So, I can’t support the war in Iraq ( while oposing the widening of that war elsewhere, Syria, for example ) without being a “hawk”? You must have some new definition of the term with wich I’m not familiar. Last time I checked, hawks were in favor of expanding the war to attack anyone they though looked funny at them.
Taking this post at face value, it seems that we have similar feelings about this war. Assuming that this is so, it means you have a modicum of intelegence, I am curious then as to why you felt it necessary to open this thread attacking a member of the U.S. intelegence community because evidence of WMD didn’t come to light immediately upon the conclusion of the fighting. Was it just a desire to pick all your nits? Get in a few good shots before WMD are found( or not, it could happen that way, y’know, in which case this thread would be apropriate, as it is it’s premature, to say the least )? IF WMD are found, am I going to see a thread titled “Bluesman, an apology for you”? You opened an attack on someone far before it was warrented, IMHO, and that’s why I’ve lumped you along with the rest of the idiots. If this is a misrepresentation of your position, then I apologise, but I would ask you to think a little more before you start attacking other posters.
Interesting. My position on this war was arrived at by considering a great many factors, many of which I’ve posted elsewhere on these boards and am frankly too busy to go look up and too lazy to type all over again, and yet I’m having a “knee jerk” reaction? Pray tell, gentlemen, exactly how much deliberation has to go into something before it’s not “knee-jerk”?, or is that a term you simply whip out for anyone who would dare to have their own opinions, not mirroring what you’ve been told your own are?
Oh, please, what you’re talking about is 20 years ago. Your kind seem to have a great deal of trouble with the idea that international relations change from year to year, along with the manner in which one country treats another one. What Ronnie did 4 administrations ago is immaterial to what Dubbya is doing now.
Ummm…nothing? I think the war was the right thing to do, for reasons I’ve enumerated ad nausium. I am freely prepared to admit that follow up was lacking, or the reconstruction of Iraq was bungled or that the Shrub fucked everything up with his rampant fundamentalism should any of those things come to pass. Until they do, you’re just making stuff up to make you feel better about your worldview, rather than adopting a worldview based on reality.
Jesus Christ, John, I know you’re not this stupid, are you just trying to be difficult for no reason?
Maybe because, I dunno, gee, the entire situation in Iraq has changed since sanctions were put in place and they’re trying to reintegrate Iraq into the world community of nations? You think that has maybe just the teensy, tinest bearing on the situation, or is it all just one big plot by Bush to invade every country in the world and convert everyone to Fundie Xanity?
when there is a democratically elected government in place, in control of their own assets and capable of awarding their own contracts without outside influence, when U.N. inspectors can verify all the conditions that the sanctions were put down under are no longer an issue, then lift the sanctions.
If the sanctions are lifted now, who do you think gets to award the contracts?
Immaterial? U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01
Yeah, you’re right, that has nothing to do with what’s happening now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Please tell me that you have GOT TO be kidding.
So the fact that the war will fuck up the lives of the Iraqi people much worse then they were under the Baath party regime doesn’t matter. Glad to see that your pretended concern for the plight of the Iraqi people was just a phony excuse. Does it matter that the USA was helping Saddam Hussein build chemical weapons to use on his people in 1983? No that was perfectly OK in your book.
Don’t come in here with the whining of “the poor oppressed Iraqi people” then.
Ziggy, did you read that article or just skim to the parts that supported your argument?
From the last paragraph
“Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam,” said Joe Wilson, Glaspie’s former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. “Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation.”
In other words, the US, faced with a choice between two evils, tried cultivating a relationship with the lesser of them, in the hopes that having established economic relationships, we could then * peacefully * lobby for reforms. What were our other options? We could have stayed out of it completely, but at the time, Iran was so rabidly, foamingly anti-American that this was perceived as a very dangerous situation.
Now should we have sent them arms? In retrospect, probably not. As for the anthrax and other biological agents – although it sounds alarming, as many people pointed out when this article was first published, dissemination of such biological samples was pretty routine – there were legitimate agricultural and scientific reasons to want them.
So yeah, we dealt with Saddam in the 80’s and perhaps deliberately turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons and human rights violations. In hindsight, a bad mistake. But I think a persuasive case can be made that our relationship with Saddam illustrates that the US did its best to avoid aggressive measures. Because if we had succeeded in forging stable and friendly relations with Iraq, their possession or lack of WMD would not be the issue it was today.
So, you’re advocating Ostrich diplomacy? Stick your head in the ground and hope that things turn out the way you want? Iraq will never have “a democratically elected government in place, in control of their own assets and capable of awarding their own contracts without outside influence” unless the country is rebuilt, personal security of Iraqi civilians is guaranteed and life there regains some degree of normalicy. If the U.S. just ups and leaves, I guarantee you that a Saddam-like dictator will grab and consolidate power, and we’ll be right back where we started. Anarchy breeds dictators unless there is a moderating force present to prevent it. Sure, the US and UK get to award the contracts, they’re the only organized force in the country right now, and these things have to be done before they can leave, unless you want another Cambodia on your hands.
Coldfire-
Would you please elaborate? Different administrations have different foreign policies. Perhaps I need to go back to Kindergarden, beacuse I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
Ziggy, you mad, conspiracy theorist, you. You’re so cute when you get worked up like this! What Finagle said.
Dave, my point is that “What Ronnie did 4 administrations ago is immaterial to what Dubbya is doing now” is at the very least a very poorly worded statement, if not outright stupid. Of course it is material. Different policies, sure - although GWB perhaps would still gladly have supported Saddam had he not fallen out of grace.
But what Reagan did, affects what’s happening now. Surely, that’s not too hard a concept? Saddam did NOT fall from the heavens to take over Iraq. He was handed the throne by previous US governments. To then state that’s “immaterial” is just dumb.
Tell me about it. Don’t get me wrong, I love the US, its people, and its diverse landscape. It’s a country I’d gladly call home, should circumstances be that way. But when a US politician utters the words “regime change”, I duck for fucking cover. Not a good track record, to say the least.
And they’re hiding their head in the sand. Remember “veto any resolution”? I’ve already said thet the optimal solution would have been to remove Saddam with U.N participation. The U.N wouldn’t do anything, for twelve fucking years they attacked Saddam with worthless pieces of paper and seemed content to do so forever, slapping themselves on the back and telling themselves they were doing something productive, while millions died. Until the U.N reorganizes its charter and gets rid of things like the automatic vetos from the big five, it’s a joke.