The President lied to start war

Korea.

I think I would probably still of backed it, with reservations.

Chicago boys

But once again you don’t refute the claims just call them ‘sour grapes’, and go on to make unsubstantiated assertions.

 

Increasingly you come back to your simplistic response of left wing wrong, right wing right.

Somehow you wish us to be totally outraged by Ho’s crimes but you seem to want to us to brush over Pinochets as being somehow necessary, why?

 

Pointbreak,

I guess I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Are you seriously arguing that our brutal interventions in Southeast Asia and Latin America were undertaken for the sake of their people? Was is right or wrong for us to overthrow democratically elected governments in Chile and Guatemala and install military dictatorships in their place? How specifically did our devasting war on Vietnam benefit the population? Who was served by our continued support of murderous regimes in Central America throughout the Cold War (see
http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ceh/report/english/toc.html) or the Angolan UNITA rebels who've been on a killing spree since they were trounced in internationally supervised elections a decade ago?

Regarding international development loans, once again, the article I cited doesn't argue that they are inherently bad. Rather, it takes issue with the draconian conditions that typically accompany them. Understand? I don't know how I can be any clearer.

As for your red menace quote, who is it from, and what is the context? How exactly does it pertain to our present discussion?

Balbus,

I don't think Vietnam is very comparable to Iraq. Most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are foreign Islamist mercenaries, not homegrown nationalists or populists.

 

I don't think Vietnam is very comparable to Iraq. Most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are foreign Islamist mercenaries, not homegrown nationalists or populists.

My argument is not a comparison of the different wars but more the comparisons of outlook before getting involved and the inability to seemingly to adapt to it.

Just as US involvement had a simplistic outlook toward its role in Vietnam and how there agenda would be received so I believe that those that pushed for the Iraqi invasion had not understood the situation. In Vietnam the US largely ignored the history of colonisation the desire for independence the need for social and economic reforms. In Iraq I don’t think US planners took into account many factors. The feeling amongst many Iraqis (Shai) that the US had betrayed them in the Gulf war. The possible collapse of the state meaning the military suddenly were the government a role for which they were not equipped. They didn’t realise the exiles were not and would not be popular. They didn’t see that the political void would be taken over mainly by groups that were not pro American. They didn’t seem to realise that the US forces would be a target for every American hating person in the middle east.

There was a feeling that in Vietnam the cause was right and the US as the greatest military and economic power could force any settlement it wished. I fear that mentality is the same that has got the US involved in Iraq.

 

Exactly...but don't let Skip hear you that..you might get banned. I said something to this agree months ago and was "warned".

Call me stoopid but I don't understand this. I was under the impression that the Gulf war was a UN movement to kick Iraq's military invasion out of Kuwait. What Betrayal did the US do to the Iraqis then?

Not get rid of Saddam during that war? please explain.

 

Heh, so I'm not the only one being labeled an imperial fascist nazi for disagreeing with Skip.

I'm a little sketchy on the details, but I believe that Bush Sr. had collaborated with a rebel organization inside Iraq to give support to a rebellion atound the time of Desert Storrm. Of course, after we kicked Saddam's ass out of Kuwait, the U.S. army packed up and went home, leaving the rebels waving their dicks in the air in the middle of the desert, to later after be crushed by Saddam's forces. Even after 10 years, I guess the sour taste left after that 'misunderstanding' is still hanging around like that really bad rest stop cheeseburger I ate over the weekend.

Stoopid.

 

Yea, im still waiting to see the weapons of mass destruction...

 

Otter

The quote about there being no ‘Iraqi’ insurgents was actually Hucks, and is something (surprise) I disagree with but thought was a debate for another thread.

Max is essentially correct George Bush Sr urged the ‘Iraqi people’ to rebel then never gave them the support which they had expected would follow. Tens of thousands of Shia and Kurds were slaughtered when they came up against Saddam’s tanks and helicopters, which the US had allowed him to keep. It is very possible that if these people had thought that the US would not support them then they may never have acted.

The planners of the Iraqi invasion had believed the southern population would rise up as soon as US troops arrived, when you understand this bit of history you can see why.

 

That remark about the Iraqi guerrillas that you attributed to Balbus was originally mine.

I've been called many names here, but I've never been threatened with censorship.

 

I didn't say there were no Iraqi insurgents, but that most of them were foreigners. Those that are actually Iraqi seem to be mostly Baathist holdouts or followers of the renegade cleric Al-Sadr.

 

I’m not trying to compare directly different events in US foreign policy, what interests me are the themes and currents in American thought that underlay the reason for taking actions. Two of these are the either/or mentality and the possible manipulation of that tendency by people of power.

The outlook often comes up in discussion here, to be critical of something is taken as meaning you are totally against it so being critical of the US is to be rabidly anti-American. In any dispute it is to be on one side or the other so if I am critical of the US’s policy toward Vietnam and think the war there a disaster, then it ‘must’ mean that I am a supporter of Ho and the Hanoi government. Alternatively it often seems that if someone doesn’t roundly condemn something they must be totally in favour of it. So if I think Vietnam was in need of social and economic reform and comment that the Vietnamese communists were perceived as being involved in such reforms I am accused of supporting the ‘communists’ collectivisation and enforced re-education.

I believe that this tendency of many Americans to think seemingly only in terms of black and white has been encouraged and manipulated by the American political and economic elite.

Aim are often given be it ‘Manifest Destiny’, the Cold War, or the Wars on Drugs or Terror, it must be know that for people with an either/or mentality, these ‘aims’ are hard to counter

Either you believe you country is destined for greatness because its ideas are good or mediocrity because they are bad.

Either you are anti-Communist and the champion of civilisation or you are in favour of Soviet Stalinist style communism?

Either you believe in just saying ‘NO’ or you want 12-year-old heroine addicts turning tricks to get another fix?

As for terror who can say they are in favour of it?

Once an aim has become established in the group consciousness of such people it becomes an unarguable ‘truth’ and becomes hard to dislodge. Re-enforced by politicians and sections of the media they become part of the American legend.

There is only the right thing expressed in the aim, so any dissent from it is by definition is wrong. To the point when even wanting to learn differently from the accepted view seems pointless even suspect, for example an American friend of mine from the mid west was spat on and ostracised by fellow pupils at her school because she was, out of curiosity, reading Marx’s Communist Manifesto and the recent attacks on dissenters.

**

My premise is that these aims can be used as a screen behind which the established authorities can do many actions that many seem dubious or counter productive.

Was the concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’ just an attempt to make imperialism and Indian clearance acceptable? How many actions taken in the name of fighting communism were taken to counter even moderate left wing ideas or to protect US financial interests? Vietnam, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua and all those other ‘hot spots’, the support for dictators, the dirty tricks, the torture, to me it seems people still defend these things because they place them in the overarching ‘good aim’ that had been given to them. They seem to think that the ends justified any ‘mistakes’ or ‘misdemeanours’ along the way.

The US now has a new aim ‘The War on Terror’ which was given to the American people and the world in the wake of an attack on the US by fundamentalist Islamic extremists.

Once more much of the argument is seen in terms of black or white, as President Bush put it "you’re either for us or against us" and this either/or outlook again is put in the context of the new aim.

Criticise the US’s Afghan policy and someone will ask if you would prefer the taliban and terrorists back in power.

Bring up Guantalimo bay, the Patriot act or the torture at Abu Ghrib and Bagrum, and some will argue that these are necessary even desirable in times of ‘war’ and to think otherwise is akin to supporting terrorism.

As to the Iraqi invasion it was also sold to the American people under the banner of the ‘war on terror’ and many Americans still believe Saddam had a direct connection with 9/11. Even those that admit the secular Saddam had nothing to do with the religious zealots of al qaeda often seem to believe that the move was in some way meant to bring the war on terror to the region and make it easier for US forces to seek out the fundamentalists. So to criticise the invasion or the occupation often brings accusations of being in favour of terrorism and of being pro-Saddam.

**

Is the US’s Iraq policy in the best interests of the Iraqi people and America, time will tell, but my view is that it is not, because I don’t think many Americans understand why they are there and I don’t think the intentions of the people that manipulated them into it were completely honourable. Americans are thinking in terms of the ‘war’ on terrorism and the neo-cons are thinking in terms of the US’s strategic and most probably commercial interests.

The US intervention in Vietnam was as far as I know actually based on the idea of halting the spread of ‘evil communism’, which might be seen as honourable in the light of their view of it. However the policy makers were blinked by this view and didn’t look at the historical and political framework they were stepping into. In Guatemala US interests were far less than honourable but they used the ‘communist’ threat as a means to win approval or acquiescence for action, but in that case they had allies there in the shape of the wealthy and right wing of the country.

Since I don’t think those that wanted an Iraqi invasion had the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind I don’t think the invasion was honourable, but it was sold to the American public as part of the ‘terrorist’ threat. However I also think the hawks became blinked by what they wanted and haven’t taken into account of the historical, political and religious framework into which they have stepped.

I think people should stop seeing in black and white and stop thinking of Iraq in terms of the War on Terror because just like the other arc’s like the ‘Cold War’ it can be more misleading than helpful.

 

Balbus,

As I've said before, I agree that Bush "jumped the gun" in Iraq. However, it must be remembered that virtually all major players involved at the time "knew" Saddam had WMD. He apparently wanted everyone to believe this. His bluff got called, and now he's history. I don't find his departure from the scene all that regrettable. Constantly lamenting Bush's decision to invade accomplishes nothing. The naysayers offer no constructive ideas for how to move forward from here. It seems that many of them would rather see Iraq descend into chaos, just to reinforce their hatred of Bush.

 

Unless youve failed to notice, our invasion is what unleashed and continues to maintain the chaos in Iraq. Pulling out would allow the open wound to heal, just not necessarily as our grasping neo-con merchants of death would wish. Tough shit for them!

 

A Christopher Hitchens quote is in order here:

"I have no hesitation in describing this mentality, carefully and without heat, as soft on crime and soft on fascism. No political coalition is possible with such people and, I'm thankful to say, no political coalition with them is now necessary. It no longer matters what they think."

- from http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens20010924

 

And your point is?

 

So our invasion "unleased chaos" in Iraq, and you are nostalgic for the good old days where Saddam orchestrated mass killings which were not chaotic but in fact highly organised and methodical.

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that pulling out would somehow result in spontaneous peace and freedom.

 

The point of my posts on this occasion was to look at the thinking behind the actions not the actual actions themselves.

Why did Americans believe that the attack on Saddam was a response to the 9/11 attacks? Why do they us the ‘War on Terror’ framework to justify what seem to me like actions and policies that are dubious or counter productive even form an Americans self image ‘UnAmerican’ such as Guantanamo, abu ghaib, Bagrum, the Partriot act?

My criticism of much of US foreign policy comes down to an unquestioning American public and its manipulation by authority. That because such manipulation is so easily accepted those in power are able to get away with simplistic policies that don’t take into account of the situation and context into which they move due to being blinked by their own agenda. And that the American people because it placed many events within the context of a ‘good aim’ accepted activities they otherwise would (I hope) deplore.



**

It is well know and documented that many of the people that pushed for the invasion of Iraq had been advocating such action before the Bush Admin came to power and were still strongly advocating it from within the White House, once they got in power but BEFORE 9/11. Their stated reasons were not the toppling of Saddam in fact they make it clear that his presence although fortuitous as an enemy of the US was not necessary, there concerns were strategic -

"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."

The country was also seen as easily conquerable it had been under sanctions for 12 years and most of it’s airspace was not it’s own and swept of air defences. It was as Wolfowitz said to be a ‘cake walk’.

(So why would control of Iraq have strategic importance?)

So it seems clear that a powerful faction within the Bush admin used the 9/11 tragedy to promote an agenda of their own.

It was pointed out by many defence and security analysis (including the UK governments) that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was likely to increase the growth of extremist Islamic terrorism, since western troops especially Americans would be seen as Christian ‘crusaders’ and also that the it would have an destabilising effect on the area.

So whatever your view on the WMD evidence, this war was presented to the American people as being part of the ‘war on terror’ I think that was a manipulation of the truth and of the ‘good aim’.

Also it seems to me that the people pushing the Iraqi invasion had their own agenda which was simplistic and ill conceived.

**

Constantly lamenting Bush's decision to invade accomplishes nothing.

It is interesting that you should use the word ‘lamenting’ with it’s link to mourning and grief, it invokes very much the sorrow I feel, not for the passing of Saddam I hated the fucking bastard, but for America because I think it is just repeating the mistakes of it’s past.

As to offering constructive ideas I have given many along the way but I now fear that this play is so far advanced that all the mistakes already made make it difficult to save whatever is done.

Also I think the remedies would be unacceptable to the political and economic elite and with the American public which still believes that Iraq is about the ‘War on Terror’.

I mean how would you have changed US policy in Vietnam at the early stages? Politicians were committed, the military said it could handle it and the majority of the US public believed the anti-Communist cause a righteous one.

I’m not an advocate of just pulling US troops out, if that had happened in Vietnam there was a force which for good or ill was capable of bringing stable government, that is not the case in Iraq, the power vacuum that would be caused would most probably end in a form of Afghan warlordism. But the US needs to fade away and to show that it has absolutely no desire to be there but great willingness to help, this means relinquishing control and opening it’s wallet even wider with the realisation there is going to see little return on the investment.

To start -

All contracts going to US firms need to be rescinded and given where possible to local people (with grants and interest free loans given my the US), if not possible the contracts should go to non US connected Islamic firms, then European, and only as a last resort go to US firms.

Overall military command should be relinquished by the US, there should be no connection at all with the Pentagon except to pay the bills. The new commanders should be appointed by the UN but exclude Americans, and they should be ratified by the Arab League.

All money held by the US federal reserve and the aid money held at the desecration of the US government would be handed over to a neutral country to hold.

The 14 ‘enduring’ bases would be given up and the US would sign an agreement that it cannot have independent control of Iraqi land except for a reasonably sized embassy.

 

As to Christopher Hitchins he is one of natures contraians, bless him, he’d argue that black was white just for the fun of it. It is also funny to note that his brother Peter Hitchins whose a well known right wing pundit was totally against the war. Maybe since they were so used to being on opposite ends of an argument that Chris had to be in favour.

 

Christopher Hitchens could give Kerry a lesson or two in "flip-flopping" thats for sure. LOL!

 

Point, great to have you back.

Although it is sad to see your arguments haven’t improved I think I’ve shown just how pathetic and simplistic is the either/or form of arguement.

So since someone doesn’t like the present situation in Iraq then they therefore must have liked the way Saddam ran things? Come on Point please explain why?