Bush's speech....

[Malachi151]

I think it was a very well written and well given speech.

Having said that I think it was a deceptive crock.

I think that its a great speech for people who buy into him and a good vs evil ideology, other than that it falls flat.

Here's where I do agree with "what he said", and that is that at this point America does now have an obligation to see this through and to fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.

However, my idea of freedom adn his idea of freedom are, I'm sure, two vastly different things.

Mostly the fact is that the administration lied to get us into the war, they were not cooperative with anyone, they were not forthcoming, they are still not being forthcoming, there is still way too much cronyism going on with the award of contracts, and the fact is that they did this for reasons other than just the "liberation" of Iraqi people.

I do not beleive that people in Iraq are "fighting for tyranny", I beleive they are fighting for what they believe is freedom to them.

The people opposing the US in Iraq are not all fighting for unjust causes in thier own eyes, they are fighting for what they believe is right. I do not believe in a world of good vs evil, I believe in a world of confusion and conflicting agendas and misunderstanding and that people are dying fighting for what they think is right on both sides of the gun and the the continued promotion of the idea of good vs evil does just as much harm as anything else because ultimately understanding is the issue here.

I also noticed that he said explicitly that he wanted more help from the UN... as long as its all under American control. That was a big issue, and I admit he phrased it as well as possible, but he said that he isn't goign to accept the UN as equal partners and thats what they are asking for.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

I do not beleive that people in Iraq are "fighting for tyranny", I beleive they are fighting for what they believe is freedom to them.


I have to disagree with you on this one. How does bombing the UN headquarters in Baghdad further any possible goal of Iraqi freedom? It doesn't. It pushes Iraq towards chaos. That wasn't some mistake on their part, that's exactly what they wanted.


The people opposing the US in Iraq are not all fighting for unjust causes in thier own eyes, they are fighting for what they believe is right.


It really doesn't matter if they think they were right, those leading the armed resistance are not right, and what they really want is not prosperity for Iraq. They're actively trying to undermine that.


I do not believe in a world of good vs evil, I believe in a world of confusion and conflicting agendas and misunderstanding and that people are dying fighting for what they think is right on both sides of the gun and the the continued promotion of the idea of good vs evil does just as much harm as anything else because ultimately understanding is the issue here.


Call it what you will, but most of this is NOT a matter of misunderstanding. The terrorists trying to disrupt Iraq do not WANT a free, democratic, and prosperous Iraq, they do not want what most Iraqis want and need. They know damn well that's what we're trying to accomplish, and they plan to do anything they can to stop it, because if we succeed it will be a major blow to their efforts to plunge the whole world into a medieval fundamentalist hellhole. There can be no meeting of minds here, the very goals of the terrorists are unacceptable to civilized people. They had what they wanted for a while in Afghanistan, and they made it hell on earth. They want the same thing in Iraq. I think it is rather you who does not understand them. You would prefer to pretend that they're just like everyone else, just desperate and misunderstood. That is not the case at all. The terrorists will take up arms against us regardless of what we do, because they honestly believe they can win. Hiding from that fact will not keep you safe from them.


I also noticed that he said explicitly that he wanted more help from the UN... as long as its all under American control. That was a big issue, and I admit he phrased it as well as possible, but he said that he isn't goign to accept the UN as equal partners and thats what they are asking for.

And he damn well shouldn't. The UN cannot handle security, that's rather simple. And whoever is handling security needs to be in charge to be able to do that effectively. The UN wants control because the beaurocrats want to hold onto as much power and relevance as they can, but ceding control to the UN wouldn't help at all, and could easily hurt Iraq quite a bit (need I remind people again of how the UN mishandled the safe zones in Bosnia?). I'm all for opening up the process of contract awards, but the US should stay in the leadership position in Iraq, because nobody else can honestly do the job, even if someone else has more "justification" according to you.

[a_unique_person]

Another view.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Another view.

A view based on some alternate universe? One of the great things the president did in his speech is debunk the idea that somehow the west has already failed or that things are going as badly as it seems (only bad reports make it into headlines of course).

I think the best thing Bush did was go beyond the petty details of the current conflict and talk about the big picture. It seems many have lost sight of the big picture.

[Malachi151]

It really doesn't matter if they think they were right, those leading the armed resistance are not right, and what they really want is not prosperity for Iraq. They're actively trying to undermine that.

Give me a break. Now I agree that some of what some of these people want, if they could have things there way, would not be good for Iraq. I also beleive that if Bush and his administrtion could have everything their way it would not be good for Iraq, but still better than what some of the others want.

However I don't believe that ANYONE is fighting and risking their lives simply to make Iraq a worse place.

All these Iraqis want prosperity for Iraq, now maybe some of the foreign fighters do not, but the Iraqis want Iraq to "be a better place", however, as we all know what everyone calls "a better place" is not the same thing.

People are not sitting around saying saying "hey lets turn Iraq into a wasteland", they are saying "We can't let the evil Americans destory Iraq!" and the Americans are saying: "
We can't let the evil Iraqis destroy Iraq!"

Add to that the fact htat America has a long history in Iraq of doing things that were not in the interests of the Iraqi people and its easy to see why many Iraqis are not wanting to cooperate with Americans.

[Tony]

That's a HORRIBLE cartoon. I assume that guy is 'spose to be GW, but ti doesnt look anything like him. And it looks like arafat is driving the UN ambulance.

[KelvinG]

I wouldn't put much stock in anything Bush says at this point. He's desperately trying to save face and is naturally going to spin everything in his government's favour.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Another view.

LOL... HAHAHA

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Give me a break. Now I agree that some of what some of these people want, if they could have things there way, would not be good for Iraq.


No, I'm not going to give you a break as long as you keep posting tripe like that. Many of the terrorist activities are aimed directly at the Iraqi people themselves. That's not a matter of them being mistaken in the effects of their actions, that's a matter of their goals themselves being detrimental to Iraq. They know this, they WANT to destroy Iraq. Why the hell do you THINK they bombed the UN building? Why do they do things like bomb water mains, pipelines, and bridges? The Iraqi people suffer directly from these attacks, and that's what the terrorists are trying to accomplish.


I also beleive that if Bush and his administrtion could have everything their way it would not be good for Iraq, but still better than what some of the others want.


What Bush wants, and what we will achieve, WILL be a hell of a lot better than what you wanted to leave them with, which is Saddam Hussein. I don't see you having much grounds for criticising Bush's intentions towards Iraq when you were happy to leave Saddam in power. You have no real concern for human rights, as long as people are "free" from what you consider American oppression (did you know Iraq finally has freedom of the press, thanks to American oppression?), you don't seem to care what local dictators or extremists oppress them.


However I don't believe that ANYONE is fighting and risking their lives simply to make Iraq a worse place.


Then you're a fool who isn't paying attention. What do you think the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan? Do you think it's an accident that they turned that place into a stone-age cesspit?


All these Iraqis want prosperity for Iraq, now maybe some of the foreign fighters do not, but the Iraqis want Iraq to "be a better place", however, as we all know what everyone calls "a better place" is not the same thing.


Most Iraqis do just want a better life. And most Iraqis are not taking up arms against us. Coincidence?


People are not sitting around saying saying "hey lets turn Iraq into a wasteland", they are saying "We can't let the evil Americans destory Iraq!" and the Americans are saying: "
We can't let the evil Iraqis destroy Iraq!"


Just listen to yourself. You're trying to rationalize the actions of murderers. "We can't let Americans destroy Iraq, so let's go bomb the UN headquarters to try to scare off aid workers!" How can you possibly believe that such people are trying to SAVE Iraq from chaos?

[Jessica Blue]

One major problem is that Iraq has now become a magnet for any loose cannon with a grudge against America. For America to succeed in Iraq would be anathema to many extremists. As Bush emphasized in his speech...Iraq has now become the central battleground in the war on terrorism. Not a great prospect for ordinary Iraqis.


You have no real concern for human rights, as long as people are "free" from what you consider American oppression (did you know Iraq finally has freedom of the press, thanks to American oppression?), you don't seem to care what local dictators or extremists oppress them.


Well neither did the US when it suited it not to. Before you get too self-righteous, it needs to be remembered that the major reason for this war was supposed to be the threat Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD'S were to the free world. "Pre-emption" was the key word. The noble cause of liberation was only an afterthought...and it's duplicitous to claim now that's what it was all about.

Would you recommend war as the standard method for removing vile dictators?


What do you think the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan? Do you think it's an accident that they turned that place into a stone-age cesspit?

No, they had some help from the Americans. It would have been difficult for the Taliban to gain power without them.

You should temper your idealization of US benevolance with a few hard truths.

[Malachi151]

Just listen to yourself. You're trying to rationalize the actions of murderers. "We can't let Americans destroy Iraq, so let's go bomb the UN headquarters to try to scare off aid workers!" How can you possibly believe that such people are trying to SAVE Iraq from chaos?

Umm.. correct me if I am wrong here, but has the US not just killed over 4,000 Iraqs including women and children?

Oh, I forgot, it does not COUNT when we kill people, only when they kill people.

Duh! In their eyes the US is the aggressor and the deaths caused by the US are murder. Let's face it, the US IS the aggressor, and liek Einstein said war is just a way to legitamize murder.

What, you thinking if you wear an American military uniform then killing is okay?

This war never should have happened in the first place, it is a case of outragous murder on a massive level. The US did kill thousads of people including thousands of civilians.

No we wouldn't have done it is Iraq was not sitting on top of a ocean of oil.

Yes we did kill more Iraqis in the past few months than Saddam did in the past 12 years.

Yes there were other alternatives to this action in the first place.

I think its outlandish to have expected to be able to invade a country out of the blue and unleash the most devastating bombardment in the past 50 year history of the world and then expect the country to just fall into line and start doing what the Americans want them to do. Anyone who thought that would happen is an idiot.

Right or wrong, even if its what SHOULD happen, thinking that it WOULD happen is totally moronic.

Even if our country were taken over by a tyrant if China then invaded us to "free" us from the tyrant do you think that everyone would then fall in line and just do wahetver the Chinese say after the tyrant was gone? That's totally asanine.

[crocodile deathroll]

There were three words still missing from his speach Osama Bin Ladin. He has forgotten to true front for the war against terrorism is still Afghanistan where Taliban Jihadis are still pouring over the border, and Iraq is now becoming a golden opportunity for these Jihadis fanatics to engage in a new front the Bush abomination created and even asked to "bring 'em on". Why did he have to rush into Iraq when Afghanistan still was not stabilized ?

CDR

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
One major problem is that Iraq has now become a magnet for any loose cannon with a grudge against America. For America to succeed in Iraq would be anathema to many extremists. As Bush emphasized in his speech...Iraq has now become the central battleground in the war on terrorism. Not a great prospect for ordinary Iraqis.


Neither was it a great prospect to let Saddam stay in power. Nor should the terrorists disuade us from doing what is right. Nor would the terrorists have simply stood idle had we not invaded.


Well neither did the US when it suited it not to. Before you get too self-righteous, it needs to be remembered that the major reason for this war was supposed to be the threat Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD'S were to the free world.


It is not simply what weapons he might have possesed right now. He himself was a threat to the free world. You can't just take away a murderer's weapon and declare that he's safe to society. Bush overemphasised the importance of Saddam's current weapons capability, but the long-term danger was very real.


"Pre-emption" was the key word. The noble cause of liberation was only an afterthought...and it's duplicitous to claim now that's what it was all about.


I seem to remember a number of reasons given for why we went to war, and believe it or not, human rights was on that list. Why were no OTHER countries willing to stand up for human rights in Iraq?


Would you recommend war as the standard method for removing vile dictators?


Not always. But several things to keep in mind: we did not ONLY do this for WMD's, and we did not ONLY do this for human rights. It was a convergence of factors that singled out Iraq as a target. Iraq needed to be dealt with, simple as that. And nothing short of invading was working - he was smuggling increasing amounts of oil through Syria, making economic sanctions completely ineffective. Over a decade of diplomacy never achieved full compliance. We ran out of other options with Iraq.


No, they had some help from the Americans. It would have been difficult for the Taliban to gain power without them.


Yes, and that was a terrible, tragic mistake. Which we should have rectified earlier, but our previous failure to do so does not mean we should refrain from acting now.


You should temper your idealization of US benevolance with a few hard truths.

I've got plenty of hard truths, I don't idealize the US at all. I know the shortcomings of the US. And I also know the shortcomings of much of the rest of the world. Frankly, I think we're doing a fairly good job overall, though there are plenty of specific details to criticise. Want to pick another major power (or even the UN) and we can compare notes?

[Malachi151]

What do you think the Taliban were doing in Afghanistan? Do you think it's an accident that they turned that place into a stone-age cesspit?

As JB said, the Taliban came to power from outside Afganistan becuase they were helping energy companies by acting like a terrorist organization in the protection of the interests fo the energy companies. They were hunting down adn killing people who commited crimes against thes comapnies, for which they were rewared by the companies and then later by America.

The Bush administration had given some $40 million plus to them just months before 9/11 and AGAIN, the ROOT behind all of this war the Saudis who were also assisting these groups monitarily and funding the terrorist camps, INTENTIONALLY in a differnt country so they coudl escape responsiblity, which they have done.

As for Afganistan I blame the Russians for that place mostly, but in terms of the terrorist groups, they were supported by American and international companies and also by the American government. Why? Because they were initially doing things to get into favor with American propety owners in that country. The Taliban was not even behinf 9/11 either.

The Taliban were just another different issue.

9/11 was backed by the SAUDIS, NOT the TALIBAN.

“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

- PNAC 1998

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Umm.. correct me if I am wrong here, but has the US not just killed over 4,000 Iraqs including women and children?


Yes we did. And in the long run, we will have saved many more. Many more Iraqis were dying because of Saddam's abuse of the food for oil program, but we could not safely lift the sanctions because doing so would invite Saddam to reform his military capabilities and resume development of nuclear weapons.


Oh, I forgot, it does not COUNT when we kill people, only when they kill people.


Evidently you ONLY count it when we kill people. We have stopped far more deaths than we have caused. Civilian deaths suck, and we went to great pains to minimize them. But on balance our invasion was a good thing for Iraq, and the Iraqi people know that a hell of a lot better than you apparently do.


This war never should have happened in the first place, it is a case of outragous murder on a massive level. The US did kill thousads of people including thousands of civilians.


So what were you doing when Saddam was killing HUNDREDS of thousands? What plan did YOU have to bring him to justice for that?


No we wouldn't have done it is Iraq was not sitting on top of a ocean of oil.


Yes, you're correct on this point, but not for the reason you undoubtedly think. Saddam's oil meant that sanctions were completely ineffective. If Saddam hadn't had all that oil, economic sanctions might have actually had some chance of success. This operation cost a LOT of money, and will continue to cost a lot of money. We're never going to make a profit on this, the suggestion that we're just doing it to steal their oil is a paranoid delusion.


Yes we did kill more Iraqis in the past few months than Saddam did in the past 12 years.


Wrong. All the Iraqi deaths from malnutrition and poor medical care lie at the feet of Saddam, because it was his abuse of the oil for food program which lead to the dramatic deterioration of Iraqi healthcare and nutrition. I've seen estimates in the hundreds of thousands for these deaths.


Yes there were other alternatives to this action in the first place.


Then why can't you name one?


Even if our country were taken over by a tyrant if China then invaded us to "free" us from the tyrant do you think that everyone would then fall in line and just do wahetver the Chinese say after the tyrant was gone? That's totally asanine.

I think you have no idea what it's really like to live under a brutal dictatorship. I've got a friend from a small African country with a petty dictator, not as bad as Saddam but a real bastard nonetheless, who is visiting the US. When she saw Saddam's statue fall in Baghdad, she asked quite seriously if the marines could invade her country. Her relatives back home hadn't heard ANYTHING about Saddam's topple, because the media there couldn't allow the people to even think that their own leader could be overthrown.

I never expected the Iraqis to "fall in line", whatever the hell you mean by that. What I expected is that most Iraqis would be VERY happy to see Saddam go, and most are. I also expected most Iraqis to accept temporary US control without violent resistance, and again, most have.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Another view.

And yet another:


http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/saddam_finalresolution.jpg

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

The Bush administration had given some $40 million plus to them just months before 9/11


Major mischaracterization:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/

"WASHINGTON -- Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people.
...
The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development. "

Funny how even food aid can be turned into an accusation of wrongdoing when you're determined to paint Bush as a bigger villain than Saddam.


and AGAIN, the ROOT behind all of this war the Saudis who were also assisting these groups monitarily and funding the terrorist camps, INTENTIONALLY in a differnt country so they coudl escape responsiblity, which they have done.


Irrelevant to the Iraq question. Irrelevant to the fact that the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan what Al Quaeda hoped to accomplish for the entire world.


The Taliban was not even behinf 9/11 either.

The Taliban were just another different issue.

9/11 was backed by the SAUDIS, NOT the TALIBAN.


No, the Taliban weren't behind 9/11, they just aided and abetted those that were, and agreed with their philosophy, goals and methods.

I'm not sure yet what we should do about Saudi Arabia. They are certainly PART of the problem, but I don't think an invasion would help much there. But we can actually apply more pressure to them now that our troops are out of their country, because now we don't need to have their permission to keep troops in the region to maintain stability.

[Malachi151]

No, the Taliban weren't behind 9/11, they just aided and abetted those that were, and agreed with their philosophy, goals and methods.

You may as well blame a church or community that a Christian who shoots abortion doctor's comes from then.

So tell me, if a guy goes to a church that opposes abortion, or let's say that he lives in a rural conservative community that is very religious and the people mostly oppose abortion, and then he goes and kills a doctors because he decided that he needs to stop the people that perform abortions, you think that the church and possibly even the communty are guilty of the crime as well?

That's basically what you are saying here about 9/11.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm totally opposed to guy like the Taliban as well and was more than happy to see them be kicked out, but the truth is that they weren't involved in 9/11, 9/11 was just used as an excuse to perform regime change in Afganistan.

What we did was the equivilent to something like a guy from a small town becomes a mass murderer and when they learn where he is from they go to that town and do a shake down and arrest people for drug posession.

The two things are really unrelated.

Making a bunch of drug arrests in the has no direct impact on the rate of mass murderers. The people who had drugs in the town didn't have any real connection to the murderer. Now, the net effect may be that the town is better off becuase of all this but it ultimately has nothing to do with the origional crime.

[Trollbane]

The comparison between a anti-abortion and the Taliban fails.. The US tracked Osama into Afganistan and asked the Taliban to hand him over, to which they basicly answered that Osama wouldnt be handed over since he was a friend and ally.

If a foreign nation not only condones, but actively supports (as the Taliban did) attacks on another nation it is effectively a declaration of war.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Trollbane
The comparison between a anti-abortion and the Taliban fails.. The US tracked Osama into Afganistan and asked the Taliban to hand him over, to which they basicly answered that Osama wouldnt be handed over since he was a friend and ally.

If a foreign nation not only condones, but actively supports (as the Taliban did) attacks on another nation it is effectively a declaration of war.

I agre with that, but that's just harboring. The Taliban was not invovled in the execution of 9/11.

The Taliban was not the source of the problem. That is more like a person that commits a crime and then they run to a friends houese to hide. Sure you can arrest the friend for harboring, and maybe that friend is also doing something else illigal, bt the fact remains that the friend was not invovled in the origional crime.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

That's basically what you are saying here about 9/11.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Man, pull your head out of your backside for once and look at what I'm actually saying, instead of trying to pick apart pieces.

Some have argued that terrorists are like everyone else but just fighting with the only weapons they have available. I say bullcrap. It is not only their methods that make them antithetical to civilization, it is their very goals. The terrorists and the Taliban are equivalent in this respect. I'm not trying to argue that the Taliban were directly responsible for 9/11, that's irrelevant. What matters is that they both want the same thing, namely a fascist, fundamentalist islamic world, and they will both resort to any level of violence to accomplish that. And the world they want would be hell, because they GOT what they want in Afghanistan and that's exactly what they produced. In other words, we must oppose these terrorists not ONLY because of their methods, but because of their very goals (turning the world into Afghanistan). We CANNOT appease them, we CANNOT disuade them, we MUST defeat them. 9/11 was a wakeup call to the fact that this conflict cannot be avoided. You can try to excuse the Taliban all you want as not being directly involved in 9/11, but they provided a breeding ground for dangerous, virulent and violent ideologies, and they were a central part of the terrorist problem we faced. Catching the individuals involved directly in 9/11 is not enough, it is clear that we need to go after ALL of those who would resort to the same violent methods to achieve that goal of a radical islamic world. That included the Taliban, and that includes many of the terrorists now operating inside Iraq.

[Trollbane]

You cant really draw parallels on international politics and crimes within a country. If a group decides to declare war on a country (Which Al-Quaida did on 9/11) a country supporting and harboring them should be considered their ally and thus also involved in the war. Now if the Taliban had deported Osama and co to any country they could claim neutrality, but that wasnt the case. Invasion of Afganistan was entirely justified, which on the other hand cant be said about the Iraq incident... Although I dont intend to lose any sleep over Saddam and his cronies.

[Crossbow]

On September 7, 2003 President George W. Bush said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030907-1.html


Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve and great progress.

...

Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.

...

The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our Armed Forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so bravely, so far from home.

...

Thank you, and may God continue to bless America.


What a load of crap! Even he does not believe this nonsense as shown by the one month vacation he took before coming back asking for $87 billion, extending the reservist tours of duty for another six months, and asking everyone else for additional sacrifice in order to serve the cause of freedom.

Ugh!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

What a load of crap! Even he does not believe this nonsense as shown by the one month vacation he took before coming back asking for $87 billion, extending the reservist tours of duty for another six months, and asking everyone else for additional sacrifice in order to serve the cause of freedom.

Ugh!

The speach itself wasn't crap. We are in a war, and we do need to make sacrifices. But I'll heartily agree that his one-month vacation was crap, and that he's not really following through on his own call for making sacrifices. Don't ever mistake me for a Bush supporter.

[Malachi151]

"WASHINGTON -- Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people.
...
The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development. "

Funny how even food aid can be turned into an accusation of wrongdoing when you're determined to paint Bush as a bigger villain than Saddam.

Its quite easy. This country operated the same exact way in support of regimes like Suharto, Pinochet, Somoza, Saddam, and the Shah of Iran.

This country did not give similar aid to Castro or Ho Chi Minh, even though Minh actually asked for aid, and both regimes were much more reputable than the Taliban... but they were not working in the interests of American corporations...

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

This country did not give similar aid to Castro or Ho Chi Minh, even though Minh actually asked for aid, and both regimes were much more reputable than the Taliban... but they were not working in the interests of American corporations...

You forgot [/end marxist rant].

By the time the aid package in question was allocated to the Taliban, it had already become clear to everyone, INCLUDING the greedy oil executives you like to blame everything on, that nobody could work with the Taliban on any pipeline through Afghanistan. Your suggestion that we gave food aid to Afghanistan because they worked in the interest of American corporations is ridiculous.

Edited to make my pseudo-html appear.

[Jessica Blue]

Neither was it a great prospect to let Saddam stay in power. Nor should the terrorists disuade us from doing what is right. Nor would the terrorists have simply stood idle had we not invaded.

Are they standing idle now? How has the world been made a great deal safer from unrest and terrorism...?

It is not simply what weapons he might have possesed right now. He himself was a threat to the free world. You can't just take away a murderer's weapon and declare that he's safe to society. Bush overemphasised the importance of Saddam's current weapons capability, but the long-term danger was very real.

I think that premise is a very shaky foundation for war. Using that logic there are several other countries, in more advanced stages of weaponry which could be deemed a "threat to the free world". Why Iraq, a greatly weakened country under the scrutiny of the UN?

I seem to remember a number of reasons given for why we went to war, and believe it or not, human rights was on that list. Why were no OTHER countries willing to stand up for human rights in Iraq?

They were...they just weren't willing to swallow President Bush's opportunistic doctrine of pre-emption and didn't see war as a first resort. Hans Blix asked for more time...why wasn't it given?

George Bush ordered troops into Iraq under a security doctrine, forged after Sept. 11 in the war on terrorism, that says the United States can launch a pre-emptive strike on a country it deems a threat before it is attacked itself. In the case of Iraq, his argument was that Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction not only posed a threat to the region but could also fall into the hands of groups like al Qaeda and be turned on America. As yet no clear evidence to support this claim has been established.

When he gave Saddam 48 hours on March 17 to flee Iraq or face war, the entire thrust of Bush's address concerned Iraq's failure over 12 years to abide by U.N. resolutions. The Iraq war was launched on the back of a shipload of rhetoric about Saddam in possesion of "WMDS". Disarming Iraq was an issue Bush raised no fewer than 11 times in this address.

As the pre-war pitch progressed, he continued to talk of disarming Iraq, yet increasingly in a secondary manner. "Freeing the Iraqi people" appeared to have now become his major rationale for going to war. Why this shift? If saving the Iraqis was the big motivation for invading Iraq why wasn't this made clear from the beginning? Forgive my cynicism but it's hard not to believe this was a convenient shift in propaganda because the "imminent threat" arguments were proving ineffective.

When we concentrate on Iraq as a victory of liberation we are apt to forget that this war was an important test for a new political doctrine which opened the way for countries to use pre-emptive attack as a justifiable rationale for war. The attitude now seems to be "the WMDS might have been a massive exaggeration...but the liberation makes it all okay." Does it...? Does this now mean pre-emption need not justify itself through evidence of threat...but merely on a decision that this or that tyrant deserves to go?

In the meantime the fate of Iraq remains unclear. Not only is the US facing a constant threat of sabotage, it's estimated that many billions of dollars will be required to broadly and adequately supply water, electricity and healthcare. Even ignoring the dangerous political turmoil[which cannot in truth, be seperated from the whole] the restoration of Iraq may yet prove to be too great a task.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

Are they standing idle now? How has the world been made a great deal safer from unrest and terrorism...?


If Iraq is turned into a democratic country, I think it should be obvious how the world is made safer.


I think that premise is a very shaky foundation for war. Using that logic there are several other countries, in more advanced stages of weaponry which could be deemed a "threat to the free world". Why Iraq, a greatly weakened country under the scrutiny of the UN?


Because of Saddam's demonstrated willingness to attack his neighbors and use chemical weapons on his opponents. Because over a decade of diplomacy had failed. And because economic sanctions could not work when he could make billions smuggling oil through Syria.


They were...they just weren't willing to swallow President Bush's opportunistic doctrine of pre-emption and didn't see war as a first resort. Hans Blix asked for more time...why wasn't it given?


It had been twelve years since Iraq agreed to comply by UN security council resolutions, and it had not. How the hell much more time do they need, and why should we give it to them?


George Bush ordered troops into Iraq under a security doctrine, forged after Sept. 11 in the war on terrorism, that says the United States can launch a pre-emptive strike on a country it deems a threat before it is attacked itself. In the case of Iraq, his argument was that Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction not only posed a threat to the region but could also fall into the hands of groups like al Qaeda and be turned on America. As yet no clear evidence to support this claim has been established.


Uncertain threats are exactly that - uncertain. We know Saddam hated us. He tried to have a US president assasinated, and he regularly fired at US and British aircraft. He used chemical weapons on civilians. I don't know what he would do with a nuke, or with a large stockpile of chemical weapons, but I don't want to find out either. And I don't think taking a bloodthirsty, oppressive dictator out of power just to be on the safe side is a bad idea.


As the pre-war pitch progressed, he continued to talk of disarming Iraq, yet increasingly in a secondary manner. "Freeing the Iraqi people" appeared to have now become his major rationale for going to war. Why this shift?


Two things: first, I don't feel the need to defend Bush. I think the war was justified. I don't care if my reasons for it being justified are the same as Bush's: if it was the right thing to do, it was the right thing to do.

Second, there isn't as much of a shift as people like to pretend. Bush talked plenty about human rights before the invasion. Many critics only paid attention to the WMD issue because nobody could seriously challenge just how bad the human rights situation in Iraq was.


If saving the Iraqis was the big motivation for invading Iraq why wasn't this made clear from the beginning?


I think it was. I think a lot of people weren't paying attention to that, because they didn't seriously care about that. And I'm not talking about the supporters of the war.


When we concentrate on Iraq as a victory of liberation we are apt to forget that this war was an important test for a new political doctrine which opened the way for countries to use pre-emptive attack as a justifiable rationale for war. The attitude now seems to be "the WMDS might have been a massive exaggeration...but the liberation makes it all okay." Does it...? Does this now mean pre-emption need not justify itself through evidence of threat...but merely on a decision that this or that tyrant deserves to go?


Well, to be quite blunt, yes. I think Saddam did need to go. He was not just "this or that tyrant". He was one of the worst dictators of this century, directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. And his oil reserves gave him potentially enormous resources to support his ruthless regime and quest for nuclear weapons, resources that most dictators do not have. So yeah, I think it actually was OK to take him out just to take him out. But you also seem to be confusing something: the fact that we haven't found anything doesn't mean we weren't right to go in for preventive reasons (though I do not condone overstating our certainty about Saddam's current capabilities). It's like car insurance: you buy it because the possibility of not buying it can be enormous. But if you DON'T get in an accident, was it the wrong decision to buy insurace? Of course not, because you can't know ahead of time. So, was it OK to remove a bloodthirsty, oppressive tyrant who continually tried to kill americans (yes, he did - he regularly fired missiles at american planes) because of uncertain risk? Yeah, I'd say so.


Even ignoring the dangerous political turmoil[which cannot in truth, be seperated from the whole] the restoration of Iraq may yet prove to be too great a task.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'd much rather try than leave them rotting under Saddam, which people like Malachi seemed quite content to do in the name of preserving a dictator's sovereignty.