If it is wrong to invade another country, anywhere, anytime, why come up with specious quibbles about Iraq?
Why call Iraq invasion pointless, stupid, useless etc.?
Is there a possibility of useful and smart invasion?
Why say that instead of Iraq US would better invade somewhere else?
Is it possible that invasion somewhere else could be justified?
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
If it is wrong to invade another country, anywhere, anytime, why come up with specious quibbles about Iraq?
Why call Iraq invasion pointless, stupid, useless etc.?
Is there a possibility of useful and smart invasion?
Why say that instead of Iraq US would better invade somewhere else?
Is it possible that invasion somewhere else could be justified?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not.
By looking at the costs and the benefits and the other options available, and not just the benefits of having Saddam removed from power.
Yes.
Because no two countries, no two situations, and no two invasions are the same.
Yes.
Glad I could help.
So, what we need is a perfect invasion!
Got it.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
So, what we need is a perfect invasion!
Got it.
[/QUOTE]
The incompetence shown AFTER the invasion and in the planning of the occupation, does not make the invasion any more or less legitimate.
The invasion of Normandy was better planned than the Deipe raid, but they are both justified. The invasion and occupation of Egypt during the Suez Crisis was very well planned an executed militarily(albeit my main source for this fact is my Grandad, but I beleive him), but was completely unjustified, and US was right to invervene diplomatically to force a withdrawl.
The invasion of Iraq was unjustified period.
The invasion of another country is the most serious step a nation state can take… We are totally right in expecting those making the decision to show that doing so is absolutely the last resort and completely justified morally and practically.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
You take a single fact and give it undue weight. What was more important, secret contacts between AMC and SA Gov’t or a bipartisan act of US Congress demanding Apartheid removal? I think it’s at least arguable.
[/QUOTE]
You miss my point - an Act of Congress is useless words without enforcement. Act passed - 1986. Actual positive action - 1989. By then the furniture had already been divided up. There’s nothing arguable about it, apartheid was already on the way out by the time the US government got into the act(rather than individuals, like say Cosby.) I’m not giving the fact undue weight, it’s a bloody huge fact all on its own, whereas US Congress Acts are pretty much meaningless outside the US until acted upon.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
What happened to change Gorbachev from a foe to a media darling in about the same time? He was still USSR Communist boss, preserving all the old policies vs. the West. The world was changing; one couldn’t put a finger on it, but the feeling was unmistakable.
[/QUOTE]
That’s my point exactly - the world was changing anyway, but you want to point towards the changes and claim it all as US action…
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
In South Africa during the 90-s you had pitched battles between different tribes and/or political parties, you had mass slaughter, you had enormous crime wave: still all decent people say that it was ultimately worth it.
[/QUOTE]
We had them before apartheid ended too. But you must have missed the bit where I said they had nothing to do with national politics, and the country was never in any danger of disntegrating the way Iraq is.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
But when it comes to Iraq, why, just in this thread there were repeated statements that the invasion was pointless, useless, criminal and so on.
[/QUOTE]
Because “regime change” and “Invasion” are two different things. What I, at any rate, believe is that regime change in Iraq was not a bad thing, but the invasion is all bad. Change has to come from within, not imposed by brutalism.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
The only thing I can discern is that the very act of Invasion was wrong, on principle. That is respectable position, at least.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I believe. I still wish you’d expand on this point, though. South Africa had regime change without an invasion and occupation. How can you hope to learn anything about Iraq’s future from that? The occupation by coalition forces negates any possible equivalence you may think you can draw, because it serves as a ovberriding influence.
If the foreign forces were to withdraw, and then violence happened, I can see where you could point to SA and try and draw parallels and hope for positive outcome. But to do it now, is just a mistake.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
…I still wish you’d expand on this point, though. South Africa had regime change without an invasion and occupation. How can you hope to learn anything about Iraq’s future from that? The occupation by coalition forces negates any possible equivalence you may think you can draw, because it serves as a ovberriding influence.
[/QUOTE]
But the future of Iraq is considered in doubt by many precisely because the violence and crime do not subside. That’s what makes the invasion and occupation ‘pointless’ and ‘useless’ in the view of ‘perfectionists’. The example of your country clearly shows that simple fact of upsurge in crime and violence - by itself - are not sufficient reasons to condemn the regime change.
However, I agree with you to the extent that if US would do nothing and Saddam regime still fell, Bush Adm. wouldn’t be criticized too much for any possible violence that would ensue in Iraq. So the fact of invasion makes a huge difference, naturally. It made US responsible for the future of Iraq.
Ultimately, I support Bush for forcing such hard and unpleasant choice upon the US, which is of course strictly my personal opinion.
[QUOTE=griffin1977]
The invasion of Iraq was unjustified period.
[/QUOTE]
Is that another way of saying that Iraqis are less deserving of freedom and democracy?
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
Is that another way of saying that Iraqis are less deserving of freedom and democracy?
[/QUOTE]
What do you mean “less” deserving ? There was never any question of invading South Africa. Even though, unlike Saddam in 2002/3, they were not shy about attacking their neighbours(such as Angola and Mosambique). Anyone who had suggested doing so would have been derided from all corners (most vehmently by the same conservatives who were so pro-war in 2002).
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
But the future of Iraq is considered in doubt by many precisely because the violence and crime do not subside. That’s what makes the invasion and occupation ‘pointless’ and ‘useless’ in the view of ‘perfectionists’. The example of your country clearly shows that simple fact of upsurge in crime and violence - by itself - are not sufficient reasons to condemn the regime change.
[/QUOTE]
But it isn’t “by itself”, as you acknowledge. So why bring it up at all?
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
Ultimately, I support Bush for forcing such hard and unpleasant choice upon the US, which is of course strictly my personal opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Do you also support him for forcing the choice on the Iraqis? You know, the country** he is not the president of**?
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Do you also support him for forcing the choice on the Iraqis? You know, the country** he is not the president of**?
[/QUOTE]
I leave it to the Iraqi people.
Here is a sample of what the majority of Iraqis think.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
I leave it to the Iraqi people.
Here is a sample of what the majority of Iraqis think.
[/QUOTE]
Uh NO.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1423308&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
If you but read carefully your own cites, you’ll see there is no contradiction between them and mine.
At least when GIGObuster talks about the views of all Iraqis, he uses a poll, instead of a random anecdote by one blogger…
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
If you but read carefully your own cites, you’ll see there is no contradiction between them and mine.
[/QUOTE]
Have you read yours?
The writer says the invasion was justified and will ignore other views, even of his fellow Iraqis.
Your OP still implies justifying regime change with an invasion, as the SA example tell us, the way we did it in Iraq was the wrong way.
You were misleading again, if you had read my quotes, you would notice that a year ago a majority of Iraqis thought invasion was justified, the most recent poll showed now that half of them do not believe invasion was justified (and that was the poll that had the better news. As the poll was not done in secret and Iraqis knew the pollsters were from Time and other American media, it was bound to be more in favor of the invasion, the fact that the support for the invasion has fallen shows the little you know)
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
You were misleading again, if you had read my quotes, you would notice that a year ago a majority of Iraqis thought invasion was justified, the most recent poll showed now that half of them do not believe invasion was justified (and that was the poll that had the better news. As the poll was not done in secret and Iraqis knew the pollsters were from Time and other American media, it was bound to be more in favor of the invasion, the fact that the support for the invasion has fallen shows the little you know)
[/QUOTE]
I see you finally caught on. Congratulations and Welcome to the debate!
As you say yourself, majorities in Iraq and US supported the invasion. That support appears to be dwindling. Which brings us back to the OP.
As I asked there, if we never lost heart and had second thoughts about South Africa, - however terrible the situation was there, - why loose heart and have second thoughts about Iraq?
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
As I asked there, if we never lost heart and had second thoughts about South Africa, - however terrible the situation was there, - why loose heart and have second thoughts about Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
Firstly the situation NEVER got as bad as in Iraq currently, AND it IMPROVED after the change of regime (as your own figures show), dying down completely soon afterwards. It has been three years since we invaded and deposed the Saddam regime, and things are getting worse, not better. I was in South Africa a few years after the fall of the Aparteid regime. After I left uni. I spent a summer working in a township, cycling to work each day. It wasn’t safest place on earth, but I never felt at risk, and I didn’t need to be immbeded with a platoon of US Marines in order to stand of chance of surviving. Now I don’t know where kids graduating in 2006 are planning to spend their summer, but I doubt many of them are planning to spend it working in a slum outside of Falluja (unless they are planning to sign up that is).
Secondly “WE” did not bring bring about the change of regime in South Africa. At best we belatedly aided in their downfall, at worst we extended their reign. The idea of invading South Africa was as riducluous as the idea of invading Iraq should have been. If the reasons given for invading Iraq were valid, we should have had more than enough reason to invalid SA : it was brutal regime, there wasan oppressed majority, lots of WMD (in fact the biggie they were close to having, actually had, nukes), threat to neighbours (regually raided Mozambique, Botswana, etc,), supporting terrrorists (big backers of Angolan rebels), etc. If we had for some crazy reason we HAD invaded SA it would not have turned out as well as it did.
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
I see you finally caught on. Congratulations and Welcome to the debate!
[/quote]
:rolleyes:
Are you really serious or do you really believe your typical Chewbacca Defenses?
So there was no reason then why you wrought that silly point also, I see. Besides being wrong on the level of support that there is now for invasion, the reality does remain that many around the world where against it: Opposition to the Iraq War - Wikipedia
The reverse of what it was regarding South Africa.
And while there were not many surveys before the invasion, it is really a stretch to assume the majority of Iraqis were in favor of the invasion, just before or when it happened (The so called gold footage of Iraqis toppling down Saddam’s statue was in reality a staged event by the US forces)
There were no second thoughts about SA, as you have demonstrated with your last silly reply it is you who is not debating at all, the reality was that there was no justifiable reason to invade, do you think Iraqis did not know that then? After the invasion there was hope, but I have the feeling that as soon Bush began to talk about a long struggle even our Iraqi allies began to get the smell of colonialism, do you thing they were so naive not to think something was amiss when the oil assets were promptly secured and suspected WMD areas were left unsecured? This is not a business now of losing heart, this is now the time on finding a way to do the right thing and get out and let the Iraqis do the job, the reality is that the longer we stay, even the so called allied Shiites will get against us since we are overstaying even their “welcome”.
[QUOTE=griffin1977]
Firstly the situation NEVER got as bad as in Iraq currently, AND it IMPROVED after the change of regime (as your own figures show), dying down completely soon afterwards. It has been three years since we invaded and deposed the Saddam regime, and things are getting worse, not better.
[/QUOTE]
I must repeat that
So three years is not enough to despair.
[QUOTE=griffin1977]
I was in South Africa a few years after the fall of the Aparteid regime. After I left uni. I spent a summer working in a township, cycling to work each day. It wasn’t safest place on earth, but I never felt at risk, and I didn’t need to be immbeded with a platoon of US Marines in order to stand of chance of surviving. Now I don’t know where kids graduating in 2006 are planning to spend their summer, but I doubt many of them are planning to spend it working in a slum outside of Falluja (unless they are planning to sign up that is).
[/QUOTE]
Very interesting experience and also a very good point.
[QUOTE=griffin1977]
Secondly “WE” did not bring bring about the change of regime in South Africa. At best we belatedly aided in their downfall, at worst we extended their reign. The idea of invading South Africa was as riducluous as the idea of invading Iraq should have been. If the reasons given for invading Iraq were valid, we should have had more than enough reason to invalid SA : it was brutal regime, there wasan oppressed majority, lots of WMD (in fact the biggie they were close to having, actually had, nukes), threat to neighbours (regually raided Mozambique, Botswana, etc,), supporting terrrorists (big backers of Angolan rebels), etc. If we had for some crazy reason we HAD invaded SA it would not have turned out as well as it did.
[/QUOTE]
Again, very true. But a quibble, if I may.
Apartheid gov’t was rich, strong, resourceful and determined to stay. Which also underscores the important fact how quickly they folded once US and UK took a stand against them (however half-heartedly).
Not the case with Saddam, who was holding on for twelve years through defeat in Kuwait, sanctions and bombing campaigns. Those who maintain Saddam was not dangerous should ponder that fact, I think.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
And while there were not many surveys before the invasion, it is really a stretch to assume the majority of Iraqis were in favor of the invasion, just before or when it happened
[/QUOTE]
Look, your own cite said:
Will you please scrape your brains together?
[QUOTE=New Iskander]
Look, your own cite said: Will you please scrape your brains together?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
You were so predictable that I had the point ready: you want to pretend that you don’t know what an argumentum at populum is, the only reason why I pointed out that you were wrong on the opinions of Iraqis was that, well you were wrong (hint: you were implying when you wrought the point that they were the current opinion), but for the purposes of this discussion, you are being illogical for assuming popular opinion justifies your position, the evidence so far points on the invasion being at best a mistake or at worse a power grab.