So what's this War about anyway?

[Oliver]

oops! I should have realized that I'm replying in a non-American thread.

It's like trying to explain the second amendment to the clueless.

I will bow out gracefully as to knot feed the trolls.

Whatever. Welcome to the real world with -oh wonder- real people living outside the US.

 

[Pardalis]

Saddam was harmless to other countries in that area.

I don't agree. Nobody is that innocent and harmless when sitting on such an important resource, and when situated in such a strategic location. I think saddam, or his sons (remember one of them was a loony), might have set the spark that could have ignited the Middle East (and it wouldn't have required incredible means to have done so). But of course we will never know, Bush took that gamble.

But I'll agree that the war (especially the way it was done) didn't help either. But I think something would have had to be done about Hussein one way or the other...

Of course IMHO.

 

[Roswell-Perseis]

It's an ensemble of reasons in my opinion. It's not just personal reasons, not just about oil, not just about democratizing the Middle East, it's not just about radical Islam and terrorism, not just Israel, it's all of them, and others (China is not far away).

And "Imperialism", as Oliver wants so badly it to be, sounds just too simplistic to me because of the negative connotations of the word.

Can I ask you to expound on China-- I studied the country alot in my econ class and am wondering what you mean.

I know imperialism is an easy way out, but if that was a reason it is the worst. I mean, unless he can be installed permanently, Bush II doesn't actually get to colonize and exploit these people. The odds that an imperialist effort would take root in a couple of years is slim . . .

I don't think we will know for years what exactly went in to this, although I know it is hard to stop guessing.

 

[OMGturt1es]

[*]Saddam was no threat at the time or "in the future"

i think it takes a very niave perspective to consider saddam to be "no threat". i don't think he was a huge threat, but i certainly wouldn't ask him to take care of my cats while i was away. but seriously, even just the presence of those in the middle east that "stand up to the west" can be used as evidence by terrorists that the west is weak, etc. i'm not saying i think that saddam was much of a threat for this reason, but just giving a simple example of how it's not quite as simple as "saddam was no threat..."

[*]Had no nuclear Weapons of Mass destruction

we had every reason to believe that he still had the old stockpile that he had used in the past, because he was saddam, and he didn't mind rules. we had evidence that he was seeking further weaponry. some of this evidence has been demonstrated to be incorrect.

there have been two reports i recall reading from fox's website that are relavent here. in neither case did i have a chance to actually hold these reports to scrutiny, so i'm not posting these as evidence, simply as possible points of interest that may be 100% crap. fox reported that evidence existed that saddam was actively attempting to rebuild his weapons program prior to US invasion, and that he did show some interest in a nuclear program. fox also reported that ~ 500 chemical weapons from his original stockpile were found, but that they had degraded to the point that they were largely useless. if you are interested, i'd suspect that googling these topics may either bring interesting evidence that saddam was a threat, or interesting evidence that fox does suck. personally, already believe both conditions to be true, and i'm pressed for time, so researching those reports is simply on my "to do" list...

[*]Wouldn't have used them anyway against the US because he was mad but not dumb

probably not, unless he could muster a plan in which he could stay innocent. the bigger problem, as i see it, is the existence of nukes in the middle east in general. while saddam did have his people very well under control, if iraq did destabilize, the weapons would be in the hands of whoever managed to seize power.

[*]Was opposed to terrorists

he was a terrorist-- to his own people. he opposed any power struggle within iraq because he wanted absolute power. terrorists that didn't threaten his power were of no concern.

[*]The whole crap had nothing to do with 9/11
[*]The whole crap had nothing to do with 9/11
[*]And the whole crap had nothing to do with 9/11?[/LIST]

not directly, and hardly even indirectly.

i've always hated hearing folk trying to support the US efforts in iraq by emotionally questioning "remember them two towers? huh?"

So? What is it beside the official fairytale?
Freedom and Democracy for Iraq? *Bwahahaha* Nice Try.

i think that world wide events are largely complex. i seriously doubt that the US involvement in iraq can be nailed down to "100% crap" or "100% great". i also doubt that any leaders can accurately interpret the actions of other leaders and the events in other areas, so i think it's obvious that honest mistakes occur.

in the case of iraq specifically, i think that an appreciation of the complexity of the entire middle east, and the rest of the world, should help to attain a more balanced view. in my view, the whole situation sucks, and it's probably going to suck no matter what. i certainly can understand why some folks agree with US involvement in iraq, and i can certainly understand why others don't. i just hope that the US can help to acheive security and economic security for the poor people of iraq, because they've suffered terrible conditions under a ruthless dictator, and they deserve the basics that we all take for granted. if i were a better person, i'd volunteer to help rebuild, but i'm a selfish coward.

 

[Oliver]

I don't agree. Nobody is that innocent and harmless when sitting on such an important resource, and when situated in such a strategic location. I think saddam, or his sons (remember one of them was a loony), might have set the spark that could have ignited the Middle East. But of course we will never know, Bush took that gamble.

But I'll agree that the war (especially the way it was done) didn't help either. But I think something would have had to be done about Hussein one way or the other...

Of course IMHO.

I wouldn't care if they had pulled out after they learned that they had no evidence whatsoever. But I want to know what the real reasons are to understand the next military interventions.

And I also start to doubt that this is a Dem/Rep thing - meaning that there is no real opposition behind the strategical scene.

 

[Pardalis]

Can I ask you to expound on China-- I studied the country alot in my econ class and am wondering what you mean.

I'm not sure I know for sure myself, but since China is obviously going to be the next economical superpower, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me that it would be beneficiary for the US to have a foothold nearby. But I must admit I haven't really looked into that angle much.

 

[steverino]

Saddam was harmless to other countries in that area.

Israel & Iran for fifty, Alex.

 

[knot]

The world stage is a complex multilevel chess game where strategy is everything including losing a few pieces for a greater advantage. Those who lack greater foresight and have the mindset of checkers will never understand.

I now bow out.

 

[OMGturt1es]

The world stage is a complex multilevel chess game where strategy is everything including losing a few pieces for a greater advantage. Those who lack greater foresight and have the mindset of checkers will never understand.

I now bow out.

i suck so bad at chess. i get bored and just start trying things to see what happens. my name in chess in "apple sauce".

 

[The Great Hairy One]

It's an ensemble of reasons in my opinion. It's not just personal reasons, not just about oil, not just about democratizing the Middle East, it's not just about radical Islam and terrorism, not just Israel, it's all of them, and others (China is not far away).

And "Imperialism", as Oliver wants so badly it to be, sounds just too simplistic to me because of the negative connotations of the word.

I don't think Imperialism is a valid reason, really. Imperialism could be served much closer to home, via annexing Venezuela.

Yes, I agree it's a mix of reasons. But I still believe that Bush II's core reason is to prove to his Daddy that he's the better man. The advisers and pollies surrounding Bush II can try to add their own spin, but without Bush II wanting to wave his genitalia all over the place, they would not have got anywhere.

oops! I should have realized that I'm replying in a non-American member thread.

It's like trying to explain the second amendment to the clueless.

I will bow out gracefully as to knot feed the trolls.

I am not a troll. I am asking you to provide proof that GW II was started for reasons other than Bush II wanting to impress the rest of the world and his Dad with the size of his manly organ.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[a_unique_person]

Israel & Iran for fifty, Alex.

He had no means of carrying out any more military adventures, the remnants of his aging arsenal were clearly incapable of even defending the Dubya invasion. This was well known.

 

[UserGoogol]

I think that to a point, the question is stupid. Wars aren't "about" anything, they simply are what they are. People involved in the war have motives, but each person has different motives and these motives can change over time. I suspect that the Bush Administration publicly presented a case for war back in 2002 that was not exactly their own motives, but that's politics.

As for imperialism, well... that depends on what you mean by imperialism. A major motivation was probably a Project for the New American Century inspired feeling of "Hey, if we can set up a democratic regime in the Middle East, we'll show the terrorists that you can't f*** with us and the democracy will lead to rainbows and lollipops for the good guys." (Which I don't think was something that exactly super-secret at the time.) That's not really imperialism by the dictionary definition of imperialism, and would probably be better described as a sort of... self-interested humanitarian quasi-hegemony but whatever. Getting worked up over semantics is a bit pointless.

If the war is bad (and I think it is) it is because the consequences of the war have been bad and were avoidable, not because of any handwringing about the motives.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

if i were a better person, i'd volunteer to help rebuild, but i'm a selfish coward.

Fortunately there are those who continue to volunteer, despite the possilibity of an untimely death, and real, good, tangible things are happening in Iraq despite the frequent killings. Those 'things' just don't sell rags, so they don't get the press.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

i think it takes a very niave perspective to consider saddam to be "no threat".

Saddam's threat level was, after GW I, pretty much completely minimal. The guy didn't have enough military power to take on New Zealand, let alone Syria.

fox also reported that ~ 500 chemical weapons from his original stockpile were found, but that they had degraded to the point that they were largely useless.

Was this report ever collaborated? As far as I am aware, there were absolutely no WMDs discovered in Iraq at any point during GW II. The question was raised in the Australian Parliament recently, and Howard (the Aussie PM) was badly embarrassed when he was forced to admit that no WMDs were uncovered.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[a_unique_person]

According to Andrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wilkie

The war was about

Prestige and projection of power.
Military presence in a strategic area (Saudi didn't really want the troops on it's soil any more).
Oil
Israel.


Roughly in order of importance.

WMD didn't really figure except as a selling point.

In the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, the Australian, UK and U.S. governments were asserting that intelligence reports showed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction. Wilkie resigned at this time, claiming that the reports did not support such claims and in the years since his resignation, no valid evidence supporting the pre-war claims of weapons of mass destruction has ever been found.
Wilkie has stated that he increasingly encountered ethical conflict between his duty as an intelligence officer and his respect for the truth, and on 11 March 2003, he resigned from ONA and placed evidence of this conflict before the Australian public. In response to widespread opposition to the war, Wilkie gave extensive television interviews and accepted numerous offers of public speaking engagements.
Wilkie was subsequently called to give evidence to the official U.K and Australian enquiries into the government's case for involvement in the Iraq war.
In 2004, Wilkie published Axis of deceit[1], an account of the reasons for his decision and its results. He describes his views on the nature of intelligence agencies and the analyst's work, the history of the Iraq war, the untruths of politicians, and the attempts to suppress the truth.

 

[Oliver]

First of all, thank you for your detailed reply.

i think it takes a very niave perspective to consider saddam to be "no threat". i don't think he was a hige threat, but i certainly wouldn't ask him to take care of my cats while i was away.

He was no threat for the US, no matter what he did in his country. And even if this may sound unclear, from my non-US point of view I wouldn't give him my cat, either - being responsible for the deaths of these US-soldiers and hundred thousand civilians in Iraq.

we had every reason to believe that he still had the old stockpile that he had used in the past, because he was saddam, and he didn't mind rules. we had evidence that he was seeking further weaponry. some of this evidence has been demonstrated to be incorrect.

I have to disagree. While Tenet previously said they didn't had hard or even basic-justifying facts, also the weapon inspectors knew this for fact. And Joseph Wilson also knew it. (Plame affair)

there have been two reports i recall reading from fox's website that are relavent here. in neither case did i have a chance to actually hold these reports to scrutiny, so i'm not posting these as evidence, simply as possible points of interest that may be 100% crap. fox reported that evidence existed that saddam was actively attempting to rebuild his weapons program prior to US invasion, and that he did show some interest in a nuclear program. fox also reported that ~ 500 chemical weapons from his original stockpile were found, but that they had degraded to the point that they were largely useless. if you are interested, i'd suspect that googling these topics may either bring interesting evidence that saddam was a threat, or interesting evidence that fox does suck. personally, already believe both conditions to be true, and i'm pressed for time, so researching those reports is simply on my "to do" list...

That would be great because I didn't found any evidence that wasn't twisted, declared as actual or simply fabricated.

probably not, unless he could muster a plan in which he could stay innocent. the bigger problem, as i see it, is the existence of nukes in the middle east in general. while saddam did have his people very well under control, if iraq did destabilize, the weapons would be in the hands of whoever managed to seize power.

Well, if Nuclear Weapons are a problem in the Middle-East, it probably would have been an good Idea not to arm Israel because everyone down there want them, too now.

he was a terrorist-- to his own people. he opposed any power struggle within iraq because he wanted absolute power. terrorists that didn't threaten his power were of no concern.

That doesn't excuse an invasion. Not because Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi People but furthermore because he was no Terrorist by definition. A tyrant and murderer, yes.

not directly, and hardly even indirectly.

i've always hated hearing folk trying to support the US efforts in iraq by emotionally questioning "remember them two towers? huh?"

I can't talk for Americans - but I would hate our Politicians in a similar situation here because they used the citizens emotional shock to go to Iraq - beside the taxes to finance a war.

i think that world wide events are largely complex. i seriously doubt that the US involvement in iraq can be nailed down to "100% crap" or "100% great". i also doubt that any leaders can accurately interpret the actions of other leaders and the events in other areas, so i think it's obvious that honest mistakes occur.

I'm sorry to say that - but everything points to intention here. Personally I start to think that the current mess could be intended from the beginning. Meaning that the Administration had enough experts to predict it.

in the case of iraq specifically, i think that an appreciation of the complexity of the entire middle east, and the rest of the world, should help to attain a more balanced view. in my view, the whole situation sucks, and it's probably going to suck no matter what. i certainly can understand why some folks agree with US involvement in iraq, and i can certainly understand why others don't. i just hope that the US can help to acheive security and economic security for the poor people of iraq, because they've suffered terrible conditions under a ruthless dictator, and they deserve the basics that we all take for granted. if i were a better person, i'd volunteer to help rebuild, but i'm a selfish coward.

I hope so, too - and I really feel sorry for you guys that it went this way after the events of 9/11. Especially the loss of the ideal and leading role of America in the western world. But the next Administration may be able to repair the international damage.

 

[a_unique_person]

The world stage is a complex multilevel chess game where strategy is everything including losing a few pieces for a greater advantage. Those who lack greater foresight and have the mindset of checkers will never understand.

I now bow out.

Which is why Dubya and the PNAC were doomed from the start.

 

[Oliver]

Which is why Dubya and the PNAC were doomed from the start.

Not, and I know this is far-fetched, if this situation was intentionally - to create instabillity to keep the "Terror-Fairytale" alive. I mean now Al Qaida is in Iraq - if we choose to believe the CIA this time.

 

[OMGturt1es]

First of all, thank you for your detailed reply.

no problem, though i'm no expert on any of this. i'm very ignorant in the history, geography and politics of the middle east and of iraq. i think that you've taken too simplistic a view on your analysis of the US occupation of iraq, however, but i could be wrong.

He was no threat for the US, no matter what he did in his country. And even if this may sound unclear, from my non-US point of view I wouldn't give him my cat, either - being responsible for the deaths of these US-soldiers and hundred thousand civilians in Iraq.

i think he has been estimated to have killed over 300,000 of his own citizens. i could be wrong.

regardless, i had edited my post, and i think you quoted me prior to the edit. i think there are many ways that saddam was a threat to the united states, and to any other countries that he opposed, and i cited one example. i don't think he was a major threat, but i think that simply claiming that he was zero threat is a bit too simplistic.

I have to disagree. While Tenet previously said they didn't had hard or even basic-justifying facts, also the weapon inspectors knew this for fact. And Joseph Wilson also knew it. (Plame affair)

here's what i think is pretty well documented:

1. saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds.
2. saddam didn't mind simple UN restrictions.

from these, i think it can be induced that, assuming that saddam didn't exhaust his entire chemical stock pile on the kurds, that saddam probably wouldn't dispose of his weapons willfully, as he didn't really like to follow our rules.

of course, it's only induction, but it didn't help his case when he wouldn't let UN weapon inspectors in the country.

That would be great because I didn't found any evidence that wasn't twisted, declared as actual or simply fabricated.

and those reports could be any of the above. i would suspect that the headlines will be distortions of the actual content, but i really don't know for certain.

Well, if Nuclear Weapons are a problem in the Middle-East, it probably would have been an good Idea not to arm Israel because everyone down there want them, too now.

i think i agree. but i can see why folks in israel certainly would disagree, and i can see why the US is actively backing israel. in the grand scheme of things, my opinions are likely niave and worthless, so i'm not really going to pass much judgement here.

That doesn't excuse an invasion. Not because Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi People but furthermore because he was no Terrorist by definition. A tyrant and murderer, yes.

well, i think we're splitting hairs now. saddam used fear to gain power, and he created fear through torture, murder and violence. if that doesn't make saddam a terrorist, then i suggest that we simply stop using the word "terrorist".

and frankly, i don't think the label that we throw on him really matters. i think that saddam's actions matter. he was a ruthless, heartless, disgusting human, and even though i'm not certain the US involvement in iraq will lead to anything more positive, i'm glad that saddam was removed from power.

I can't talk for Americans - but I would hate our Politicians in a similar situation here because they used the citizens emotional shock to go to Iraq - beside the taxes to finance a war.

i've been torn on the US involvement in iraq from day one. i've been ever so slightly in support, but often on the fence, and sometimes against. i can remember the hype about WMDs and 911, but to me, those issues just seemed to be discussed more often because they were sexy. they brought in viewers, so advertisements could be sold. and, the administration isn't stupid. they aren't going to sell a war if they focus on the stuff that no one cares about.

i was very weary of any involvement in the middle east, and especially in iraq, because it seemed obvious from the start that destroying any existing power heirachy would require a very serious time committment. while i was, and still am, largely ignorant on these issues, i did think that the necessary occupation would be time consuming.

those that bought the WMD and 911 hype also seemed to buy the hype about iraq being a done deal. militarily, it has been a cake walk, but obviously, we're still there, as we removed their government. i don't really understand how others thought we'd be out of there in any short amount of time.

while i wish that the government hadn't duped so many people here, i'm more upset that these people are so easily and readily duped. these people are given sexy, ******** answers because anything that requires any thought doesn't sell. i'm ashamed of those here that supported the US involvement in iraq for stupid reasons, and didn't even give it thought enough to consider what we'd do once we removed saddam. i think it's quite sad that people could be behind this involvement, and then simply change their minds when it isn't finished within a year.

i respect those that have been against the war the entire time-- at least those that had arguments, and not catch phrases. at least they've had the guts to really have some sort of an opinion, while i've been largely undecided, which is much easier.

I'm sorry to say that - but everything points to intention here. Personally I start to think that the current mess could be intended from the beginning. Meaning that the Administration had enough experts to predict it.

i'm not sure what you're getting at. i think that some wanted US involvement in iraq. i think that the these people used 911 as a good chance to get into iraq.

that doesn't mean that these people didn't have any valid reasons for US involvement, nor does it mean that these people didn't have any nefarious reasons for US involvement; it means that these people understand that the american public-- much of it-- is intellectually lazy, so support has to be obtained when ever it can.

I hope so, too - and I really feel sorry for you guys that it went this way after the events of 9/11. Especially the loss of the ideal and leading role of America in the western world. But the next Administration may be able to repair the international damage.

i don't feel badly for us at all. we mostly live excellent lives, we have a good economy, and all the chances we need for success. we have plenty of food, water, shelter and entertainment, and our involvement in iraq probably isn't going to really affect us much at all. i feel badly for those that are not so lucky to be born in a place like the US, or any other modern, western country, where freedoms and food are taken for granted. i feel badly for the poor folk in iraq who have gone from one bad situation to another.

i don't like those that attempt to use the misery of the people of iraq to push political agenda. i think the people of iraq deserve serious, objective, argument, so that the best decisions can be made on their behalf. and i'm not one to have anything to do with those decisions. i'm sure many of my understandings of iraq and the middle east are inaccurate.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not, and I know this is far-fetched, if this situation was intentionally - to create instabillity to keep the "Terror-Fairytale" alive. I mean now Al Qaida is in Iraq - if we choose to believe the CIA this time.

It wasn't intentional. If you have to choose between the conspiracy and the stuff up, it's pretty well always the stuff up. Dubya and his pals are just totally incompetent. Look how long Wolfie lasted at the World Bank.