What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?

Discussion in 'Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution' started by JohnConstantine, May 14, 2012.

  1. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Don't you think it's telling that most of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who put their lives on the line and fought in Iraq support what they did over there? You sat safely behind a computer while judging the conflict. You had absolutely nothing invested in it (correct me if I'm wrong). How can you dismiss the opinions of those who actually risked it all in the conflict? I'm not saying you have to agree with soldiers or aren't entitled to an opinion, but it's silly to dismiss them altogether.
     
  2. Iolo

    Iolo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    People who get conned often find it easier to pretend it was all for the best.
     
  3. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This sums it up.
    Less than 1% of the U.S. population were invested in any way...oh sure maybe they knew someone, who knew someone...who went...but for the vast majority
    it was a 6:00 o'clock news war. Turn off the TV and the war disappears.

    They didn't live it or have anything invested...other than tax dollars I suppose.

    Everyone can have an opinion of course, but take them with a grain of salt.
     
  4. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Telling of what? How ignorant and myopic they were? Yes, of course.

    And I wouldn't have it any other way, except that I wish I was old enough back then to have understood what was going on and participated in protests against it.

    Depends what you mean by "invested". These people are soldiers - they aren't humanitarians, they are mercenaries. They get paid to perform a service. I was "invested" in the situation as much as any person who witnesses a crime take place and is "invested" in the gross injustice they just witnessed by speaking out against it. Not only this but the person I was talking to (Mushroom) did not contribute to the military effort in Iraq.

    Because they are just soldiers. It is a complete fallacy to say they "know better" simply because they participated - in fact, quite the reverse. Its a totally illogical fallacy to appeal to authority in this instance. Being a soldier does not make one right, it just makes one a soldier.

    I didnt dismiss them altogether - I dismissed the appeal to authority that Mushroom, and now you, have made.
     
  5. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,174
    Likes Received:
    62,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was against it, the investigators said no WMD, Bush attacked anyway, he did not care what investigators said, well investigators were right, Bush was wrong, go figure

    we broke up the fight between Iraq and Iran just so we could fight both of them ourselves for years and years I guess?

    I think to Bush this was a religious war.... "a Crusade"...


    .
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tell that to those in Somalia. Tell that to those in Bosnia. Tell that to people after Katrina. Tell that to people in Indonesia and Japan after a tsunami swept through. Tell that to those in Alabama and other areas when they enforced segregation.

    The reason why we dismiss so many of your claims is that your complete biased is so obvious, it is almost sickening. To you, the military is always the enemy.
     
  7. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why? Why should I tell them what they already know? They get paid for a service. If they did in their own free time THAT would be something seriously heroic. But they get paid - they made the choice of an occupation. I dont see much amazingly humanitarian about that. They wouldn't be in any of those places without their government's sending them there. Soldiers just "follow orders".

    Not at all. The military cna be a great institution for defending liberties and helping people out - problem is it often caters to the reverse. Furthermore you haven't dismissed ANY of my claims, which really just emphasizes my point about the myopia of military personnel and public views of the military.
     
  8. ejca

    ejca Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I find the war-for-oil argument a bit weak in that there are too many easier targets if it is the intention of the US to secure its oil militarily. Chavez in Venezuela for example. I didn’t buy the same argument during Viet Nam either.


    But there is no shortage of learned opinion that AIPAC and other Likud tentacles in the US were most instrumental in starting and furthering the Gulf wars.


    Fighting for oil somehow puts an almost positive spin on a nasty and impossible war. That the wars, in fact, are to serve the narrow interests of a tiny bunch of chicken hawks is unfortunately much more accurate.
     
  9. ejca

    ejca Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It was BI-PARTISAN treason.
     
  10. ejca

    ejca Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18

    For sure.
     
  11. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    ejca, et al,

    The "Oil Argument" is merely one reason for the invasion of Iraq. But it is not the only reason. In order to understand just some of the impacts coming to bare, I offer the following insight in pieces.

    (COMMENT)

    The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a very influential "Think Tank." Its membership represented a fully spectrum of diplomatic, political and quasi-military personalities; --- and included some very notable and prominent members of the business community. First, let me shed some light on the personalities involved (Partial List) - and a glimpse into the influence factor.

    • Elliott Abrams: Former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration and received the secretary of state's Distinguished Service Award from Secretary George P. Shultz.
    • Gary Bauer: Formerly White House Office of Policy Development
    • William J. Bennett; One of America's most important, influential and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.
    • Dick Cheney: Former Vice President
    • Eliot A. Cohen: Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of the Johns Hopkins University and founding director of the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies
    • Midge Decter: Author and editor whose essays and reviews have appeared in Harper's, The Atlantic, National Review, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard. Member of the board of the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Security Policy
    • Paula Dobriansky: Formerly Under Secretary, Global Affairs
    • Steve Forbes
    • Aaron Friedberg: Formerly with the office of the Vice President as deputy assistant for national-security affairs and director of policy planning.
    • Francis Fukuyama: Former member of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State, member specializing in Middle East affairs, and Deputy Director for European political-military affairs.
    • Frank Gaffney: Founder and President Center for Security Policy, Formerly Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
    • Fred C. Ikle: Former Undersecretary of Defense
    • Zalmay Khalilzad: Former Ambassador Afghanistan & Iraq, National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Islamic Outreach and Southwest Asia Initiatives, and prior to that as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs.
    • I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby: Former chief of staff and national security advisor to U.S. vice president Dick Cheney
    • Norman Podhoretz: Awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, co-founded the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD)
    • Dan Quayle: Former Vice President
    • Donald Rumsfeld: Former Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush from 2001-06; and Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford from 1975-77
    • Paul Wolfowitz: Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, head of the U. S. State Department’s Policy Planning Office and three-and-a-half years as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs,
    • Richard Perle: Former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy,
    • R. James Woolsey: Former Director of Central Intelligence, Mr. Woolsey has served in the U.S. government as: Ambassador to the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE),
    • John Bolton: Former ambassador to the United Nations, general counsel for the U.S. Agency for International Development
    • Richard L. Armitage: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and Deputy Secretary of State

    As early as 1998, the PNAC began a concerted effort to push American Policy towards invasion. The PNAC had a vision and it encompassed the furtherance of the American Hegemony.

    These policy statements sound benign in isolation. But when meshed with the concept of a Political-Military Hegemony, the statements become very aggressive in nature. Their execution becomes extremely dependent on extending the shadow of American Military influence in direct support of diplomatic goals and objectives.

    The idea was --- for the US to amplify and extend its military influence over the entire Middle East and Persian Gulf Regions. The plan was to capitalize on establishing a large military presents in the center of the region, such that, US diplomatic initiatives would have an obvious and credible military support activity within immediate striking distances (the carrot and stick); and Iraq was an ideal location to support these initiatives for 1500 miles in any direction.

    Such an endeavor would require overwhelming domestic support by the people, acquired through the influence of the media, and key personalities. This was originally thought to be justified by the demonization of Saddam Hussein and the accentuated fear from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - an idea from the mid-1990's. Strong industrial support was envisioned by the prospects of oil contracts in support and supply. Unfortunately 911 occurred and set the stage for all the pieces to fall into place. Terrorism became the magic word and the invasion was on. The new conditions set by 911 and the subsequent Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was the tool. WMD was the means to secure domestic support and the major oil companies and defense industry saw an extended profitable opportunity. The media had a story, the population was in fear, the threat was said to be real, and the military was going to war (promotions all around) - new equipment, awards and decorations; and industry was going to profit (all kinds of contracts). Everyone was happy. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, it would last more than a decade. But, more importantly, it was believed that the grateful people of Iraq would be so happy that they would welcome the establishment of a huge military complex in their country. And with that thought in mind, the influence of America's Hegemony would be extended and reenforce the diplomatic influence over the region.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  12. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, public sector intervention in private sector markets should always promote the general welfare and engender a positive multiplier to be an investment that provides for the general welfare of the United States.
     
  13. kid_x

    kid_x New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe USA is now the worst country because its actions destroys lives of people from a number of different countries. Saddam waz a bad guy, but the gov had absolutely no right to invade Iraq. They have no right to Invade Iran either. We have to stop these pointless wars, and it can start by voting for people have no desire to continue these pointless wars.
     
  14. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    danielpalos, et al,

    This is an interesting concept; but, must be applied in moderation.

    (COMMENT)

    I believe you are correct, in as much as, the public sector (government) must act in the overall best interest of the people - if and when it intervenes.

    But having said that, the maximization of wealth (the business mantra) in the private sector must also be tempered in consideration of the needs of the people and the nation. It is obvious, that the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) cannot be allowed to strip the wealth entirely from the remainder of the people or the nation (the middle and working class); nor, can the burden of government (public sector) be disproportionately upheld by the people or the nation (the middle and working class). Compounding the nature of the capitalist society, the poor, disabled and unemployed (the entire population minus the few and powerful plus middle class) cannot be totally ignored.

    There is the question as the the extent to which the maximization of wealth (the business mantra) by the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) should be allowed to supersede the needs of the nation and whether such a private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) should owe any patriotic duty to the nation, its strength and maintenance of the cornerstone infrastructure (health, science, eduction, and standard of living). Can it be the case that the private sector (controlled by a few and powerful) can be so free to amass wealth that it can totally ignore the impact on the general Welfare, the Blessings of Liberty to the people or the nation (the middle and working class) and our Posterity of the nation?

    Is there a balance to be struck?

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  15. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I personally believe that the invasion of Iraq was the single most idiotic and counterproductive foreign policy decision our country has ever made.

    Saddam was a very bad man, but the world is FULL of bad men in seats of power. As it was, Saddam could do three things very much better than the US could ever do.
    1. He could keep the sunnis and shiites in Iraq from slaughtering one another
    2. He acted as a very effective foil against Iran's regional hegemony
    3. He kept Islamic extremists like AQ - as opposed to arab nationalists who have never been a strategic threat to the US - from using Iraq as a base of operations and recruitment.

    If we had focused on Al Qaeda and let Saddam continue to do those things he did well, it would have saved us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
     
    RoccoR and (deleted member) like this.
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, our civic obligation ends with official poverty. What excuse could any person in our republic have, if they could not claim to be in official poverty?
     
  17. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    kid_x, et al,

    Yes, there is the question of US intervention and the legitimacy of such actions.

    (COMMENT)

    There has never been a "right to war." To make war is a capacity of a nation.

    v/r
    R
     
  18. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    danielpalos, et al,

    Yes, there are a considerable number of people who believe that the mantra (excessive and rapacious pursuit for wealth and possessions) owes no patriotic duty to the nation or the people.

    (COMMENT)

    As Gordon Gekko (The main character in the Movie Wall Street) says: "The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. ... ... ... What's worth doing is worth doing for money."

    As we've noted in recent history, BIG Business has the power and the intent to maximize the wealth in any fashion it chooses. Whether is was Chrysler or Enron, Fannie Mae or AIG, --- the banking industry in general that was bailed-out by the public. Even today, after the huge bail-out of the financial industry, they are at it again in what is called: the Derivative Market.

    There is no allegiance business owes to the investor, the people, or the nation, in unrestrained capitalism manipulated by the rich and powerful. As long as they maximize their wealth, they have no remorse in the pain and suffering they cause, the losses incurred, or the jobs displaced. They are safe in the knowledge that when the bubble bursts, the public sector - held hostage, will bail them out.

    It is a fine line between being in the Middle Class and being in Poverty. But, I must acknowledge that your position is the superior position --- as most believe that unrestrained business is preferred; no matter how much the Middle Class must pay-out in bail-outs.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  19. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    100% true. From the war's beginning I said Bush was a fraud and that the only WMD he would find where those in his drugged up imagination. The Downing Street Memo which brought down Tony Blair's government clearly established that this was a war for oil and war profits. Anyone who denies it is a liar and traitor.
     
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Only our federal Congress is delegated the power to write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic.
     
  21. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Murdering hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds is keeping the peace?

    This is debatable. He fought a very costly war with Iran for years that destabilized the region and cost millions of lives. I think in the long term a functioning democratic Iraq (should it get there) would be a lot more of a thorn in Iran's side than Saddam ever was.

    While not directly tied to AQ, he had shown plenty of support for Islamic extremists over the years. The war in Iraq also attracted a lot of these types....who were killed by the boatload. AQ actually ended up completely alienating the population of Iraq with its brutality. There was an outright mini-war between Iraqi militias and AQ. Iraq isn't a hotbed of AQ recruitment.

    I think this is the main question at hand. Was it worth it? I don't think we'll be able to tell for 10-20 years. People expect results far to fast. We had members of Congress in 2006/2007 outright declaring the War lost....and look what happened after the surge. Americans are too impatient to consider the long term future of Iraq. If Iraq can develop into a stable Democracy in the next few decades, it could potentially lead to other dictatorships in the region loosening their grips. In such a scenario the Iraq war could end up being a flashpoint for change.
     
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, we could have enjoyed stable fuel prices and a lower tax burden arising from conflict in the Middle East, merely by regulating well, Commerce among the several States of the Union.

    This is what our federal Congress is delegated the power to do:

    There is no specific enumeration for providing for the common Offense or the general Warfare of the United States; thus, no power delegated for a warfare-state as there is for a welfare-state.

     
  23. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To Liberals it is, because obviously those events never happened.

    Personally, I have little hopes for any Islamic nation in the region to ever be "Democratic". I simply do not see the Radical elements ever allowing that to happen. Oh, there may be some "Democratic" illusions, but I do not see it happening within the next 50 years unless the region has a fundamental paradigm shift to it's beliefs.

    In general, the most I generally hope for is a more benevolent dictator or Monarchy.

    Saddam has long supported and funded terrorism. From bombers in Israel, to harboring known terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ilich Sanchez (Carlos the Jackal). And al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was even hospitalized outside of Baghdad while recovering from wounds recieved in the fighting in Afghanistan. I do not think that Saddam ever had any direct ties to al-Qaeda. But I also do not doubt that he was a supporter of their efforts, since it's main target was the US.

    I doubt that terrorism will ever go away. It is simply to easy. However, that does not mean to me that the effort against it should stop, simply because it will never fully work. That is the same kind of thinking that goes with racism. Since you will never end it, why fight it?

    Well, it will never be ended. But we can at least do what we can to try and keep it contained.
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uh-huh. And exactly how would this have stabilized the price of oil? You might as well try and make the same claim for anything from gold and silver to soy beans and wheat.

    Oil is an International commodity. And the US can no more have a major long-term affect on it's price then it can with any other commodity. Yes, we can cause it to rise and fall in the short term based on what we do. But we can never either make it fall to $50 a barrel, nor cause it to rise to $200 a barrel for anything other then a short term.
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is our public policy initiatives that are a cause of price changes in the Middle East; we could have simply upgraded their infrastructure for less.

     

Share This Page