Do you believe the Iraq War can be justified?

[Richo83]

^^ As distasteful as the Mullah's that rule Iran are, there is a certain delicious irony about the way that played out

Interesting article from today's McClatchy

Iraq war's cost: Loss of U.S. power, prestige, influence

Last two figures are the sticking point for the US, how can they actually make Iraq a viable, successful nation, it needs to encourage the doctors to come back, get the kids in school (this is what I was saying, build schools not scud missiles) encourage the refugees to return, get the oil flowing into Iraqi hands and Iraq will be a success. Of course it will take baby steps but the best thing the US can do is make Iraq safe, it will encourage investment and development. The US is just starting to do that, which is good to see.

 

[TheBloods]

Uhuh.

Still, invading Iraq was hardly good for stability.

1. It invaded a nation for reasons clearly false
2. It removed the leadership and didn't replace it for some time now
3. It left a power vacuum for people to fill with all sorts of religious extremists.
4. Which also allowed said extremists to exploit religious differences to suit their political agenda (Shi'te Sunni groups, who have got along in the past)
5. It also set up a state for Iran to use and abuse for it's own political purposes, and possibly Saudi Arabia too.
6. It increased the image (right or wrong, whether you think it's accurate or not is irrelevant) in the eyes of extremists of the US being a meddling imperialist infidel force on Muslim lands.

So a few of those problems have been solved, it would have been a hell of alot better if the Americans actually had an entry plan. First three-four years of the Iraq war were an disaster, democracy being the only saving point.

Yep. No plans and no idea.

 

[Richo83]

Yep. No plans and no idea.

Wow, that was easy. Was bracing myself there.

In reality they should have invaded Saudi Arabia, wahabbist dictatorship in which 15 of the 20 hijackers came from and where many Islamist terrorist cells come from. Clearly the Saudi government is doing nothing to curb Islamism, itself being a Shar'ia law based government.

Shoula, coulda, woulda, didn't.

 

[TheBloods]

I've said all along that the Iraqi invasion and its aftermath were poorly planned.

Something needed to be done about Saddam as he was an ongoing threat to stability in the region and virtually all leaders in the region agreed.

Invading Saudi Arabia would have been a disaster from so many different angles.

A successful invasion and conversion of Iraq would have been a far better way to address issues in Saudi Arabia.

 

[bit_pattern]

Something needed to be done about Saddam as he was an ongoing threat to stability in the region and virtually all leaders in the region agreed.

Bollocks. Let's see some evidence that anyone in the region saw Iraq as a threat. By 2003 Iraq had suffered 12 years of devestating sanctions, Saddam was a spent force, everybody in the region knew that. Saddam the 'threat' was always a concoction of American propaganda.

 

[GuruJane]

Wow, that was easy. Was bracing myself there.

In reality they should have invaded Saudi Arabia, wahabbist dictatorship in which 15 of the 20 hijackers came from and where many Islamist terrorist cells come from. Clearly the Saudi government is doing nothing to curb Islamism, itself being a Shar'ia law based government.

Shoula, coulda, woulda, didn't.

How feasible would it have been to invade Saudi Arabia and replace it with a representative democracy when Saudi Arabia is the custodian of Mecca?

Instead they invaded Iraq and replaced that govt with a representative democracy because Saddam's Baath tyrannical regime was generally hated by all its neighbours. Furthermore the only important Muslim holy sites there were Shiite - 60 per cent of the Iraq population who were being repressed and slaughtered by Saddam's thugs.

So. The US invasion liberated the Shiites, and the Kurds in the north - which together comprise 80% of the population there. They then put in place the first and only genuine representative democracy and democratic constitution in the entire Arab world, voted in by 10 million Iraqis. Now the Sunnis have come to their senses and put themselves under the protection of the new sultan.

Eventually, Richo, the residents of Saudi Arabia, particularly their substantial shiite population, will start demanding the same political rights as their Iraqi brethryn enjoys ... whereupon the Saudis will have to start granting them or face an insurrection.

I hope this explains to you all the underlying US strategy to bring democracy to the Middle East and why Saudi Arabia would have been a foolish choice?

 

[bit_pattern]

So. The US invasion liberated the Shiites, and the Kurds in the north - which together comprise 80% of the population there. They then put in place the first and only genuine representative democracy and democratic constitution in the entire Arab world, voted in by 10 million Iraqis.

And who will soon answer to Iran

 

[TheBloods]

Bollocks. Let's see some evidence that anyone in the region saw Iraq as a threat. By 2003 Iraq had suffered 12 years of devestating sanctions, Saddam was a spent force, everybody in the region knew that. Saddam the 'threat' was always a concoction of American propaganda.

Of course he was a threat. The moderate Arab nations frequently made comment to that effect, publicly and privately. He still had enormous reserves of oil and once sanctions were removed he would have a viable military force again within a couple of years. Why would he not revert to military adventures again? It's not like he suddenly would have discovered peace!

 

[bit_pattern]

Of course he was a threat. The moderate Arab nations frequently made comment to that effect, publicly and privately. He still had enormous reserves of oil and once sanctions were removed he would have a viable military force again within a couple of years. Why would he not revert to military adventures again? It's not like he suddenly would have discovered peace!

As I said, let's see some of these quotes. Quotes that show Iraq's neighbours perceived it as a threat prior to the US propaganda drive during the post-911 period.

 

[Niximus]

Oh really?

so you concur the americans lied to invade iraq? what was the purpose of the invasion if there weren't any WMDs? if there wasn't any link to S11 from saddam?

I wouldn't say lied, I believe they thought there was a reasonably high chance that saddam had WMD's but that wasn't their sole motivation it was just the easiest to sell

tens of thousands dead? hundreds of billions wasted?

it was about controlling currency, controlling the flow of oil, transferring billions from domestic programs to corporate entities aligned to bush/cheney families.

have a look at the winners and losers.

losers? iraq, the american people, the american econoomy
winners? the carlyle group, beoing, haliburton, lockheed martin...tens of billions if not hundreds of billions have been surupticiously transferred through ridiculous profiteering contracts from the american purse to a handful of corporations.

There are winners in any war. Corporations have benefited time and time again but that does not imply a conspiracy.

 

[Niximus]

The problem for you is two fold 1/ You believe the mainstream media and the reality it portray's 2/ I have much more knowledge of this area and you will never have access to it.

The problem for you is two fold 1/ You automatically disbelieve the mainstream media. You are expecting to be told untruths and you want to see conspiracys. 2/ You claim secret knowledge but display none.

 

[dan warna]

The problem for you is two fold 1/ You automatically disbelieve the mainstream media. You are expecting to be told untruths and you want to see conspiracys. 2/ You claim secret knowledge but display none.

a bit like the fools who believed the dossier = turned out to be crap lies

a bit like the fools who believed the chemical trucks = turned to be made up

a bit like the fools who believed rumsfelds 'iron clad' guarantees about, well anything really

yes I expect that much of which a politician says will be a lie, and time and time again I'm proven right in the long term.

pity the fools who believed the liberal lies during their term in government
pity the fools who believe that k.rudd will be a panacaea for all their woes

 

[jumpinjimmy]

The problem for you is two fold 1/ You automatically disbelieve the mainstream media. You are expecting to be told untruths and you want to see conspiracys. 2/ You claim secret knowledge but display none.

I never "caste pearls in front of swine".

 

[jumpinjimmy]

Apart from the simpleton call,quality polemic.

I agree, she didn't warrant that and I didn't need to say it. I just get frustrated when people swimming in their own 'framing' refuse to look behind the curtain.

 

[bit_pattern]

Iraqis don't credit US for safer lives

Poll Finds Iraqis' Attitudes More Hopeful, but Do Not Credit US-Led Invasion

WILLIAM C. MANN
AP News

Mar 17, 2008 05:38 EST

Iraqis are finding their lives more hopeful but give the United States little credit for the improvement, an international media poll finds.

Instead, poll respondents credited the Iraqi government, police and army.

The poll, released Monday to observe this week's fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, was commissioned by ABC News in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corp., ARD German TV and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

The Bush administration has credited an increase of 30,000 troops for a decrease in violence, which it says has improved the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

In the poll, however, more than half the Iraqis, 53 percent, felt that the rapid buildup of U.S. troops in Anbar province and in Baghdad has made overall security worse, not better. Even those negative findings, however, were a sharp improvement since a similar poll last August. Then, 70 percent said the American buildup had made matters worse in the areas it had emphasized. Only 18 percent said it had improved their conditions then, compared with 36 percent now.

The nationwide poll found the Iraqis' negative assessment of the rapid troop buildup came from all categories of respondents. Still, the poll responses reflected the overall improved assessment of conditions now as opposed to August, the month after the buildup was fully in place.

Regarding security, political dialogue, ability of the Iraqi government and economic development, 42 percent to 53 percent of the respondents found the situation worse. Those findings were down by 17 points to 27 points from the same questions eight months ago.

Poll organizers said such ratings reflect lingering negative feelings toward the March 2003 invasion.

"Direct ratings of the surge likely reflect the United States' general unpopularity," the poll's writers said. When "viewed through the filter of general antipathy toward the United States," they wrote, the drop in negative sentiment is notable.

In line with that, the poll's findings on "views of the U.S. presence" in Iraq were the highest since the invasion. Asked whether the "invasion was right," 49 percent said it was. The previous high had been 48 percent in the first poll of the series, by ABC News in February 2004, a virtual tie with the current level due to the poll's 2.5 percent error margin.

In August, 57 percent of Iraqis had replied that it was "acceptable" to attack U.S. forces. The poll released Monday found that number had dropped to 42 percent.

Likewise, 47 percent said last August that the foreign coalition's forces should leave Iraq. In the new poll, that had dropped to 38 percent.

The poll showed that Iraq's sectarian problems remain huge. Asked to evaluate their own lives, the country's current condition and whether they expect better lives for their children, the mood of the Sunni Muslim minority was bleaker than that of either the non-Arab Kurdish minority or the Shiite Arab majority.

More than eight in 10 Sunni Arabs said the condition of the country was bad; just over half of the Kurds, most of whom are Sunni, also felt that the things were going badly. Of the Shiites, who are 60 percent of the population and control the government, fewer than four in 10 found things were going badly.

Despite improvements, overall security remained the country's main problem in the minds of most Iraqis.

At the same time, most reported that their own lives were going well. In August, fewer than four in 10 said that; in the new poll, 55 percent said it. More than six in 10 said local security was good, 19 percentage points higher than in August.

Looking ahead, however, fewer than half expect their country to be better in a year's time. Still, that number, 46 percent, is twice the percentage of last August, when only 23 percent expected a better year ahead.

The poll was conducted Feb. 12-20 through interviews with a random sample of 2,228 Iraqi adults, including oversamples in Anbar province and in Baghdad and other major cities. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=89382

 

[jumpinjimmy]

There are winners in any war. Corporations have benefited time and time again but that does not imply a conspiracy.

Are you channeling Benito Mussolini?

 

[Niximus]

I never "caste pearls in front of swine".

Because your 'sources' are conspiracy nut websites.

 

[jumpinjimmy]

Because your 'sources' are conspiracy nut websites.

Yes Junior, console yourself with that belief.

 

[Niximus]

Yes Junior, console yourself with that belief.

Put up or shut up.

 

[GuruJane]

I know he isn't anti-war, simpleton. It was you who placed him in the anti-war context in an earlier post!

No I didn't! I specifically referred to him as being "anti US", which he was at that time as US was engaged in reactionary policies. Now he argues that history has overcome the US and forced it to imposing (progressive) bourgeois democracies instead of replacing it with the similar fascist regimes that it it used to prop up. LSP sees this as evidence of US weakness. Am not sure I agree with the latter, but I do agree with their basic premise: ie the march of history compelled the US after 9/11 to reverse Kissinger realism and the removal of the Baath regime in Iraq was the inevitable result.

In contrast, the "anti war" brigade of 2003 did not understand the distinction. Indeed they do not seem to understand the concept of right wing "fascism" at all. Perhaps that's because of their age and inadequate education?

The wicked irony is that this fascist imperialism you support, but are too distracted to see, if successful would come for you and your ilk first. As for history moving on. LOL. Central Planning of all kind is dead in the hearts of men and is only waiting the executioners bullet.

????????? Last time I looked Iraq had a sovereign, democratic, bourgeois constitution voted in by 10 million Iraqis in October, 2005? The very first in the reactionary, Arab world?

 

[jumpinjimmy]

No I didn't! I specifically referred to him as being "anti US", which he was at that time as US was engaged in reactionary policies. Now he argues that history has overcome the US and forced it to imposing (progressive) bourgeois democracies instead of replacing it with the similar fascist regimes that it it used to prop up. LSP sees this as evidence of US weakness. Am not sure I agree with the latter, but I do agree with their basic premise: ie the march of history compelled the US after 9/11 to reverse Kissinger realism and the removal of the Baath regime in Iraq was the inevitable result.

In contrast, the "anti war" brigade of 2003 did not understand the distinction. Indeed they do not seem to understand the concept of right wing "fascism" at all. Perhaps that's because of their age and inadequate education?



????????? Last time I looked Iraq had a sovereign, democratic, bourgeois constitution voted in by 10 million Iraqis in October, 2005? The very first in the reactionary, Arab world?

Is it too late to retract my retraction regarding the 'simpleton' slur?

 

[evo]

Don't worry about it Jimmy.Jane is a tough ol' stick.

She,like the Iraqi democracy apparently is positively rambunctious!

 

[jumpinjimmy]

Don't worry about it Jimmy.Jane is a tough ol' stick.

She,like the Iraqi democracy apparently is positively rambunctious!

...Do you think she will convert to Gnosticism on her deathbed????? Or carry a picture of Trotsky? As for the Iraqi democracy, I heard they had to ban great numbers of people from taking part in the Iraqi election because they were disrupting the queue's with their general jocularity and 'pranksterism'.

 

[jumpinjimmy]

Put up or shut up.

Thankfully you chose the second option. As for 'putting-up' junior I hear the yanks are running short of volunteers, any chance you might offer up your services? However meagre they may be.

 

[jumpinjimmy]

Bye Evo, good to see you again