now, or what we knew then?

Dear rest of world: Do you want the U.S. involved in the rest of the world, or do you want us to pack up and go home and leave you the hell alone to solve your own problems? The rest of the world has now seen that both options have problems, and the world's solution is to flip-flop in the hope of somehow getting their cake and eating it too.

Which will never happen.

I think it's pretty obvious. The French want us to intervene when they're getting their butts kicked, (Either by Germany of Vietnamese guerillas) as much of the world does when their interests are stake - but if we do anything that negatively impacts their interests, or something they just don't like, we're being imperialists again.

Makes you want to become an isolationist, and let the world deal with rogue states with nukes on their own, doesn't it? Close the borders, set up an impenetrable missile defense system (Against anything but Russia throwing their full arsenal at us) and sit back and watch the world go to hell. Naw....that'd be heartless of us!

 

[warpus]

Dear rest of world: Do you want the U.S. involved in the rest of the world, or do you want us to pack up and go home and leave you the hell alone to solve your own problems? The rest of the world has now seen that both options have problems, and the world's solution is to flip-flop in the hope of somehow getting their cake and eating it too.

We want you to continue playing in the sandbox with us, but not being such a bully and stealing everyone's toys.

You are describing what is known as a false dichotomy

 

[REDY]

Yeah I want interventionist US but not lying US. They said that when saddam will not invite inspectors they will declare war - ok. But when they will attack him after his invite of inspectors for another reason, which is even not true, its not ok. In fact for any other country(maybe within China and Russia) it will cause at least embargos in this country. Problem is not intervetionism, bigger problem is that US is sometimes unbelievable isolationist. You had perfect possibilty save people and win support when saddam attacked kuwait, but you left your iraqi allies to his bloody hands. Where were US when Saddam was killing Kurds? Where were US when he launched chemical weapons on own people? And now after more than 10 years sick son George is setting things right?!? What was real reason? Sry for English.

 

[sourboy]

Back then, I didn't feel we had enough reason to attack, lies still unexposed even.

Now, I think the only good that came from it is the testing of new technology, and the lesson of thinking things thru a little more. That's not saying much.

 

[FriendlyFire]

You've never played poker, have you....?

A bluff is worthless if your opponent knows your bluffing. And a master player will sometimes take a chance and call you in order to find out if you're bluffing.

The threat of violence must be genuine (at least part of the time) in order to be "done right", as you put it. The threat of violence must sometimes lead to actual violence in order to work. Otherwise your opponent is going to call you; Saddam is going to tell you "go to hell, I'm going to keep building nukes", you're going to put your Ace-King-Queen-Jack-Nine on the table and fold and look like an idiot, and Saddam will win the pot.

AHHA sorry let me be clear here. Battleship diplomacy also involves demonstrations of power and flaunting of military might. With America as the worlds only hyperpower limited force will almost always work.

You dont have to go into FULL OCCUPATION and INVASION mode. A continued air campagan like in Kosvo can work as well. Theres plenty of tricks in the book and options for dealing with a tyrant. (Like as i mentioned before Saudi Arabia or Lybria)

/Meh It not like the democratic countries control 98% of the world nukes anyway. Though the prolifercation of nukes is a problem better options then "take it all or nothing" stratergy thats real world poltics.
(Or Basketcase "stuff happens" argument)

 

[BasketCase]

AHHA sorry let me be clear here. Battleship diplomacy also involves demonstrations of power and flaunting of military might. With America as the worlds only hyperpower limited force will almost always work.

Dude. PLEASE play some poker with me. I would own you so hard.

If your opponent knows you have a strong preference for limited force and want to avoid a full invasion, YOU WILL GET BLUFFED.

 

[BasketCase]

Well, yes, I know that we were isolationist before. However, if the world got "yelly and screamy" at us, as you put it so delicately, we could just ignore em! Yeah, I've got a strange political mind. Hey, I'm 12, you can't expect me to understand all the nuances of government, or if I spelled "nuance" right!

Errrrr......yeah, you spelled it right.

Since you're young, lemme give you some advice about politics: don't take it too seriously. Politics is one royally screwed-up business. It's dirty as hell. If you don't have a sense of humor about it, it's going to damage your brain. You can tell that just by looking at what politics did to me.

And, wait, what do you mean by "because you told us to."

I was speaking from the framework of World War II. Specifically, I was saying "the United States stopped being isolationist and sent its military overseas, because the rest of the Allied nations wanted us to".

 

[BasketCase]

We want you to continue playing in the sandbox with us, but not being such a bully and stealing everyone's toys.

When you always play nice, the bully comes after you.

The sad truth is that nations really do act like schoolchildren. Your analogy, in fact, is perfect. Countries that always play nice get taken advantage of.

 

[Ecofarm]

I was speaking from the framework of World War II. Specifically, I was saying "the United States stopped being isolationist and sent its military overseas, because the rest of the Allied nations wanted us to".

And you're damn right.

The Japanese surprise attack on the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, brought America into the war. Churchill was with the President's special envoy, Averell Harriman, and the U.S. Ambassador to Britain, John Gilbert Winant, when he received the news over the telephone from President Roosevelt.

Four days later, Germany declared war on the United States, making U.S. involvement in Europe inevitable. Churchill was eager to have the U.S. fight alongside the British forces in Europe and wasted no time. He undertook a dangerous transatlantic journey on the HMS Duke of York, arriving in America on December 22, in time to spend Christmas at the White House.

On December 26, Churchill made his first historic address to a joint session of Congress to win support for his concept of the war.

In Churchill's history of The Second World War he wrote of his emotions upon hearing that Japan had attacked United States forces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Only "silly people, and there were many," underestimated American strength. For him, the entry of the United States into the war meant that the ultimate outcome--favorable for his country--was now assured. Feeling "the greatest joy" that the attack had arrayed his mother's country on the side of Britain, he "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

Most of Churchill's December 26, 1941, speech to Congress was an attempt to summarize the course of the war thus far--from a British viewpoint. His aim was to convince the American public that the wisest plan was to create an effective alliance that could win the war and preserve the peace afterwards. He added that the best war news of all was that "the United States, united as never before, have drawn the sword for freedom and cast away the scabbard."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/wc-sword.html


Of course, it was not the only reason.


ps.

It is interesting that Churchill's speech, on that December day in 1941, still resonates today.

It ends:

Do we not owe it to ourselves, to our children, to mankind tormented, to make sure that these catastrophes shall not engulf us for the third time? It has been proved that pestilence may break out in the Old World, which carry their destructive ravages into the New World, from which, once they are afoot, the New World cannot by any means escape. Duty and prudence alike command first that the germ-centres of hatred and revenge should be constantly and vigilantly surveyed and treated in good time, and, secondly, that an adequate organisation should be set up to make sure that the pestilence can be controlled at its earliest beginnings before it spreads and rages throughout the entire earth.

Five or six years ago it would have been easy, without shedding a drop of blood, for the United States and Great Britain to have insisted on fulfilment of the disarmament clauses of the treaties which Germany signed after the Great War; that also would have been the opportunity for assuring to German those raw materials which we declared in the Atlantic Charter should not be denied to any nation, victor or vanquished. That chance has passed. It is gone. Prodigious hammer-strokes have been needed to bring us together again, or if you will allow me to use other language, I will say that he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honour to be the faithful servants. It is not given to us to peer into the mysteries of the future. Still, I avow my hope and faith, sure and inviolate, that in the days to come the British and American peoples will for their own safety and for the good of all walk together side by side in majesty, in justice and in peace.

 

[T.A JONES]

I think to a few bankers who own the fed reserve the invasion was justified. If that sounds like a koo-coo comment I didn't mean it to be. It just chims right with their religeon, economic and ruling principles,

Agh, whatever. I guess one of em ' crazies' who believes Woodrow Wilson signed AMerica over to slavery by letting private citizens of ENgland(american whos parents where english sorry) print unbacked dollers for unlimited profits in the form unconstitutional income tax on the people.

The Fed bill was passed on the chistmas holidays when many Senaters where at home with their familieys. THe IRS bill was never cleared by enough states yet its still something US citizens adhear to without knowing. CAn this be true? ANyway all this crap relates to wars today in my veiw. AMerica gave tomuch power to to few crazy zeolots/..again , I hope that wasn't offensive comment

 

[.Shane.]

Going by what we know now, or what we knew then?

In my case, both. I've been against this from the start and I take cold comfort in being right.

@Eco, the Churchhill speech you're quoting is great and its exactly why I was 100% for what the US did in Afghanistan. Iraq is a wholly, wholly different matter. Now, I haven't followed the thread, so if that's not what you were going after, I apologize.

 

[Ecofarm]

That's one of the parallels I saw. Another was "we had our chance to enforce disarmament treaties" (the failure of the UN inspections and the no-fly zone) and "we had our chance to provide those things that no nation should be without" (oil for food).

Winston Chruchill was the greatest speaker of our time. His speeches

"we shall fight on the beaches",

Spoiler :

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

"their finest hour",

Spoiler :

Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

"you do your worst - and we will do our best",

Spoiler :

We have to ask ourselves this question: Will the bombing attacks come back again? We have proceeded on the assumption that they will. Many new arrangements are being contrived as a result of the hard experience through which we have passed and the many mistakes which no doubt we have made - for success is the result of making many mistakes and learning from experience. If the lull is to end, if the storm is to renew itself, we will be ready, will will not flinch, we can take it again.

We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. On the contrary, if tonight our people were asked to cast their vote whether a convention should be entered into to stop the bombing of cities, the overwhelming majority would cry, "No, we will mete out to them the measure, and more than the measure, that they have meted out to us." The people with one voice would say: "You have committed every crime under the sun. Where you have been the least resisted there you have been the most brutal. It was you who began the indiscriminate bombing. We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst - and we will do our best." Perhaps it may be our turn soon; perhaps it may be our turn now.

"The price of greatness is responsibility"

Spoiler :

There was no use in saying "We don't want it; we won’t have it; our forebears left Europe to avoid these quarrels; we have founded a new world which has no contact with the old. "There was no use in that. The long arm reaches out remorselessly, and every one's existence, environment, and outlook undergo a swift and irresistible change. What is the explanation, Mr. President, of these strange facts, and what are the deep laws to which they respond? I will offer you one explanation - there are others, but one will suffice.

The price of greatness is responsibility. If the people of the United States had continued in a mediocre station, struggling with the wilderness, absorbed in their own affairs, and a factor of no consequence in the movement of the world, they might have remained forgotten and undisturbed beyond their protecting oceans: but one cannot rise to be in many ways the leading community in the civilised world without being involved in its problems, without being convulsed by its agonies and inspired by its causes.

Can only be compared to each other, noone else has come close. Not Kennedy, not Reagan.