Damn fool war

[Irishman]

Why hasn’t this thread been closed? The question has been addressed (the “damn fool war” comment), and it’s already spawned 2 train wrecks.

naita said:

Iraq on the other hand was worth invading, along the way killing a number of civilians, for what reasons exactly?

So, what if Bush had instead skipped all the WMD rigamarole and declared outright this was an effort to liberate the Iraqi people? Would that have justified the invasion? After all, there is clear evidence of what a tyrant Hussein was, and a motivation to help the Iraqi people seems more justified to you than protecting the US’s own interests. (In fact, it was used - “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, not “Operation Get The WMD”, or “Operation Regime Change”, or “Operation Take Over The World One Dicatator At A Time”.) I realize civilians died, but frankly the numbers are incredibly low compared to what I expected.

naita said:

The countries you have mentioned don’t have a reasonable alternative government to put in place, which means you’ll have to keep US forces there to avoid the bad old guys taking over just when you think you’re done.

Artemius replied:

That’s the most limb dick argument you’ve made yet. You pull that one out of your ass? (Oh how I love you like a brother). How come WE could come up with an alternative gov’t and put it in place? Are you saying we Americans are smarter than Europeans?

What’s needed here is less vitriol and more thinking. That’s not what was said at all. naita was saying that without a legitimate alternative government that could be put in place, the U.S. would be required to provide a military occupational force to prevent the bad guys from regrouping and reseizing control. If an alternative government existed, the U.S. requirement would be a lot smaller and end quicker because the alternative government would be acceptable to the Iraqi (or wherever) people, and they would support a quick transition. I think in general that should be the case, though I’m not sure how well it’s working out in Afghanistan.

[naita]

*Originally posted by Irishman *
naita said:
So, what if Bush had instead skipped all the WMD rigamarole and declared outright this was an effort to liberate the Iraqi people? Would that have justified the invasion? After all, there is clear evidence of what a tyrant Hussein was, and a motivation to help the Iraqi people seems more justified to you than protecting the US’s own interests. (In fact, it was used - “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, not “Operation Get The WMD”, or “Operation Regime Change”, or “Operation Take Over The World One Dicatator At A Time”.) I realize civilians died, but frankly the numbers are incredibly low compared to what I expected.
**

If we pretend he didn’t have a history of attacking his neighbors and citizens with chemical weapons we would have a totaly different situation. I’d oppose or approve of an invasion depending on whether or not he was an imminent threat, and whether or not an international concensus could be reached. “He used to be bad” and “Well, some countries agree with us” wouldn’t cut it, although removing tyrants by invasion appeal to me I think building international trust and cooperation is more important. Especially when removing tyrants from countries that won’t easily be democratised. And I don’t find it more valid when spread thinly on top of ‘He’s an imminent threat to our security’.

Bush and Blair said: He’s got lots of WMDs and he’s not cooperating, we have to attack now.
I said: I haven’t seen convincing evindence that he still has those weapons, the massive military presence seems to be getting to him, how about waiting until we all agree?

Bush and Blair say: We will find the evidence, and even if we don’t this was a good thing.
I say: You said you had evidence and now you can’t find it? And I’m doubtfull it will be a good thing, I don’t think the repressed masses of Iraq will have the patience and forgiveness of Mandela. (Not that the comparison is accurate.)

[mangeorge]

Why hasn’t this thread been closed, indeed?
Anyway, here’s some biased, but pretty accurate info on the US’s reliance on Saudi oil.
Like I said, oil companies don’t need it, they want it.
Another reason it was (is?) a damn fool war.

[mangeorge]

I meant to link this one. but the other is ok too.

[mangeorge]

Comments on Cecil’s Columns.
Comments. Do you know what that means? It don’t say nuthin 'bout no friggin “sources”, does it?
Go 'way.
Anyway, the administration, early on, “painted a picture” of a post war country full of happy, free, and democratic Iraquis. That’s why conservatives (republicans) are so sensitive about the subject. We should just shut up, quit questioning, close our eyes, and praise the lord for our good luck in finding a warrior president.
Back to sucking up.
Peace,
man (wrong side of history) george

[Ed_Zotti]

srmk64210 writes:

Cecil uses words like, shit, fuck, bull shit, son of a bitch all the time in his columns, as well as refer to people writing in to him with less that flattering terms. And he has said, damn fool war as well as “witness the ongoing debacle in Iraq, which has come to pass in part because U.S. leaders kidded themselves into believing that Iraqis were just like us and would embrace democracy as soon as Saddam Hussein was gone.” both politically…and well…wrong statements. So he has set the precedent. We can say our political views and swear while doing it. After all. We are merely using him as the model as to how to conduct ourselves.

One doesn’t diss the Master on the Master’s dime, chum.

We’ve gotten pretty far afield from the original column, so I’m closing this thread. If anyone wants to continue discussing the war in Iraq, which you are welcome to do, please do so in Great Debates.