Why not? Get rid of the dictators and there would be peace. If the world combined to do so, it would probably happen. At the least don’t trade with them.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Uzi called it a UN mandate rather than a UN statement that “it’d be OK if…”
[/QUOTE]
Bad choice of words on my part, actually.
Sure it is.
Hussein was contained and was no longer capable of waging war. Iran had already fought him to a draw. Turkey, (where he never demonstrated any desire to attack), was capable of fending him off as well as having close ties to the U.S. and NATO. His adventure in Kuwait had already demonstrated that the world was willing to join forces to prevent aggression to the South. Syria was, more or less, an ally, but could probably have gotten a defense similar to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as would Jordan. We had even gone so far as to restrict military operations within Iraq, itself, (providing the cover al Qaida needed to set up some camps there without his interference).
Hussein was not a threat against Peace in any way, shape, or form. Taking him out was simply an act of bravado on the part of the Bush administration, following the silly term paper that Wolfowitz put together, demonstrating an utter ignorance of the actual history on which he claimed to have based it.
Nah, we have lots of ultiumate arguments: reality of the divine; reality or implications of race; global warming; Conspiracy Theories; etc.
It is probably more accurate to posit that there will be no new debates in GD and that any attempt at a new debate will return to a rehashing of a few dozen existing debates.
That’s my point. Screw the people who had to live under Saddam as long as we have ‘peace’. Keep half the world under dictators as long as the rest of us can live nice middle class lives and don’t have to worry about any conflict.
Who would have thought that at page 8 of a GD political thread the ‘debate’ would have devolved into shrill political snark.
Do we need to see more of this Mods or is this enough?
Garbage. We didn’t conquer them to save them from Saddam, or for any other benevolent reason. We wanted Iraq for political, religious and economic reasons, and to sate our bloodlust over 9-11 by killing any random Middle Easterners we could. The Iraqi people were expendable at best to us. We went there to exploit, slaughter and dominate them; not to save them. And exploit, slaughter and dominate is what we did.
America is NOT a benevolent country. America is a nation that despises benevolence as being “bleeding heart liberalism”. Outside our own borders, we don’t care about freedom, democracy or human rights in the slightest despite all of our self righteous speeches; and we care only slightly more INSIDE our borders.
Your pretensions of good intentions are given the lie by your complaining about how the rest of the world didn’t come to the rescue like a nanny when Bush’s occupation got in trouble. If you actually cared, you’d have made sure America could foot the bill before committing irreversible acts.
What doctor worth his salt cuts out a heart if he isn’t sure he has a reliable backup unit ready to slip into its place?
America cut out Iraq’s heart, and then asked the world to foot the bill for building a new one more to the Republican party’s liking.
They weren’t even nice about asking:
It’s little wonder the world balked.
The mortality rate in Iraq skyrocketed because of the American invasion. Anyone who supports the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds is either ignorant of the facts or knows the facts and is dishonest.
Yes, I’ve often wondered why people thought using Iraqis as human shields (“we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”) was an argument in favor of Bush policy.
I agree. Both “sides” seem to agree the peace prize was premature political nonsense and did President Obama no favors.
Nope, you need to read closer.
Iraq did not wage war. We did. Afghanistan did not wage war. We did. The dictator did not wage war, the Democracy did.
Turkey said Saddam was a paper tiger and they wanted nothing to do with attacking him. He was a threat to only his citizens and it was their duty to change their government, not ours. We had no cause and no right to attack them. But attack them we did. It is disgusting.
And here I thought the thread was about Obama getting the Nobel prize. Imagine my surprise when I see that it’s yet another thread on the Iraq war. .
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Iraq did not wage war.
[/QUOTE]
The folks in Kuwait and Iran would probably be fairly shocked by this statement.
I suppose it’s dependent on one’s definition of ‘war’. I’m guessing by your definition the previous few decades of slaughter and bloodshed don’t count because the US wasn’t directly involved?
Well, if Turkey said it, it MUST be true. They have such a great track record for speaking only truth after all…it’s only those nasty American’s who lie, and we are all alone in our denunciation of Iraq and Saddam and all…
We had cause, though I don’t believe we had justification. As to right…what planet do you live on? Right? Nation states don’t need a ‘right’ to attack other nation states…only the means. We certainly had the means.
I think that the US was wrong to attack Iraq, but your over the top BS really doesn’t help the cause. Instead of hyperbole and BS, why not stick to the actual facts? They are damning enough after all.
As to the OP…well, while I think Obama perhaps hasn’t earned the Nobel prize (yet), I think ‘vision’ is a worthwhile thing, and so I’m not all THAT upset by the award. And, personally FWIW and all that, I think Obama has handled the unexpected ‘reward’ of getting it at this time with humility and a lot of class. I’m not sure there were all THAT many more worthy candidates at the time it was being voted on, and while I see the political dimension I also think it was a bold decision.
-XT
And what is the rest of the world doing now? Nothing other than blame the US and give their president essentially a cracker jack box prize. They don’t care for Iraqis, or Afghanis, or Sudanese, or anyone else living in shitholes. Well, other than spouting platitudes about peace, that is.
Iraqi’s heart was Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship? Pathetic.
Why should they stick their hand into the buzzsaw? Especially since we are still there; as long as America is still there Iraq will never be anything but a disaster. They don’t in practical terms have the power to drive us out, and no help is possible until we are gone. We’ll simply steal it or wreck it or forbid it.
He did a better job than we have.
It’s true. There was stability there under Hussein. But some people thought that American-controlled chaos would be preferable to Iraqi-controlled stability. Kind of like how people thought that black-controlled chaos would be preferable to white-controlled stability in Rhodesia.
We have laws against hunting certain types of animals because removing them from their habitat would create disaster in the ecosystem. It’s a shame that we can’t extend this common sense to politics abroad.
What stability there was in Iraq was due to the continued presence of the Hussein regime. A contained Iraq, in its turn, played a role in whatever stability the region enjoyed. This is the point that Squink made, and that you ignored in favor of twisting his analogy into a horrible caricature of sentimentality over the word “heart.”
So, North Korea is better with Kim leading things because without him to keep order then people will be worse off? Or that if the World, through the UN, got off its collective ass and decided to clean up Iraq and Afghanistan that they couldn’t do it and make them better places than they are now, or were when they were held by Saddam and the Taliban?
If so, please explain why the UN, the US, or anyone should do anything to help anyone anywhere at anytime?
I’m going to have to refer you back to gonzomax’s admonishment in 392:
ETA: IOW: Freedom is not something you can impose on a population; they have to see it, want it, and take it for themselves.
And that is the lure of the neo-cons siren song, that we can take advantage of our special position and force democracy on the world, and afterwords, all will be well, because democracies never attack each other. Peace, love and understanding brought to us by ruthless men practicing realpolitik
Madness. Madness.