Why do I get the Feeling that...

[Skeptic]

...no matter WHAT the US does in Iraq, someone will complain about how it "proves" it is wrong?

Before the war started, Saddam organized mass protests against a US invasion (or ELSE!), for example. This "proved" to some people that "the Iraqis don't want the US help."

After the war started, it turned out that instead of taking two days and involving no casualties, it took a couple of week and involved about 100 casualties to coalition forces. This "proved" to some people that the war is "becoming a quagmire".

When the war ended (while the ink was still drying on the "quagmire" articles by all-knowing "experts" in the "progressive press"), the Iraqis cheered the US troops who liberated them from Saddam. Of course, there were also a few who liked Hussein and didn't like the Americans--a tiny minority--and there was some looting, as there always is after the collpase of such a regime. This "proved" to some people that "the US is losing control of the situation" and that the Iraqis "do not want the occupying US troops".

Now, since Saddam had hidden his weapons well and most of his weapons advisors are gone, it is taking more than five minutes to find whatever he's got. This "proves" to some people that "the WMD argument was just American propaganda".

To make a rather sure prediction, it's not going to be too easy for the US to help create a democratic Iraqi government. The process might involve hard feelings by certain politicians, and even harsh words aimed at certain American diplomats by certain Iraqis. This, too, will instantly "prove" to some people that "the US is imposing its imperialist will on the Iraqi people", or whatever.

And so on.

Why is it that if ANYTHING the US does turns out to be, in the real world, even a LITTLE BIT harder or more complicated than what somebody THINKS it should be, then it is all of a sudden "proof of the failure of US policy"? Why is it that any slight discrepency between optimistic declarations by US politicians and reality turns out to be "proof" of "US propaganda"--as if any of them ever claimed to be immune to error?

Frankly, it seems to me that some people are just jealous at the fact that the US (once more) won a crushing victory without any effort, and (once more) is welcome as the liberator of people from cruel dictatorships. It just destroys their worldview about the "coming collapse of the capitalistic system" and "opressive US imperialism", so naturally they blow all out of proportion any mishap or disagreement they find in order to still have "proof" of their preconcieved opinion.

[shanek]

Well, how about if the US followed its own Constitution, for starters?

[iain]

Skeptic,

I think you are quite right. Whatever the US does, it will always be wrong for some people.

But the converse is also true. There are some people for whom, whatever happens and whatever the US does, the war will be right.

If the region decends into chaos and the people are no better than they were under Saddam and no WMDs are found so the whole war turns out to have been under false pretences (and illegal under the terms Bush and Blair gave), I am sure that there will be many who will still maintain it was right.

I think you are being a little too hard on the pro-war people by the way. I've been very impressed at how the war has been turned into a war to remove an opressor. This has, so far, proved successful in persuading many former anti-war people to change their views. Right now the hawks are winning the proproganda battle and the doves are on the defensive.

I suspect that in the US, and maybe also the UK, there will be many more people for whom the war is right whatever happens than for whom it is wrong whatever happens.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...no matter WHAT the US does in Iraq, someone will complain about how it "proves" it is wrong?



We are damned if we do & damned if we don't.

I think the problem might be that there were so many different goals for this war. Not everyone agress which goals were sufficient reason to change the regime in Iraq.

Almost everyone in the world DID agree that Saddam needed to go. (Even the anti-war people thought he was a pretty bad guy and should do the right thing and stop being such a bad guy.)

What happens AFTER Saddam is gone is causing MAJOR differences of opinion in the international community as well as in our own country. A BIG problem seems to be that most of the countries in the region would prefer that Iraq remains anti-American so their own citizens don't start demanding democracy and they can all get back to the main event..... hating Israel.


Almost everyone DID agree that Iraq has SOME kind of 'illegal' weapons.

Since so many countries seem to be involved in the sale & possible movement of these weapons, we have a lot of room for finger pointing here also. Some people seem to forget that no matter WHERE or from WHO these weapons came from..... these weapons need to go.

The countries in this region are NOT really worried about the weapons of terrorism..... they EXPORT terrorists and they allow terrorism to flourish in their own countries with the understanding that their own regimes are off limits.

The U.N. was pulling in a lot of money (approx. $317 million a year) through the 'oil for food' program and of course, they would have preferred to keep checking under rocks for those WMD for another 12 years.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...no matter WHAT the US does in Iraq, someone will complain about how it "proves" it is wrong?


Because the protestors are, by and large, anti-american. They complain about EVERYTHING America does, good or bad, regardless of the circumstances or consequences. I was going to start a thread on this at some point, but I'll just take this opportunity to hijack yours. :D

Look at some of the "anti-war" arguments for example. One of the most common ones is "Why did America choose Iraq to invade when there are so many other dictatorships?". If you think about it, there is no way America can win that argument. If we invaded North Korea first these same people would be saying "Why not Iraq?".

One of my favorites is how apparently it was wrong for us to do business with Iraq in the 80's and yet it is somehow ALSO wrong that we imposed sanctions on them in the 90's.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Here is something I found on the Curmudgeonly and Skeptical site At that site are URLs connected to this piece, and a graphic:

http://www.terpsboy.com/

Let's suppose that the United States, faced with restructuring 1945 Japan into a democracy, had these problems to contend with.

100,000 Japanese communists, trained by Stalin, are infiltrated back into the country with the aim of destabilizing the effort.
The American press, fearful that we are losing the respect of Stalin, De Gaulle and Samuel Goldwyn, denounce General McArther's occupation.
The New York Times and Chicago Tribune editorialize that Truman is not an elected president, and is acting illegally.
Bing Crosby and Errol Flynn tell gossip columnist Walter Winchell that we are no better than Hitler, and hope the Japanese murder every member of the American occupation forces.
American school children are taught that we only went to war with Germany and Japan in order to corner the beer and saki markets.
Key Republican members of congress take to the airways, calling for Truman's impeachment, and encouraging street riots and demonstrations.
Substitute Iranian agents, and almost any of today's Hollywood glitterati, and that's pretty much what Bush - and temporary administrator, retired general Jay Garner - are facing. And suppose our news cycle dwelled on idiocies like:
Japan Friday issue warnings to US
"Leave now! We want Samurai solution" warn Jap leaders
Tojo's fall may mean little for gays in Iraq
Scant lobbying for gay rights in post-war Japan by U.S. activists
Destruction of Tokyo museum inexcusable say critics
3 resign from US art panel to protest

Now ask yourself, is it time for phase two of Ambassador Coulter's solution, or what? Hell, let's start at home.

[Mel]

Originally posted by EvilYeti




Look at some of the "anti-war" arguments for example. One of the most common ones is "Why did America choose Iraq to invade when there are so many other dictatorships?". If you think about it, there is no way America can win that argument. If we invaded North Korea first these same people would be saying "Why not Iraq?".


Yes, I love that one also. As if we should be able to fix EVERY PROBLEM simultaneously or just never bother with any.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Frankly, it seems to me that some people are just jealous at the fact that the US (once more) won a crushing victory without any effort, and (once more) is welcome as the liberator of people from cruel dictatorships. It just destroys their worldview about the "coming collapse of the capitalistic system" and "opressive US imperialism", so naturally they blow all out of proportion any mishap or disagreement they find in order to still have "proof" of their preconcieved opinion.

I would suggest that the US's 'crushing victory without any effort' only proves that Iraq was never a threat to it in the first place.

[Skeptic]

I would suggest that the US's 'crushing victory without any effort' only proves that Iraq was never a threat to it in the first place.

Utter nonsense; that's like saying that Bin Laden wasn't a threat to America because the Taliban were defeated.

At any rate, the reply is just what I'm talking about. If the victory over Iraq is easy... it "proves" Iraq was "never a threat to begin with", so the US should not have gotten involved. But if the victory is hard... it "proves" that iraq is a "quagmire" and the US should not have gotten involved, too. So the US is "wrong" to get involved in Iraq no matter WHAT happens!

[Mike B.]

Hey the UK and Australia had something to do with victory.

In fact it was Austaralian special ops who found all the Migs and Mirage jets that were equipped to spread chem weapons if they were put in them.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Scorpy
I would suggest that the US's 'crushing victory without any effort' only proves that Iraq was never a threat to it in the first place.

Indeed (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14853&CFID=6743930&CFTOKEN=14563941)

[Mike B.]

As to Skeptic's point...It goes without saying that AUP and others will say the US and Israel are always wrong. Of course they are just bringing up interesting questions...;)

And Iain is right that there are people like JK who will say it is always right.

I know off the point a bit...But we were all told innumerable times about how the US armed Saddam and was very supportive of him in the 1980s and somehow this proves how evil the US was.

I always found it strange if this was so, that the Iraqi Army was equipped with Russian T-72 and T-55 tanks and Migs as well as French Mirage jets.

I wish I had the link from the Sweedish group that did the research on this, but the US sold about the same amount of material to Iraq that Denmark did which was about 1% of the total as compared with very large percentages from Russia and France.

Yet we heard ad nasueum that the US was main backer of Saddam. Will people ever say, "Whoops we kind of exaggerated on that one..."?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Indeed (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14853&CFID=6743930&CFTOKEN=14563941)

I think Huffington is missing the point on the speed of the victory. The only thing it proves is the US and UK forces were so far technologically ahead of the Russian and French equipped Iraqi Army. That Iraq was not a potential threat to its neighbors is odd with its huge tank force and 30% of its GDP put to its military, surely they do not have a force to match his former army.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I would suggest that the US's 'crushing victory without any effort' only proves that Iraq was never a threat to it in the first place.

Utter nonsense; that's like saying that Bin Laden wasn't a threat to America because the Taliban were defeated.

At any rate, the reply is just what I'm talking about. If the victory over Iraq is easy... it "proves" Iraq was "never a threat to begin with", so the US should not have gotten involved. But if the victory is hard... it "proves" that iraq is a "quagmire" and the US should not have gotten involved, too. So the US is "wrong" to get involved in Iraq no matter WHAT happens!

You people should talk! We should invade Iraq because: a) it was involved in 9-11. No? Then b) it possesses an arsenal of WMDs. No? Then c) Saddam Hussein is an evil oppressor of the Iraqi people and we must liberate them. No? Then d) all of the above. No? Then you're obviously an evil U.S. hater and you'd think it was wrong no matter what it does. Nice "poisoning the well" there!

BTW, Bin Laden PROVED he and his organization was a threat by actually attacking the U.S.. Your analogy is seriously flawed especially since the U.S. is still *searching* for proof to justify its invasion - after the fact.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Scorpy

Your analogy is seriously flawed especially since the U.S. is still *searching* for proof to justify its invasion - after the fact.

Actually, it's probably closer to the truth to say that the US is endlessly EXPLAINING our justifications to various countries/organizations that are unwilling or incapable of understanding that terrorists don't play by the old rules.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I wish I had the link from the Sweedish group that did the research on this, but the US sold about the same amount of material to Iraq that Denmark did which was about 1% of the total as compared with very large percentages from Russia and France.

Yet we heard ad nasueum that the US was main backer of Saddam. Will people ever say, "Whoops we kind of exaggerated on that one..."?

Ask and ye shall receive (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16037).