RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Yes.
Kerry: US troops are terrorists
- Thread starter Jocko
- Start date
-
- Tags
- terrorists troops
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Huh?
Useless answer.
Ok, let's say we did not invade Iraq and they pulled this, what should we do about Iran?
So, if Iran developing nukes is a consequence of the Iraq invasion, is it not also fair to say that free(r) elections in Egypt and Saudi, the liberation of Lebanon, the cooling tensions in Pakistan and of course Libya's voluntarily giving up WMD programs are also consequences?
Iran was definitely held in check by tensions (now removed) with Iraq.
Are the other developments (which you exaggerate) a result as well? I concede the possibility. Could you explain how the war in Iraq helped with the limited elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Also Lebanon, which, as far as I can tell, resulted more from Syria overplaying their hand than anything else.
Not to mention Pakistan...I don't see the connection with Iraq there at all.
But I am willing to read what you say about each.
Asked and answered, counselor. It would simply change the reason it happened. The fact remains that it did not happen until we reduced Iraq to impotence. Coincidence? Maybe.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
You're using legal terms incorrectly.
They were "removed" once Saddam was "contained and isolated," weren't they? You can't have it both ways, Mark. Either Saddam was toothless as of 1991 or he wasn't.
*cough*"whichIchoosetodownplay"*cough*
As far as you can tell, or as far as you're willing to admit? I mean, come on... Iran goes nuclear, automatically/obviously/instantly Bush's fault. Half a dozen other middle eastern countries undergo significant political improvements in the same YEAR, and that's "inconclusive." Come on, Mark, it won't kill you to actually admit that there are good consequences to the war as well.
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
Well, your original comment had to do with military force leading to democratization ... "Democratizing a forgien country through military force seems like a contradiction in terms." So then we can blame the French for doing this along with us? True, the French didn't just come over and force it upon us, but I'm sure we had words with them prior to the Revolutionary War for Independence.
But the situation is different -- we just didn't pick a nasty country at random either. Saddam was a long time thorn not just his people but to neighbors as well. And we were still under a cease-fire scenario 12 years later. Letting him continue to get away with what he was doing as well as allowing his sons to take over after him would not have been acceptable.
A good point that I admit I did not consider. You have convinced me, and I withdraw the Iraq power vacuum from direct blame for the current Iranian nuclear threat. However, I still maintain that Iran is moving forward, at least in part, because they know we are spread too thin.
See above. My question to you was serious and open minded. How did the invasion of Iraq accomplish these things? I admit the possibility; I cannot imagine the circumstance.
Possible; but any action we take is likely to be guided by laser and delivered from 35,000 feet, not on the ground.
It's tricky because no one is going to come right out and say, "holy crap, the US is serious about pushing reform, better get on board before I get steamrolled." But the best evidence is the sheer number of reforms, big and small, all happening in the span of a year and a half. The chances of it all being coincidental are stupefyingly small.
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
Iran was moving forward with nuclear activity prior to us invading Iraq -- this did not happen over night. The same happened (and is happening) with North Korea, despite agreements under President Clinton. I'm sure both are quite pleased to see us having troubles in Iraq, but I don't believe their policies regarding the posession of nukes rests with that.
Last edited:
You seriously have never seen in your life a reaction of "Holy ****!!! That big, mean, strong, tough guy over there got pissed off, and just beat the **** out of that guy that's been annoying him for years. I'd better walk a little more carefully now, because I don't want to be next. I always thought he was just a bunch of hot air. But, wow...he really beat the **** out of that guy!!! I didn't think he would actually snap and go through with it. But I guess he will. I'll have to be a bit more cooperative with him from now on, because I really don't want to piss him off."?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
What? that's exactly my point. We asked the French to help us in our revolution, our war on our soil. The impetus for change came from within, rather than from a foreign country.
The Iraq War is different. To the best of my knowledge, there was no Iraqi revolutionaries who negotiated with us for our assistance in their war. The Iraq War is our war on their soil.
Can we blame the French? No. They weren't using military force to push democracy on us. We asked them for help with our plans, not theirs.
Wait a minute. We were talking about the ethics of using military forces to ...force a foreign nation into a democracy. That has nothing to do with how awful that nation's current government is.
The British Empire was a thorn in France's side too. If I remember correctly, part of the reason France helped us was to spite England. That doesn't change the fact that change came from within, not from the outside.
Actually, I think "how awful that nation's current government is" is the most important part of the entire decision making process.
The ones who did were massacred in '91.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Not on the sole issue of forcing a way of life on another people, it isn't.
I didn't say it was the only criteria. Just the one that I consider to be the most important.
I hope you are correct.
As I said above, Lebanon, at the least, clearly had its own reasons and motives that were not related to our invasion at all. That whole region is constantly in a state of flux...I remain skeptical about any connection with our invasion and the examples given
Freakshow, I have not seen anything that equates with a country saying, "Holy ◊◊◊◊." Rather the opposite, actually. I remain open to the (to me remote) possibility if someone will just show me the mechanism. Iran's hardliners gained the upper hand again after our invasion.
Last edited:
Just thinking
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2004
- Messages
- 5,169
Forcing?
The people in Iraq are having quite a say in that each time an election is held they come out in number, despite the curtain of death over them for such actions. Are you suggesting our force in "getting-out-the-vote" is greater than the threat of death from the insurgents? ... or that there may be other issues at play? Such as the taste of freedom and self rule.
Another big difference is that Saddam had made sure that uprisings could not occur -- unless I'm mistaken and the ownership of firearms was a protected right to the citizenry.
Last edited: