What would have to happen regarding Iraq before former supporters of the invasion would think their initial support was a mistake?
I would need to find out that Saddam was justified in killing his people.
I would need to find out that Saddam was set up to take the fall in the Oil For Food Program.
Don't be obtuse. If we pulled out of WWII after 2000 combat deaths, there would be no Israel and there wouldn't be any Jews outside of the USA.
They'd all be dead.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
You set that bar ever lower each day.
I thought 9/11 changed everything. Are you seriously trying to convince yourself that you were ready to invade Iraq before 9/11, because you have set no conditions that did not exist from the 1st Gulf War on. Where's the tipping point?
Do we really set the threshold for military engagement at bribery and embezzlement of humanitarian programs? And if we do, then why continue since we have the perpetrator in custody standing trial? We didn't do that in Panama. After we captured our CIA puppet gone bad, we left, Why is Iraq different? Could it be that their regime (which btw, has been changed) was not created in our image? We not only took off the head of the beast, but we systematically destroyed or marginalized the very institutions which were capable of filling the vacuum we created.
We're nation building, and this president promised not to do that. He promised to be a uniter. He promised only to nominate qualified Scalia's. He promised to "jaw-bone" the Saudis if gas got too high. He promised responsible fiscal policies. He promised to bring back integrity to the White House and that doing what was legal was not enough. He promised to do what was "right."
Gimme a break. He's a damn liar.
I set the bar a bit higher than asking whether some in the administration commit perjury about the reasons we had to pre-emptively strike Iraq. Hell, I'd even give them the benefit of the doubt about a ramped up bombing campaign, but an invasion with ground troops (as we have seen) is an altogether different type of investment.
And when you are talking about such an enormous commitment of blood and treasure, I want more than technical truth, the absence of a lie. We deserve the whole unvarnished truth. These men and women who are entrusted with conducting policy on our behalf have a fiduciary duty of complete honesty and fair dealing, especially when matters are so grave.
We were treated like children where the idea of "need to know" went beyond keeping state secrets and protecting ::cough:: national security assets, to letting us know only those things that would convince us that we should go along with their foregone conclusions.
They ran a political spin campaign at us for the need to go to war. They did not engage in the serious debate which we deserved.
This wasn't a matter of just being wrong, this was a deliberate effort to suppress any facts that did not support their desire to oust Saddam long before 9/11. 9/11 was a gift to them, but I also believe that we responded exactly the way Osama wished.
I was ready when Clinton was in office as well. Attempting to assassinate Poppy Bush was more than enough for Clinton to go in. Hell, Clinton established new policy towards Iraq, remember? Regime change? Hello? Anyone?
Remember that scene in Saving Private Ryan? Tom Hanks goes on the mission to find Private Ryan, but the losses are enormous -- one by one his men are being cut down. At one point he says this:
This Ryan had better be worth it-- he better go home and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting light bulb.
Later, with his dying breath, he says the same thing to Ryan. It haunts Ryan for the rest of his life.
So, the real question isn't how many tens of thousands of people, soldiers and civilians, have shed their blood to this day. The real question isn't how many hundreds of billions of dollars of our treasure have been spent.
The real question is, "What will the Iraqi people do to make it worth it?"
Lincoln, at Gettysburg, said this, in consecrating the memory of those who fell in battle:
...[W]e here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Rosemary: I hope the Iraqi people can pull this off, but knowing what I know about their constitution I'm not optimistic, to say the least. In one sense, that's their business -- the Iraqi people deserve whatever government they choose.
But please don't forget: we bought that constitution for them with our blood and treasure. And that's why I feel pretty strongly that what we got was not worth it, whether the death toll was 2 soldiers, or 20, or 200, or 2,000 or 20,000.
Having come to this, I have to conclude that it was a gigantic, tragic boondoggle.
And if history shows that Bush lied or exaggerated in making the argument for war, if history decides that he spun the facts to sell his case, then we can conclude that betrayed his public trust, and he diminished the credibility of his office and our country.
In short, what we've lost looks more and more important than what we gained.
The real question is, "What will the Iraqi people do to make it worth it?"
Worth it to who? You? Or worth it to the people that it matters most for? The Iraqis. It is up to them to determine if it is or was worth it. Not you or me!
Read Lincoln's words again, and this time think about them:
...[W]e here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Would you accept a Iraqi constitution that puts the mullahs on the supreme court, in final judgement of what is constitutional? Do you really consider that "a new birth of freedom?"
More importantly, was it worth the loss of our blood and treasure to be the midwife to that birth?
Pam, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Lincoln's most fervant wish was not fulfilled in Iraq and that our men and women died for nothing.
Sandra Day O'Connor said it best:
At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish.
We know that our Constitution "got it right." That's one reason it has lasted as long as it has.
Pam, why do you not take the Constitution more seriously? Surely, you are mindful of how much we sacrificed to preserve it?
That said, why would you not insist that the Iraqi people get a better result of their own, especially after we subsidized the end-result?
Ara- Thanks for the quotes. I am very familiar with them. But I never had any expectations that the Iraqi people would adopt our COTUS. We are talking about the Iraqi COTUS. It is their to set up, not us. It is for them to decide their laws, not us. America and Iraq are 2 vastly different cultures. I didn't support the invasion and rebuilding under the guise that we would somehow be paid back by the Iraqis by them drafting a COTUS like ours.
We are talking about the Iraqi COTUS. It is their to set up, not us. It is for them to decide their laws, not us.
Of course.
But somehow it's OK with you for our troops to die so that they can become the Islamic Republic of Iraq? If you believe that, you're making a grave mistake, Pam.
You say you're familiar with Lincoln's words, but I don't think you understand what he was really saying. You say you're familiar with O'Connor's words, but, gosh, she's talking to YOU and you're not listening.
Kudos for answering the question directly, Rosemary. We're pretty much along the same lines in terms of what we would consider to be failure in the region, although there are a couple of other things I'd throw in as counting toward failure.
If Southern Iraq becomes a satellite state of the Iranian theocracy.
If Iraq splits into three, and a new war erupts in the region over the oil resources in the north and south, bringing in financing, arms, and troops from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iran, and Turkey.
If al Qaeda is able to repeat the model they did well with in their war agaisnt the Soviets in Afghanistan, and attract, train, and repartiate foreign fundamentalist recruits in Iraq, resulting in politicial unrest throughout the entire Islamic world. This is worrying, because this process already seems to be well underway.
If Iran continues to be able to exploit the fact that the US military is bogged down in Iraq. Ditto for North Korea. And the Sudan, for that matter.
If the ongoing bogus "war on al Qaeda" in Pakistan devolves to the point that fundamentalists mount a successful coup there, thereby getting their hands on both nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
If, through inattention, Afghanistan returns to the warlords and the Taliban.
All these would be considered failures in my books.
But somehow it's OK with you for our troops to die so that they can become the Islamic Republic of Iraq? If you believe that, you're making a grave mistake, Pam.
- I guess the same arguement could be made in the case of Europe then. Our soldiers died to liberate countries over there that do not stand for the same freedoms that our COTUS offers. Was it wrong for them to die?
You say you're familiar with Lincoln's words, but I don't think you understand what he was really saying. You say you're familiar with O'Connor's words, but, gosh, she's talking to YOU and you're not listening.
I think you are stretching Lincolns words. He was referring to our soldiers protecting our COTUS on our soil. This was not a foreign war he was speaking about. As for O'Conner, how is it that she is speaking to me? I see her voicing her opinion.
I always want to ask people if they think our involvement in World War One was "worth it." The US was in that war from April of one year untill November the following year - just over 18 months. Something like 100,000 Americans died (I don't have my reference to the exact numbers). Was it worth it? Can we change that worth by looking back and complaining that WWI did not stop WWII? I don't think so.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
The let the Iraqis protect their Constitution on their soil.
And if you correctly point out that they are instutionally unable to, remind yourself who is responsible for dismantling their amost able defensive instution.
Our soldiers died to liberate countries over there that do not stand for the same freedoms that our COTUS offers.
Um, bit of a history rewrite there. Two things to consider.
1. The US only became directly involved with liberation of those countries over there after they were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US. Liberation was a byproduct of protecting US interests.
2. If Hitler had stayed behind his own borders merrily killing Jews, Gypsies, Jevoah's Witnesses, Communists, and homosexuals, he would have never been removed from power by the allies. Again, liberation and human rights were not the issue in WWII, naked aggression and territorial conquest were the issues that got Hitler and Japan in trouble.
US soldiers did not give their lives to liberate other countries, they did it to defensd their own nation. The fact that countries were liberated and became successful democracies is a happy byproduct of both the American political system and its faith in the inate goodness of humanity, but it wasn't the prime reason for the war.
. The US only became directly involved with liberation of those countries over there after they were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US. Liberation was a byproduct of protecting US interests.
So there is no US interest in protecting Iraq? And Japan is the one that attacked us. Why so much involvement in Europe? We sent our troops to Europe at which they were attacked by German soldiers.
naked aggression and territorial conquest were the issues that got Hitler and Japan in trouble.
I'm not sure where you got that conclusion from. I was correcting something you said regarding WW II.
And Japan is the one that attacked us. Why so much involvement in Europe? We sent our troops to Europe at which they were attacked by German soldiers.
Because Germany declared war on the US four days after the US declared war on Japan. US troops weren't "sent to Europe" until two years after war was declared.
Did he attack the US?
You know, I really think you should pick up a history book before forming theories about what happened in WW II.
Liberation was a byproduct of protecting US interests.
I see. Okay, if Germany declares war on the US and visa-versa, and Germany occupies (for example) France and her colonies, do you not think it in America's interest to invade France and kick the Germans out? No?
And I said literally nothing about whether invading Iraq is in US interest or not. What I said was that, countering your assertion, US troops were not dying during WW II in order to primarily liberate nations, they were fighting and dying in order to kick an aggressor nation out of its possessions and thereby weaken and defeat it. To reiterate, there was no US invasion to liberate France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Czechoslovakia from the Germans until after Germany declared war on the US. And Allied military campaigns afterwards were directed at what would do the most to defeat the Axis powers, and not based on liberation. If they had been, I'd think the Soviet Union would have had a much smaller role in the war, and the war would have lasted another five or ten years.
Our soldiers died to liberate countries over there that do not stand for the same freedoms that our COTUS offers. Was it wrong for them to die?
Which of those countries turned into an Islamic Republic? By now you should have gathered that I believe any country that puts God at the top of the constitutioanl process is no friend of the US.
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, read O'Connor as many times as it takes to really understand what she's getting at.
I think you are stretching Lincolns words. He was referring to our soldiers protecting our COTUS on our soil.
Excellent point, Pam. Are you suggesting, then, that we have no business nation-building in Iraq?
While you're thinking of your answer, would it surprise you to learn that the Declaration and also the Constitution were written to describe the rights that all people are entitled to, not just US citizens?
I always want to ask people if they think our involvement in World War One was "worth it." ...Can we change that worth by looking back and complaining that WWI did not stop WWII? I don't think so.
Um, what's your point here? Do you believe it was worth it or not?
BTW, you've reminded me of the worst headline never published: "Archduke Ferdinand still alive; World War I all a mistake." Hee.
Pam:
So there is no US interest in protecting Iraq?
Tragically, none of us can really say. The administration originally told us we were invading Iraq to disarm Saddam and his WMD. That turned out to be, ahem, "a mistake." Fact is, we still don't know why we're REALLY there. So, I honestly cannot answer your question -- and apparently neither can the President.
But right now, my gut tells me the whole thing was a tragic boondoggle that killed tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and produced...an Islamic Republic soon-to-be largely under the control of Iran.
The administration originally told us we were invading Iraq to disarm Saddam and his WMD.
Correction: the administration originally told Saddam Hussein that Iraq would be invaded because of his weapons of mass destruction. Before the actual invasion, Bush gave eight public speeches that outlined the conditions under which Iraq would not be invaded. Guess how many of those conditions had anything to do with democracy and human rights?
Seven of eight were "Saddam must disarm."
The eighth was "Saddam must disarm and leave the country".
For all the talk about how it wasn't really about WMDs, I think that pretty much says it. If Hussein had handed over WMDs (which he didn't have to produce), the invasion would never have happened.
Actually Ara, stability in the ME, with regards to the oil fields is in our best interest to protect. Not only for ourselves, but the world market. So yes there are economic reasons to protect this region. There are also the Humanitarians reason to do so. He should have been taken out during the 1st Gulf War. That was a huge error on the part of Bush 41. We are partially to blame for the slaughter of many Iraqis that believed we would liberate them in 91'
Fact is, we still don't know why we're REALLY there.
Actually Ara, stability in the ME, with regards to the oil fields is in our best interest to protect. Not only for ourselves, but the world market
Waitaminnit. You mean the wingnuts were right, and it all WAS about the oil? But, but, the largest consumer of Iraqi oil before the invasion was the US. And now, thanks to the instability in Iraq, there is lees oil being successfully pumped out in decades.
There are also the Humanitarians reason to do so. He should have been taken out during the 1st Gulf War. That was a huge error on the part of Bush 41.
Bush 41 explained the reasons for not deposing Hussein. He said:
We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
What a nutbar, eh?
Actually, many of us do know why we are there.
No, you don't. You have theories, just like the rest of us. But you didn't order the invasion, Bush did, and he's the only one who knows for sure. As he's given an ever-changing set of reasons for what has happened, either he doesn't know, is lying, or is crazy.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
World War I was necessary in order to prevent Prussia from conquering all of Europe. World War II was a continuation and intensification of that same War, which really began in 1870.
I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery. Since we are the ones paying for it, with our soldiers' blood as well as our taxpayers' money, we are the ones who get to decide how the Iraqis will be governed, we have the moral right and the duty to impose our Western values on them. Otherwise, this War in Iraq is not worth one penny of our money nor one drop of an American soldier's blood. We made the same mistake in Viet Nam, telling our soldiers that they must go and die so the Vietnamese could vote themselves into Communism, and that is why we lost.
Altruism is appeasement, appeasement is surrender, and surrender is defeat. What we need above all is an egoist, selfish foreign policy, based on what is good for us, our soldiers, our country (America), our culture (the West), our values, our freedoms. From the founding of our country until World War I, that meant isolationism. But isolationism is no longer possible. Therefore we must be, proudly, without apology, imperialists. We cannot allow a culture or political system hostile to our own to exist. This does not mean that we must destroy Islam as such, but it does mean that we must force Muslims to make their Islam consistent with Western values and freedoms.
Another thing that would bring this War in Iraq into question is if it becomes a distraction from the total War Against the Terror Masters. If we get so bogged down in Iraq that we have not the will to take on Iran and stop the ayatollahs from getting their hands on nuclear weapons, then that will be disaster. We must not allow Afghanistan to slide into Talibanism again. And, ultimately, we must take on Saudi Arabia, the center and source of Islamic terrorism.
As for the precise strategy and tactics for winning this War for our survival, I leave that to the men most qualified: the Generals. Just get out of the way and let the Generals do their job.
We made the same mistake in Viet Nam, telling our soldiers that they must go and die so the Vietnamese could vote themselves into Communism, and that is why we lost.
Not exactly. Kennedy killed the one leader that could have assured the Vietnamese a Democracy.
Kennedy killed the one leader that could have assured the Vietnamese a Democracy.
This would be the leader who assumed power in an election that had his troops guarding polling stations and assualting anyone voting against him? The leader that received more votes in Saigon than there were registered voters? The leader who populated a corrupt government with relatives, and who ordered that protesting Buddhists be crushed in the streets by tanks and their temples burned to the ground?
Quite a Jeffersonian character, that Diem. Regardless, CIA-sponsored coups and the resulting executions are never warranted, and it was to Kennedy's discredit that it ever happened. Still, you really think this monster was a hope for democracy in region? Why?
What would have to happen regarding Iraq before opponents of the invasion would think their initial opposition was a mistake?
Those of us who supported the war in Iraq are often asked the opposite question, and if it hasn't been answered to the opponent's satisfaction at this point, then it never will be. But what I really want to know, is why opponents oppose it. Seriously. If you opposed it because you oppose all wars, fine. I get that. It's kind of a naive position, in my opinion, but ok. If you're an isolationist, I get that too. I have a strong isolationist streak in me as well. But what I don't get is why those who consider themselves part of the humanitarian left oppose it so strongly (other than because a Republican is president). Why is the presumption of innocence always on the "do nothing" crowd? Doing nothing can have a cost, too.
If we found WMD's tomorrow, would those who opposed it change their minds? Somehow I doubt it. Most of us who supported it didn't support it solely because of WMD's, and in my case, not at all. And most who opposed it, opposed it even before it was clear that we weren't going to find WMD's. So, let's take WMD's out of the equation for a minute, and let me ask again, why do opponents oppose it, and what would it take (or what would it have taken) to change your minds?
Personally, I can't help but think that the war in Iraq would have faced much less opposition if a Democrat had initiated it. If that's not the case, then enlighten me.
But what I really want to know, is why opponents oppose it.
Well, I've dominated this thread a bit, but what the hell.
I don't oppose military humanitarian intervention. As a matter of fact, I'm a big fan of it. However, it has to be effective intervention, and from the start, this adventure has had every sign of failing, and in failing, cause a lot of damage. Not just damage to Iraq and its people, but to international diplomacy, to the movement toward more humanitarian intervention, to the fight to stop nuclear proliferation, and to the fight to effectively deal with not just terrorism, but the roots of Islamic fundementalist terrorism and the movement behind it.
Unfortunately, many who opposed it for these reasons were simply tarred with the "pacifist wimp/fascist-lover" brush, and so the arguments were lost in the general din. It was easier to use this brush than to deal with the arguments being presented, I suspect.
I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery.
Maybe we should just double-invade their asses, eh, Steven? :^)
Pam:
Kennedy killed the one leader that could have assured the Vietnamese a Democracy.
As far as I know, you are the only person in the entire history of the world who believes that. Or has even said that. I mean, gosh Pam, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Jason:
why those who consider themselves part of the humanitarian left oppose it so strongly (other than because a Republican is president). Why is the presumption of innocence always on the "do nothing" crowd? Doing nothing can have a cost, too.
Simply put, the cost of doing nothing is sometimes less than the cost of doing something. Of course, you must have a clear idea of what the costs are. In this case, it is becoming increasingly clear that this administration lied, spun, twisted and exaggerated the facts in order to get the result they wanted: war. Why they did this is still not clear to me. But with this bunch it doesn't matter what they say -- all that matters is what they do.
If we found WMD's tomorrow, would those who opposed it change their minds?
That is such an improbable scenario that I won't even answer the question. There were no WMDs.
So, let's take WMD's out of the equation for a minute, and let me ask again, why do opponents oppose it, and what would it take (or what would it have taken) to change your minds?
If you take WMDs out of the equation, there is NO WAY that we would have gone to war in the first place. Period.
Personally, I can't help but think that the war in Iraq would have faced much less opposition if a Democrat had initiated it. If that's not the case, then enlighten me.
Picture Democratic President Al Gore in the weeks between 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. Now picture a Republican Senate and a Republican House. Remember how long it took to get going? The GOP majority would have eaten Gore alive. You know it's true. And that's just for the Afghan war.
As far as I know, you are the only person in the entire history of the world who believes that. Or has even said that. I mean, gosh Pam, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Robert McNamera backs me us. But I guess he wouldn't know what he's talking about would he ara?
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Oy, I'm looking at the mangled illiteracy of my last post in abject embarrassment. Sorry.
(Note to self, type slower, preview).
We're obviously never going to change minds about the beginning of the war. Opinionated bloggers and commenters, like all of us here, are entrenched and there is little that can happen to change minds. That addresses Rose's initial query.
Probably a more constructive discussion is whether we should be nation-building. Those that oppose the war, for whatever reason, need not be painted with the unlikely "isolationist" label as I'm sure that there are interventionists among us who would agree that nation-building is not in our interest.
But nation-building is exactly what we are engaged in now. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states it outright and describes the problems associated with it in defending his government's current policies vis-a-vis Iraq and the WoT.
The last phrase you will ever hear out of President Bush's mouth is that "nation building is hard work." You won't hear that because, as usual, he is pathologically unable to play it straight with us.
I have a problem completely buying the neo-con imperialist argument for US/uk hegemony. I strongly support the realpolitik necessity for military action when it is in our interest, but the neo-cons seem to take this to a logically unsupported conclusion that the goal of empire is the ultimate realization of protecting our national interests in the international area.
Saddam was an evil guy, he's gone. WMD's? No problem, now if ever, to be sure. The reasons we went are no longer operational. Many never were.
As an occupying power we are providing our enemies with targets and a reason for the rest of the world to despise us more and more every single day. We fought and died for our own Constitution. Theirs won't mean a thing to them or anyone else unless they stand up and fight for it on their own. They aren't going to do that as long as we are there and indeed, many there see it as their patriotic duty to oppose us. The distinction between freedom fighter and insurgent has always been a matter of perspective.
My point in my earlier mangled post was that we dismantled the Iraqi army and other government and security institutions, and by doing so we made this endless occupation necessary. In Germany after WWII we kept the German army largely intact, under guard and ready to turn loose on the Russians if need be. The unintended consequence of sending the Iraqi army to the winds was that we unleashed a huge population of armed unemployed, hungry young men to either join up with the nearest militia group, or to get their kicks blowing up Hummers.
What we need to avoid, and have not committed the resources to prevent, is a violent failed state; whether islamist, male-dominated, intolerant or not. We have not come close to avoiding this because we have neither left them alone to sort out their own differences (which of course would be catastrophically violent and begs neighboring states to interfere) or really gone in there like the nation-builders we are but are loath to admit. We outsourced our Marshall Plan to Haliburton and Brown &Root.
MacNamara saw Diem as the proverbial "strong man" to whom break-away colonies were traditionally bequeathed, usually in the guise of democracy much like what passed for an electoral process under Hussein or can currently be found in Egypt or Iran. But what is absolutely needed is stability. The niceties usually come later. What we're trying to accomplish in Iraq today is sew the foundation of the most difficult kind of government to create in the middle of a hurricane.
But why was there a new constitution in Japan done in six months after WWII, and in Germany in eight months? Because they already had democratic institutions ingrained in their culture AND we respected the institutions, the military, the courts, the bureaucracy, already in place.
The question de jure is what flavor of conservative juris will Bush appoint for SCOTUS next. What we should be worried about is how this crippled President will handle Syria and Iran and Korea. How limited are we because of our ad hoc nation building in Iraq? How much credibility have we squandered by our continued defense of the use of torture. How have we crippled our intelligence gathering abilities when would-be agents know they might be burned by officials with a political agenda who seem to act with impunity? Who will believe us when we justify an act of war on Iran's nuclear plants based on "intelligence sources" and we need to simply trust in the judgment of this President? His own base doesn't even trust that his own lawyer is trustworthy.
Opportunities blown, resources squanderd, political capital depleted. Even if Iraq becomes a model democracy, prosperous beyond belief, unless they pump enough oil into our coffers to get us back to the balanced budgets we enjoyed before Bush took office, they won't have even begun to satisfy me that it was all worth it. Even then, their debt to us in lives will never be repaid.
I want our ass kissed, our pockets filled, and no crap, ever, from this little nation we're building. None of these things will come to pass, and it will never be worth it. Every day we pour more and more good blood and treasure after bad.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Double-plus-ungood wrote:
"I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery.
Where did I say that, oh assumptive polytheistic one?"
Then you said nothing at all. Either make a coherent point or stop wasting my time.
Ara Rubyan wrote:
"I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery.
Maybe we should just double-invade their asses, eh, Steven? :^)"
One invasion was enough. We should assert our power now that we have it.
Double-plus-ungood wrote:
""Another thing that would bring this War in Iraq into question is if it becomes a distraction from the total War Against the Terror Masters."
As in "Why invade Iraq, bin Laden isn't there, this is just a useless distraction from the real problem?"
Welcome to the dark side, Steven."
I'm not on your side at all. What you radicals want is to have bin Laden captured alive, stage a show trial in which that despicable traitor Ramsey Clark will put America and the West on trial for our "imperialism", and then set bin Laden free. I'm 100% against that. Bin Laden must die, preferably as painfully as possible, and cover his carcass with pig shit. Send him to Hell where he belongs.
"IN RETROSPECT:
THE TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAM
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA
WITH BRIAN VANDEMARK"
Robert S. McNamara is a Communist who said that Communist China and Communist Cuba were superior to the United States because they have "free health care", etc.. I would never trust him. When I see that name Robert S. McNamara, my blood boils the same way as when I see the name Ramsey Clark or Jimmy Carter.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
The Queen wrote:
"Not sure who asked: Which of those countries turned into an Islamic Republic?
France is almost there. Isn't Turkey an Islamic Republic? What is so wrong with Turkey?"
Turkey is a free, Westernized nation. It is the only tolerable form of Islam. Islam there is not forced on anybody who doesn't want it. Non-Islamic religions are not persecuted. There are no "sodomy" laws. Lebanon was another such free, pro-Western nation, and may be so again. Thia is the opposite of the totalitarian Islamic Republic of Iran. I oppose the Revolution in Iran. I support the Shah, Iran's rightful ruler. By the way, for anybody who knows any history, the historic religion of Iran is not Islam but Zoroastrianism, which was founded there long before even Christianity, even at the time of Moses or Abraham.
It may be tolerable for a nation which has long been Muslim to remain Muslim so long as it is like Turkey or Lebanon. However....:
If France (or any other Western, traditionally Christian, nation) falls to Islam, that would be an unmitigated disaster. France was once the very center of our Western high culture, a Catholic monarchy founded by St. Jeanne d'Arc. But, ever since the Revolution of 1789, and the Revolutionaries' abominable crime of regicide, murdering both their King and their Queen, a crime close to Deicide, France has been declining. If France falls to Islam, she will cease to be a Western nation altogether. Such an abject surrender, such a betrayal, would be a stab in the back to Jeanne d'Arc and Richard Coeur de Leon and Charles Martel, to all the brave knights who gave their lives for the Cross and the Most Holy Virgin (the Queen of Heaven), for freedom.
The only hope for France is a Counter-Revolution by the Far Right (La Droite Extreme). I admire Alain de Benoist. Indeed, the only hope for the West as a whole is a revival of Polytheism in conjunction with a revival of the historic Christianity of the West, particularly Catholicism, which, of all forms of Christianity, most closely approximates my own theology. I am very pleased that Alain de Benoist teamed up with the Catholic Thomas Molnar to write L'Eclipse du Sacre (Eclipse of the Sacred). Jews, fundamental Protestants, Catholics, and Polytheists have a common enemy: secularism, egalitarianism, progressivism, relativism -- what de Benoist calls the "Mondialists": a One-World Socialist Social Change. I'm against that!
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Fair enough Rose.
Steven, count this radical in the "bin Laden should have been skinned alive and thrown on an ant hill" column, ok? But there are very obvious reasons we don't have him and very objectional policies to blame.
Then you said nothing at all. Either make a coherent point or stop wasting my time.
I'd agree that if you aren't able to fathom my point then it's a waste of your obviously valuable time. I'd recommend skipping my comments if can't make head or tail of them.
What you radicals want is to have bin Laden captured alive, stage a show trial in which that despicable traitor Ramsey Clark will put America and the West on trial for our "imperialism", and then set bin Laden free. I'm 100% against that. Bin Laden must die, preferably as painfully as possible, and cover his carcass with pig shit. Send him to Hell where he belongs.
What a wonderful imagination. And it saves so much time and mental energy to simply manufacture a hopelessly ridiculous mental scenario and then ascribe it to it being held by the other side of the political fence. Of course, some might think that you doing so is necessary because you simply are either too intellectually lazy to debate real opinions, or have an obsessive inner dialog that gets in the way of actual discourse. Me, I just suspect that it's necessary to pose a silly contrasting opinion so that your serious hairy-he-man talk about killin' looks so much more manly.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Mark Adams:
Excellent.
++ungood;
Interesting how you soft, sensitive, nuanced ones are always so obsessed with other men's hairy he-manly macho-ness. Myself, I think such an act as I recommended would be also be quite womanly, as the female has always been known to be the deadlier of the species.
Interesting how you soft, sensitive, nuanced ones are always so obsessed with other men's hairy he-manly macho-ness.
Heh. You have so obviously not seen me in person. Soft, sensitive, and nuanced are not the adjectives that spring to people's minds in connection with me. Well. perhaps nuanced. But feel free to fantasize if you need to...
I was referring to your dialogue. And, anticipating your response, I don't see anything in my postings that would be considered to be "sensitive" nor "soft". However, I am honoured that you consider my writing to be "nuanced".
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
We've got into territory that I had no intention of going. This "you're trying to prove your manhood" is just pop psychology projection. This War we are fighting is necessary, right, and just, and if it was being fought entirely by women that's what it would still be.
I would need to find out that Saddam was justified in killing his people.
I would need to find out that Saddam was set up to take the fall in the Oil For Food Program.
Don't be obtuse. If we pulled out of WWII after 2000 combat deaths, there would be no Israel and there wouldn't be any Jews outside of the USA.
They'd all be dead.
I thought 9/11 changed everything. Are you seriously trying to convince yourself that you were ready to invade Iraq before 9/11, because you have set no conditions that did not exist from the 1st Gulf War on. Where's the tipping point?
Except for the bully pulpit Bush and Cheney beat to a pulp (who did indeed withhold intelligence from Congress and the rest of us -- deceptive at the very least) we would not have gone to war.
Do we really set the threshold for military engagement at bribery and embezzlement of humanitarian programs? And if we do, then why continue since we have the perpetrator in custody standing trial? We didn't do that in Panama. After we captured our CIA puppet gone bad, we left, Why is Iraq different? Could it be that their regime (which btw, has been changed) was not created in our image? We not only took off the head of the beast, but we systematically destroyed or marginalized the very institutions which were capable of filling the vacuum we created.
We're nation building, and this president promised not to do that. He promised to be a uniter. He promised only to nominate qualified Scalia's. He promised to "jaw-bone" the Saudis if gas got too high. He promised responsible fiscal policies. He promised to bring back integrity to the White House and that doing what was legal was not enough. He promised to do what was "right."
Gimme a break. He's a damn liar.
I set the bar a bit higher than asking whether some in the administration commit perjury about the reasons we had to pre-emptively strike Iraq. Hell, I'd even give them the benefit of the doubt about a ramped up bombing campaign, but an invasion with ground troops (as we have seen) is an altogether different type of investment.
And when you are talking about such an enormous commitment of blood and treasure, I want more than technical truth, the absence of a lie. We deserve the whole unvarnished truth. These men and women who are entrusted with conducting policy on our behalf have a fiduciary duty of complete honesty and fair dealing, especially when matters are so grave.
We were treated like children where the idea of "need to know" went beyond keeping state secrets and protecting ::cough:: national security assets, to letting us know only those things that would convince us that we should go along with their foregone conclusions.
They ran a political spin campaign at us for the need to go to war. They did not engage in the serious debate which we deserved.
This wasn't a matter of just being wrong, this was a deliberate effort to suppress any facts that did not support their desire to oust Saddam long before 9/11. 9/11 was a gift to them, but I also believe that we responded exactly the way Osama wished.
So, the real question isn't how many tens of thousands of people, soldiers and civilians, have shed their blood to this day. The real question isn't how many hundreds of billions of dollars of our treasure have been spent.
The real question is, "What will the Iraqi people do to make it worth it?"
Lincoln, at Gettysburg, said this, in consecrating the memory of those who fell in battle:Rosemary: I hope the Iraqi people can pull this off, but knowing what I know about their constitution I'm not optimistic, to say the least. In one sense, that's their business -- the Iraqi people deserve whatever government they choose.
But please don't forget: we bought that constitution for them with our blood and treasure. And that's why I feel pretty strongly that what we got was not worth it, whether the death toll was 2 soldiers, or 20, or 200, or 2,000 or 20,000.
Having come to this, I have to conclude that it was a gigantic, tragic boondoggle.
And if history shows that Bush lied or exaggerated in making the argument for war, if history decides that he spun the facts to sell his case, then we can conclude that betrayed his public trust, and he diminished the credibility of his office and our country.
In short, what we've lost looks more and more important than what we gained.
Read Lincoln's words again, and this time think about them:Would you accept a Iraqi constitution that puts the mullahs on the supreme court, in final judgement of what is constitutional? Do you really consider that "a new birth of freedom?"
More importantly, was it worth the loss of our blood and treasure to be the midwife to that birth?
Pam, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Lincoln's most fervant wish was not fulfilled in Iraq and that our men and women died for nothing.
Sandra Day O'Connor said it best:We know that our Constitution "got it right." That's one reason it has lasted as long as it has.
Pam, why do you not take the Constitution more seriously? Surely, you are mindful of how much we sacrificed to preserve it?
That said, why would you not insist that the Iraqi people get a better result of their own, especially after we subsidized the end-result?
Of course.
But somehow it's OK with you for our troops to die so that they can become the Islamic Republic of Iraq? If you believe that, you're making a grave mistake, Pam.
You say you're familiar with Lincoln's words, but I don't think you understand what he was really saying. You say you're familiar with O'Connor's words, but, gosh, she's talking to YOU and you're not listening.
- If Southern Iraq becomes a satellite state of the Iranian theocracy.
- If Iraq splits into three, and a new war erupts in the region over the oil resources in the north and south, bringing in financing, arms, and troops from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iran, and Turkey.
- If al Qaeda is able to repeat the model they did well with in their war agaisnt the Soviets in Afghanistan, and attract, train, and repartiate foreign fundamentalist recruits in Iraq, resulting in politicial unrest throughout the entire Islamic world. This is worrying, because this process already seems to be well underway.
- If Iran continues to be able to exploit the fact that the US military is bogged down in Iraq. Ditto for North Korea. And the Sudan, for that matter.
- If the ongoing bogus "war on al Qaeda" in Pakistan devolves to the point that fundamentalists mount a successful coup there, thereby getting their hands on both nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
- If, through inattention, Afghanistan returns to the warlords and the Taliban.
All these would be considered failures in my books.I think you are stretching Lincolns words. He was referring to our soldiers protecting our COTUS on our soil. This was not a foreign war he was speaking about. As for O'Conner, how is it that she is speaking to me? I see her voicing her opinion.
And if you correctly point out that they are instutionally unable to, remind yourself who is responsible for dismantling their amost able defensive instution.
Um, bit of a history rewrite there. Two things to consider.
1. The US only became directly involved with liberation of those countries over there after they were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US. Liberation was a byproduct of protecting US interests.
2. If Hitler had stayed behind his own borders merrily killing Jews, Gypsies, Jevoah's Witnesses, Communists, and homosexuals, he would have never been removed from power by the allies. Again, liberation and human rights were not the issue in WWII, naked aggression and territorial conquest were the issues that got Hitler and Japan in trouble.
US soldiers did not give their lives to liberate other countries, they did it to defensd their own nation. The fact that countries were liberated and became successful democracies is a happy byproduct of both the American political system and its faith in the inate goodness of humanity, but it wasn't the prime reason for the war.
Did he attack the US?
Who would have killed the Canadian Jews?
I'm not sure where you got that conclusion from. I was correcting something you said regarding WW II.
And Japan is the one that attacked us. Why so much involvement in Europe? We sent our troops to Europe at which they were attacked by German soldiers.
Because Germany declared war on the US four days after the US declared war on Japan. US troops weren't "sent to Europe" until two years after war was declared.
Did he attack the US?
You know, I really think you should pick up a history book before forming theories about what happened in WW II.
I see. Okay, if Germany declares war on the US and visa-versa, and Germany occupies (for example) France and her colonies, do you not think it in America's interest to invade France and kick the Germans out? No?
And I said literally nothing about whether invading Iraq is in US interest or not. What I said was that, countering your assertion, US troops were not dying during WW II in order to primarily liberate nations, they were fighting and dying in order to kick an aggressor nation out of its possessions and thereby weaken and defeat it. To reiterate, there was no US invasion to liberate France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Czechoslovakia from the Germans until after Germany declared war on the US. And Allied military campaigns afterwards were directed at what would do the most to defeat the Axis powers, and not based on liberation. If they had been, I'd think the Soviet Union would have had a much smaller role in the war, and the war would have lasted another five or ten years.
Which of those countries turned into an Islamic Republic? By now you should have gathered that I believe any country that puts God at the top of the constitutioanl process is no friend of the US.
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, read O'Connor as many times as it takes to really understand what she's getting at.
I think you are stretching Lincolns words. He was referring to our soldiers protecting our COTUS on our soil.
Excellent point, Pam. Are you suggesting, then, that we have no business nation-building in Iraq?
While you're thinking of your answer, would it surprise you to learn that the Declaration and also the Constitution were written to describe the rights that all people are entitled to, not just US citizens?
Iran!
I always want to ask people if they think our involvement in World War One was "worth it." ...Can we change that worth by looking back and complaining that WWI did not stop WWII? I don't think so.
Um, what's your point here? Do you believe it was worth it or not?
BTW, you've reminded me of the worst headline never published: "Archduke Ferdinand still alive; World War I all a mistake." Hee.
Pam:
So there is no US interest in protecting Iraq?
Tragically, none of us can really say. The administration originally told us we were invading Iraq to disarm Saddam and his WMD. That turned out to be, ahem, "a mistake." Fact is, we still don't know why we're REALLY there. So, I honestly cannot answer your question -- and apparently neither can the President.
But right now, my gut tells me the whole thing was a tragic boondoggle that killed tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and produced...an Islamic Republic soon-to-be largely under the control of Iran.
Correction: the administration originally told Saddam Hussein that Iraq would be invaded because of his weapons of mass destruction. Before the actual invasion, Bush gave eight public speeches that outlined the conditions under which Iraq would not be invaded. Guess how many of those conditions had anything to do with democracy and human rights?
Seven of eight were "Saddam must disarm."
The eighth was "Saddam must disarm and leave the country".
For all the talk about how it wasn't really about WMDs, I think that pretty much says it. If Hussein had handed over WMDs (which he didn't have to produce), the invasion would never have happened.
Actually Ara, stability in the ME, with regards to the oil fields is in our best interest to protect. Not only for ourselves, but the world market. So yes there are economic reasons to protect this region. There are also the Humanitarians reason to do so. He should have been taken out during the 1st Gulf War. That was a huge error on the part of Bush 41. We are partially to blame for the slaughter of many Iraqis that believed we would liberate them in 91'
Actually, many of us do know why we are there.
Waitaminnit. You mean the wingnuts were right, and it all WAS about the oil? But, but, the largest consumer of Iraqi oil before the invasion was the US. And now, thanks to the instability in Iraq, there is lees oil being successfully pumped out in decades.
There are also the Humanitarians reason to do so. He should have been taken out during the 1st Gulf War. That was a huge error on the part of Bush 41.
Bush 41 explained the reasons for not deposing Hussein. He said:What a nutbar, eh?
Actually, many of us do know why we are there.
No, you don't. You have theories, just like the rest of us. But you didn't order the invasion, Bush did, and he's the only one who knows for sure. As he's given an ever-changing set of reasons for what has happened, either he doesn't know, is lying, or is crazy.
I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery. Since we are the ones paying for it, with our soldiers' blood as well as our taxpayers' money, we are the ones who get to decide how the Iraqis will be governed, we have the moral right and the duty to impose our Western values on them. Otherwise, this War in Iraq is not worth one penny of our money nor one drop of an American soldier's blood. We made the same mistake in Viet Nam, telling our soldiers that they must go and die so the Vietnamese could vote themselves into Communism, and that is why we lost.
Altruism is appeasement, appeasement is surrender, and surrender is defeat. What we need above all is an egoist, selfish foreign policy, based on what is good for us, our soldiers, our country (America), our culture (the West), our values, our freedoms. From the founding of our country until World War I, that meant isolationism. But isolationism is no longer possible. Therefore we must be, proudly, without apology, imperialists. We cannot allow a culture or political system hostile to our own to exist. This does not mean that we must destroy Islam as such, but it does mean that we must force Muslims to make their Islam consistent with Western values and freedoms.
Another thing that would bring this War in Iraq into question is if it becomes a distraction from the total War Against the Terror Masters. If we get so bogged down in Iraq that we have not the will to take on Iran and stop the ayatollahs from getting their hands on nuclear weapons, then that will be disaster. We must not allow Afghanistan to slide into Talibanism again. And, ultimately, we must take on Saudi Arabia, the center and source of Islamic terrorism.
As for the precise strategy and tactics for winning this War for our survival, I leave that to the men most qualified: the Generals. Just get out of the way and let the Generals do their job.
Where did I say that, oh assumptive polytheistic one?
As in "Why invade Iraq, bin Laden isn't there, this is just a useless distraction from the real problem?"
Welcome to the dark side, Steven.
Not exactly. Kennedy killed the one leader that could have assured the Vietnamese a Democracy.
This would be the leader who assumed power in an election that had his troops guarding polling stations and assualting anyone voting against him? The leader that received more votes in Saigon than there were registered voters? The leader who populated a corrupt government with relatives, and who ordered that protesting Buddhists be crushed in the streets by tanks and their temples burned to the ground?
Quite a Jeffersonian character, that Diem. Regardless, CIA-sponsored coups and the resulting executions are never warranted, and it was to Kennedy's discredit that it ever happened. Still, you really think this monster was a hope for democracy in region? Why?
What would have to happen regarding Iraq before opponents of the invasion would think their initial opposition was a mistake?
Those of us who supported the war in Iraq are often asked the opposite question, and if it hasn't been answered to the opponent's satisfaction at this point, then it never will be. But what I really want to know, is why opponents oppose it. Seriously. If you opposed it because you oppose all wars, fine. I get that. It's kind of a naive position, in my opinion, but ok. If you're an isolationist, I get that too. I have a strong isolationist streak in me as well. But what I don't get is why those who consider themselves part of the humanitarian left oppose it so strongly (other than because a Republican is president). Why is the presumption of innocence always on the "do nothing" crowd? Doing nothing can have a cost, too.
If we found WMD's tomorrow, would those who opposed it change their minds? Somehow I doubt it. Most of us who supported it didn't support it solely because of WMD's, and in my case, not at all. And most who opposed it, opposed it even before it was clear that we weren't going to find WMD's. So, let's take WMD's out of the equation for a minute, and let me ask again, why do opponents oppose it, and what would it take (or what would it have taken) to change your minds?
Personally, I can't help but think that the war in Iraq would have faced much less opposition if a Democrat had initiated it. If that's not the case, then enlighten me.
Well, I've dominated this thread a bit, but what the hell.
I don't oppose military humanitarian intervention. As a matter of fact, I'm a big fan of it. However, it has to be effective intervention, and from the start, this adventure has had every sign of failing, and in failing, cause a lot of damage. Not just damage to Iraq and its people, but to international diplomacy, to the movement toward more humanitarian intervention, to the fight to stop nuclear proliferation, and to the fight to effectively deal with not just terrorism, but the roots of Islamic fundementalist terrorism and the movement behind it.
Unfortunately, many who opposed it for these reasons were simply tarred with the "pacifist wimp/fascist-lover" brush, and so the arguments were lost in the general din. It was easier to use this brush than to deal with the arguments being presented, I suspect.
I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery.
Maybe we should just double-invade their asses, eh, Steven? :^)
Pam:
Kennedy killed the one leader that could have assured the Vietnamese a Democracy.
As far as I know, you are the only person in the entire history of the world who believes that. Or has even said that. I mean, gosh Pam, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Jason:
why those who consider themselves part of the humanitarian left oppose it so strongly (other than because a Republican is president). Why is the presumption of innocence always on the "do nothing" crowd? Doing nothing can have a cost, too.
Simply put, the cost of doing nothing is sometimes less than the cost of doing something. Of course, you must have a clear idea of what the costs are. In this case, it is becoming increasingly clear that this administration lied, spun, twisted and exaggerated the facts in order to get the result they wanted: war. Why they did this is still not clear to me. But with this bunch it doesn't matter what they say -- all that matters is what they do.
If we found WMD's tomorrow, would those who opposed it change their minds?
That is such an improbable scenario that I won't even answer the question. There were no WMDs.
So, let's take WMD's out of the equation for a minute, and let me ask again, why do opponents oppose it, and what would it take (or what would it have taken) to change your minds?
If you take WMDs out of the equation, there is NO WAY that we would have gone to war in the first place. Period.
Personally, I can't help but think that the war in Iraq would have faced much less opposition if a Democrat had initiated it. If that's not the case, then enlighten me.
Picture Democratic President Al Gore in the weeks between 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. Now picture a Republican Senate and a Republican House. Remember how long it took to get going? The GOP majority would have eaten Gore alive. You know it's true. And that's just for the Afghan war.
Iraq? Forget about it.
Cite please? I'd be interested in reading that.
THE TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAM
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA
WITH BRIAN VANDEMARK
Double-plus,
I hope this is going as you hoped. You said, "Who would have killed the Canadian Jews?"
Good one. Does Canada have Jews? Eh, who woulda thunk it.
Not sure who asked: Which of those countries turned into an Islamic Republic?
France is almost there. Isn't Turkey an Islamic Republic? What is so wrong with Turkey?
(Note to self, type slower, preview).
We're obviously never going to change minds about the beginning of the war. Opinionated bloggers and commenters, like all of us here, are entrenched and there is little that can happen to change minds. That addresses Rose's initial query.
Probably a more constructive discussion is whether we should be nation-building. Those that oppose the war, for whatever reason, need not be painted with the unlikely "isolationist" label as I'm sure that there are interventionists among us who would agree that nation-building is not in our interest.
But nation-building is exactly what we are engaged in now. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states it outright and describes the problems associated with it in defending his government's current policies vis-a-vis Iraq and the WoT.
The last phrase you will ever hear out of President Bush's mouth is that "nation building is hard work." You won't hear that because, as usual, he is pathologically unable to play it straight with us.
I have a problem completely buying the neo-con imperialist argument for US/uk hegemony. I strongly support the realpolitik necessity for military action when it is in our interest, but the neo-cons seem to take this to a logically unsupported conclusion that the goal of empire is the ultimate realization of protecting our national interests in the international area.
Saddam was an evil guy, he's gone. WMD's? No problem, now if ever, to be sure. The reasons we went are no longer operational. Many never were.
As an occupying power we are providing our enemies with targets and a reason for the rest of the world to despise us more and more every single day. We fought and died for our own Constitution. Theirs won't mean a thing to them or anyone else unless they stand up and fight for it on their own. They aren't going to do that as long as we are there and indeed, many there see it as their patriotic duty to oppose us. The distinction between freedom fighter and insurgent has always been a matter of perspective.
My point in my earlier mangled post was that we dismantled the Iraqi army and other government and security institutions, and by doing so we made this endless occupation necessary. In Germany after WWII we kept the German army largely intact, under guard and ready to turn loose on the Russians if need be. The unintended consequence of sending the Iraqi army to the winds was that we unleashed a huge population of armed unemployed, hungry young men to either join up with the nearest militia group, or to get their kicks blowing up Hummers.
What we need to avoid, and have not committed the resources to prevent, is a violent failed state; whether islamist, male-dominated, intolerant or not. We have not come close to avoiding this because we have neither left them alone to sort out their own differences (which of course would be catastrophically violent and begs neighboring states to interfere) or really gone in there like the nation-builders we are but are loath to admit. We outsourced our Marshall Plan to Haliburton and Brown &Root.
MacNamara saw Diem as the proverbial "strong man" to whom break-away colonies were traditionally bequeathed, usually in the guise of democracy much like what passed for an electoral process under Hussein or can currently be found in Egypt or Iran. But what is absolutely needed is stability. The niceties usually come later. What we're trying to accomplish in Iraq today is sew the foundation of the most difficult kind of government to create in the middle of a hurricane.
But why was there a new constitution in Japan done in six months after WWII, and in Germany in eight months? Because they already had democratic institutions ingrained in their culture AND we respected the institutions, the military, the courts, the bureaucracy, already in place.
The question de jure is what flavor of conservative juris will Bush appoint for SCOTUS next. What we should be worried about is how this crippled President will handle Syria and Iran and Korea. How limited are we because of our ad hoc nation building in Iraq? How much credibility have we squandered by our continued defense of the use of torture. How have we crippled our intelligence gathering abilities when would-be agents know they might be burned by officials with a political agenda who seem to act with impunity? Who will believe us when we justify an act of war on Iran's nuclear plants based on "intelligence sources" and we need to simply trust in the judgment of this President? His own base doesn't even trust that his own lawyer is trustworthy.
Opportunities blown, resources squanderd, political capital depleted. Even if Iraq becomes a model democracy, prosperous beyond belief, unless they pump enough oil into our coffers to get us back to the balanced budgets we enjoyed before Bush took office, they won't have even begun to satisfy me that it was all worth it. Even then, their debt to us in lives will never be repaid.
I want our ass kissed, our pockets filled, and no crap, ever, from this little nation we're building. None of these things will come to pass, and it will never be worth it. Every day we pour more and more good blood and treasure after bad.
"I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery.
Where did I say that, oh assumptive polytheistic one?"
Then you said nothing at all. Either make a coherent point or stop wasting my time.
Ara Rubyan wrote:
"I agree with Ara Rubyan and double-plus-ungood that we must not allow the Iraqis to vote for an Islamic tyranny, to vote themselves into slavery.
Maybe we should just double-invade their asses, eh, Steven? :^)"
One invasion was enough. We should assert our power now that we have it.
Double-plus-ungood wrote:
""Another thing that would bring this War in Iraq into question is if it becomes a distraction from the total War Against the Terror Masters."
As in "Why invade Iraq, bin Laden isn't there, this is just a useless distraction from the real problem?"
Welcome to the dark side, Steven."
I'm not on your side at all. What you radicals want is to have bin Laden captured alive, stage a show trial in which that despicable traitor Ramsey Clark will put America and the West on trial for our "imperialism", and then set bin Laden free. I'm 100% against that. Bin Laden must die, preferably as painfully as possible, and cover his carcass with pig shit. Send him to Hell where he belongs.
"IN RETROSPECT:
THE TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAM
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA
WITH BRIAN VANDEMARK"
Robert S. McNamara is a Communist who said that Communist China and Communist Cuba were superior to the United States because they have "free health care", etc.. I would never trust him. When I see that name Robert S. McNamara, my blood boils the same way as when I see the name Ramsey Clark or Jimmy Carter.
I'll think on it and get back to you. It's been an incredibly long day and I'm going to sleep before midnight for the first time since I gave birth.
"Not sure who asked: Which of those countries turned into an Islamic Republic?
France is almost there. Isn't Turkey an Islamic Republic? What is so wrong with Turkey?"
Turkey is a free, Westernized nation. It is the only tolerable form of Islam. Islam there is not forced on anybody who doesn't want it. Non-Islamic religions are not persecuted. There are no "sodomy" laws. Lebanon was another such free, pro-Western nation, and may be so again. Thia is the opposite of the totalitarian Islamic Republic of Iran. I oppose the Revolution in Iran. I support the Shah, Iran's rightful ruler. By the way, for anybody who knows any history, the historic religion of Iran is not Islam but Zoroastrianism, which was founded there long before even Christianity, even at the time of Moses or Abraham.
It may be tolerable for a nation which has long been Muslim to remain Muslim so long as it is like Turkey or Lebanon. However....:
If France (or any other Western, traditionally Christian, nation) falls to Islam, that would be an unmitigated disaster. France was once the very center of our Western high culture, a Catholic monarchy founded by St. Jeanne d'Arc. But, ever since the Revolution of 1789, and the Revolutionaries' abominable crime of regicide, murdering both their King and their Queen, a crime close to Deicide, France has been declining. If France falls to Islam, she will cease to be a Western nation altogether. Such an abject surrender, such a betrayal, would be a stab in the back to Jeanne d'Arc and Richard Coeur de Leon and Charles Martel, to all the brave knights who gave their lives for the Cross and the Most Holy Virgin (the Queen of Heaven), for freedom.
The only hope for France is a Counter-Revolution by the Far Right (La Droite Extreme). I admire Alain de Benoist. Indeed, the only hope for the West as a whole is a revival of Polytheism in conjunction with a revival of the historic Christianity of the West, particularly Catholicism, which, of all forms of Christianity, most closely approximates my own theology. I am very pleased that Alain de Benoist teamed up with the Catholic Thomas Molnar to write L'Eclipse du Sacre (Eclipse of the Sacred). Jews, fundamental Protestants, Catholics, and Polytheists have a common enemy: secularism, egalitarianism, progressivism, relativism -- what de Benoist calls the "Mondialists": a One-World Socialist Social Change. I'm against that!
Steven, count this radical in the "bin Laden should have been skinned alive and thrown on an ant hill" column, ok? But there are very obvious reasons we don't have him and very objectional policies to blame.
I'd agree that if you aren't able to fathom my point then it's a waste of your obviously valuable time. I'd recommend skipping my comments if can't make head or tail of them.
What a wonderful imagination. And it saves so much time and mental energy to simply manufacture a hopelessly ridiculous mental scenario and then ascribe it to it being held by the other side of the political fence. Of course, some might think that you doing so is necessary because you simply are either too intellectually lazy to debate real opinions, or have an obsessive inner dialog that gets in the way of actual discourse. Me, I just suspect that it's necessary to pose a silly contrasting opinion so that your serious hairy-he-man talk about killin' looks so much more manly.
Excellent.
++ungood;
Interesting how you soft, sensitive, nuanced ones are always so obsessed with other men's hairy he-manly macho-ness. Myself, I think such an act as I recommended would be also be quite womanly, as the female has always been known to be the deadlier of the species.
HAIL TO THE QUEEN....!!!!
Heh. You have so obviously not seen me in person. Soft, sensitive, and nuanced are not the adjectives that spring to people's minds in connection with me. Well. perhaps nuanced. But feel free to fantasize if you need to...
I was referring to your dialogue. And, anticipating your response, I don't see anything in my postings that would be considered to be "sensitive" nor "soft". However, I am honoured that you consider my writing to be "nuanced".