Can we have an honest discussion on Iraq?

[xavier86]

I'm a Democrat, I voted for Kerry, I don't like Bush, I hate the Christian right and all that jazz. I don't live in America, I live in Cyprus. I watch BBC News/Euronews, not CNN, Fox or anything else.

But I supported the war originally, and I still overall think what we did there was a good thing. I supported it for humanitarian reasons.

I call myself a liberal/progressive because I believe in civil rights, human rights, freedom democracy and such. I don't see how Iraq should be an exception.

Whatever you say about me being influenced by media propaganda, I don't watch American news, so I couldn't tell you about that. I thought it was the right thing to do to remove Saddam Hussein.

I supported it for the same reason I supported Kosovo and Bosnia. We saw what happened in Belgrade in October 2000. Milosevic was severly weakened by Clinton's bombing campaign in Kosovo, and it gave the people a chance to rise up and topple that dictator.

I go to an international school. All the serbian students the next day were smiling at me.

Same with Iraq, back in April 2003, I went to my barber who is Iraqi and he was so happy that we went in there and toppled Saddam. (I don't use the word 'liberate' because then I'll sound too much like a neocon ;))

It's horrible that we've lost 1,500 of our sons and daughters in the ensuing violence. It's horrible that 10,000+ Iraqi civilians have lost their lives. But we don't have a draft like we did in Vietnam. My heart goes out to families of the deceased :(

Back to topic, I would like to discuss the issue of democracy and dictatorship in Iraq. As progressives, how can we reconcile appearing to be apologists for Saddam's regime, while at the same time being supportive of democracy and human rights? What that regime did was horrible, and the crimes against humanity are fully documented. Should we be opposed to the war simply because Bush did it? I don't support Bush, I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But just because I don't support Bush means I should oppose the war (and thus call for a return to Saddam in power?) It confuses me...

That's what I'd like to discuss....

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

82. We have honest discussions about Iraq all the time but w/o RW,...

,...or neocon "talking points". We have honest discussions about the intentional misrepresentation used to lead us to war in Iraq; about the devastation to 100,000 innocent men/women/children who did NOTHING to harm us; about the the cost in American lives and American treasure; about a protracted war (Wolfie said we'd be there six months max); about a so-called "election" which included choosing among 1500 UNNAMED candidates; about how the war in Iraq has further inflamed anti-Americanism around the globe thereby increasing the risk of terrorism; about the REAL underlying motivations of neoCONs and the PNAC which has little to do with "freedom" or spreading "democracy" and much more to do with a strong country imposing its will upon weaker countries and manipulating their natural resources into a few profiteer's hands; about the $2.3 TRILLION dollars Rummy "misplaced" and cannot account for and the $9 BILLION dollars Bremer and the neoCON imperialists LOST; about the continued violence, poverty, death and chaos in Iraq; about the neoCONs gross profiteering from was (Richard Perle actually set up a meeting prior to the war to advise fellow capitalists on how to best capitalize off war).

We have honest discussion about Iraq ALL THE TIME!!!

[Smarmie Doofus]

113. Nicely summarized and well put.

[Just Me]

135. Thanks. I was happy to see the OP put to rest - RIP *smile*.

[ashmanonar]

3. yep, all over the middle east.

ignore those bombs exploding in iraq and lebanon. ignore the several hundred TONS of depleted uranium that's been dropped in afghanistan and iraq (which is causing worse mutations than hiroshima). nothing to see here, folks. move along!

on edit: forgot to mention the HUNDRED THOUSAND+ dead and 1500-8000 of our OWN troops bc of bush's little adventure in iraq.

[babylonsister]

9. You are totally correct. No one wants

to say the blivet (goggle it) was correct because he started a war that wasn't necessary under false pretenses, has wasted lives on both sides and brainwashed half our nation into thinking we are somehow safer. Meanwhile, the US is going to hell in a handbasket because of his supposed policies. Also google SS, healthcare (or lack of), the deficit, and any other policy you might be effected by, because it ain't gonna be pretty for you or me. And BTW, who actually 'asked' for democracy, and why are we responsible for spreading it to places that never asked for it or wanted it? And please do me a favor and look up PNAC and how oil has affected decisions with this administration? How does the idea of world domination sound to you, damn the collateral damage or consequences?

[Ganja Ninja]

4. There's plenty of dictators in the world ...

so why is it that we only feel the need to overthrow the ones with oil?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. So Saddam would still be in power, so what?

Why should we have to reconcile anything? Have we replaced Saddam with something better and lasting? Right now the answer is no or not much. What the future holds for Iraq is any body's guess. Bush hasn't done anything but get Saddam. The rest is an open question but I'm betting eventual civil war followed by another Saddam like strongman.

[Nickster]

16. Why should I have to reconcile this particular dictator over

any other? Why don't we feel bad that the Saudi Royal family is hurting their people? Why don't we feel bad that people are starving and dying in Africa? What made Saddam so special that we had to focus 300 Billion dollars, 1500 dead soldiers, and help install an Islamic Theocracy?

How does the GOP reconcile lying us into war? How do they reconcile sending troops over without proper armor? It's not my war, so I don't feel I need to reconcile anything. Why should we as progressives always have to shoulder the burden of their crap?

They don't feel sorry about any of it, so why do I have to sit down and ponder why I should feel guilty about opposing it? I'm through with their crap. They broke it, they can reconcile the lies and death on their own. They can't blame me or make me feel bad for not supporting it. I refuse to play that game.

[Toots]

24. With your "logic" why should we stop with Iraq?

There are many countries with cruel dictators and no Democracy. Should it be the Policy of the US to attack every country where we don't care for their Dictator? I would say Saudi arabia is far less Free than Iraq. Iraq was a Secular nation. Women were free to do anything a man could do, including vote. Not so in any other middle east country with the exception of Israel and I am not sure about them. Let's "Liberate" every country without Democracy. If we don't then your "Logic" is completely flawed.

[Zenlitened]

68. "We" wouldn't have gone in?

You've got a pretty nervy way of throwing the word "we" around.

[Zenlitened]

80. "... if we hadn't gone in, Saddam would still be in power..."

Yet another flaw in your argument. The statement is not true.

[livinginphotographs]

5. Because we didn't invade Iraq to bring democracy to them.

Even if you don't want to believe it was for the oil, it is also a great military position (between Israel and Iran).

And democracy is NOT coming to Iraq. We installed our own guy, and mark my words, in a few decades or so it'll be as bad there as it was under Saddam.

And as far as the guy who said "democracy breaking out all over the middle east," I'm not sure what world you're living in....it certainly isn't planet Earth.

[truth2power]

43. You're correct. We didn't invade Iraq to bring democracy to them....

We invaded (and "invade" is the word) to bring our particular brand of CAPITALISM. We have NEVER been interested in promoting democracy anywhere in the world. Quite the opposite.

If you research US foreign policy and, specifically, CIA meddling around the world since the end of WWII, you'll find that the US has always stepped in to overthrow any government that instituted true democratic reforms. Allende in Chile, Mossadegh in Iran, United Fruit (now Chiquita Brands) and Arbenz in Guatamala, the Sandanistas in Nicauragua and on and on.

The US govt. uses "democracy" as a cover, because it whips the proles into a patriotic frenzy. Bah! Capitalism is what it's all about.

edit: typo

[gottaB]

6. I don't see the human rights issues as a casus belli

Not in that situation. I agree that Saddam Hussein was a wretched dictator. However, he was neither an imminent nor a grave threat to US national security.

I agree that some intervention was appropriate to protect persecuted ethnic groups in Iraq, and it has always bothered me that following the first Gulf War the US fumbled the ball, so to speak. I also think the first attempts at sanctions were more or less disasterous.

It was a serious blunder on GWB's part to go around the UN the way he did. That was not the way to handle the situation.

Apologists for Saddam Hussein really yank my chain, but opposition to the war strikes me as wise. War should always be a last resort.

[Jim__]

8. I can't answer the question as to why "we" should oppose the war

I can give you any number of reasons why I opposed the war. The one that I think is most pertinent to your question is: I oppose the war because it was an invasion of a sovereign nation without justification.

Assuming that you argue that Saddam was a tyrant, therefore we should overthrow him, I would argue that there are many pressures that can be brought to bear on a tyrant to get him to soften his regime. This is preferable to me because it avoids the slaughter of innocents that war is bound to bring.

I don't believe we have any right to make a decision that thousands of innocent residents of a country must die because the government is tyrannical; unless that government poses a direct threat to us. I believe we should always oppose tyranny; but, our opposition should not cause as much pain to the residents of the country as the tyranny involves.

War itself is such a horror that it entails as much evil as any tyranny. It can only be a last resort, and there are arguments against, even then.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I don't agree with your reasoning.

I think you are probably right that the invasion of Iraq was a bad thing, but I think that the invasion of a "sovereign" nation on the grounds that its government is tyrannical can often be justified, and that whether or not it is a threat to the invading nation is not a key criteria.

I would national sovereignty should only be recognised when it is being weilded by the populace. If I stage a military coup declare myself to be the ruler of my country, I have no right to claim that I can speak for it on questions such as "do we want you to come and invade us?".

I think an invasion can be justified when it would be welcomed by the majority of the invadee populace, or by a majority of the oppressed section of it in case where the casus belli is the oppression of one group by another, like Serbia/Kosovo or Darfur, to pick two recent examples.

I agree that war is a horror, but I think that in many cases tyranny can be even worse, on the grounds that at least war ends, and war between a rich and powerful country and a poor and weak one is becoming possible with increasingly few civilian casualties if the civilians support the invasion - my understanding is that of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, a relatively small fraction were killed by the initial war, and nearly all were killed by the subsequent peace, and could probably have been prevented given more care, more money and more popular support. It wouldn't have been pleasant, but it might well have been less unpleasant than continued military dictatorship.

I'm pretty sure this was not the case in Iraq, although it's hard to be because of the many conflicting news stories coming out of it - I think it's possible that there was quite a lot of support for the invasion initially, to give the devil his due, but if there was it clearly evaporated almost as soon as the Iraqis realised what the invasion actually entailed, as I think was inevitable.

[Jim__]

22. The imminent slaughter of innocents may be sufficient reason

to invade a sovereign nation.

But, it's very difficult to know that a slaughter is imminent. In Bosnia/Kosovo, my recollection is that a lot of the data indicating an imminent slaughter proved to be incorrect. Any slaughter could probably have been prevented through international pressure. The people in power wanted to stay in power, and they knew they could be removed; that fact alone should remove the actual need for an invasion.

I believe international law now allows for the invasion of a country under certain conditions (I think it has ot do with the approval of the UN). Such controls are important. They tend to avoid premature invasions - it's more difficult to convinve a large number of nations with different backgrounds, then one small group with similar backgrounds.

In the case of a small nation versus a large nation or a large bloc of nations, the large bloc should be able to prevent the slaughter without an actual invasion; or, at the very least should be responding to some group within the country asking for help.

My strong belief is that it is much better to err on the side of caution here. We never know what will happen once we start a war; but, we can be pretty sure that whatever happens is not going to be good.

[hughee99]

69. By this reasoning

were we wrong to get involved in Bosnia & Kosovo, Iraq during GW1, Europe during WW1 & WW2? They all had tyrants. We tried sanctions against all of them, in many cases, sanctions against tyrants are not as effective because the simply pass on the shortages to the people (and in the end, we hurt those we are trying to protect). The question is, What is justification? Who decides that the invasion is justified? Is it a predetermined standard that always must be met or is someone the official arbiter of this?

To your last statement, I would say this... I agree that war itself is a horror that does entail much evil, but I am not a "peace at all costs" kind of person who believes that war should not even be used as a last resort. I think that any person who does believe that (and I'm not saying that you do) would value the absence of armed conflict greater than justice. If such a person were to become the arbiter (for the US) of when war is justified, IMHO, the world would not be a better place for it.

[Jim__]

92. Well, look at your examples

Gulf War I - my recollection is that Saddam Hussein, under pressure agreed to withdraw from Kuwait - he wanted more time than we were willing to give him - whether or not he would have actually withdrawn is an open question. BUT, Saddam invaded a sovereign nation; that is a different circumstance than I was describing.

WWII - Pearl Harbor, imminent threat; it satisfies my criteria for invading a country. Germany declared war on us. I think that clearly makes it an imminent threat.

Kosovo - my recollection is that a number of the triggers for the war turned out to be incorrect. I think the definite threat of retaliation would have prevented any slaughter.

As to sanctions, they have been effective in the past - e.g. South Africa. In Iraq, they certainly had an effect on Hussein's ability to rebuild his arms - the activity targeted by the sanctions. We didn't use them as a way fo softening his regime internally. Saddam was a survivor. Threatening him if he didn't ease up internally may well have worked.

As to pacifism, I'm not a pacifist. But, I'm not at all sure that war can actually make us safer. Our weapons get more and more powerful, and the ultimate result of war may be that we blow ourselves off the face of the earth. If we don't learn other ways to deal with problems, it seems inevitable that we'll just blow ourselves up.

[hughee99]

101. Okay,

GW1 is a different situation then you were describing. In WW2, Japan was clearly an imminent threat, but Germany, though they had declared war on us, was not an imminent threat compared to the Japanese, yet from early on in the war, a bulk of US resources was set to the European theater, not the pacific. In WW1, I don't think there was any imminent threat to the US and yet we became involved in that war as well. Do you agree with Wilson's decision to do so?

The problem with threatening Hussein if he didn't ease up was that in order to make that threat credible, the US would have to station a large number of US troops (basically an invasion force) in the region for a long period of time. This would have created serious issue for the US politically, if they were even able to do this "indefinitely". Once the troops leave, the major threat to Hussein is gone and he could go back to doing what he did before.

I don't really see the clear difference between the humanitarian reasons for Kosovo (which we got involved in), Rwanda (which we didn't), and Iraq, however.

[sendero]

10. Ok...

... here is my belief.

My opposition to the Iraq war has nothing to do with my total lack of respect for W.

It has to do with a simple calculus that every person makes several times every day.

Is it worth it?

Is getting up at 6 and going to this job worth the money I get?

Is spending 3 hours reorganizing my file cabinet going to pay back the 3 hours in future time saved? Would a quick 1 hour job be more likely to pay back 1 hour?

Is my relationship with a certain person reciprocal enough?

IS IT WORTH IT?

The Iraq war was ostensibly fought to take Saddam Hussein out of power. Saddam was a bastard, but was he worth it? Worth an estimated 100,000 civilian Iraqi lives? Worth 1,500 of our men, with probably 10,000 or so maimed or seriously injured? Worth $200 billion plus?

OF COURSE IT WASN'T

Saddam was no threat to anyone. We could have kept weapons inspectors crawling up his ass for the rest of his life for a few million dollars and with no loss of life. If that isn't good enough for you - consider this. We, the great superpower of the world, have no better means at our disposal to unseat a tyrant than a full scale war costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives. It's really pathetic to even consider it.

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn. 1) our leaders are morons 2) they are not telling us the real reason for the war.

And lest I leave you the wrong impression, it is possible that both 1 and 2 are true.

[Old and In the Way]

121. Could have taken Saddam out with a $.25 bullet

Probably, another $.50 on his 2 sons, too. There. Saddam's gone. Problem's solved.

It was all about the oil. And the costs we've incurred to grab it could have been used to buy it...

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

46. No, you missed a zero

The number is at 100,000. The 16,000 number is due to the fact that this organization must get a number of sources for EACH death, as well as confirmation from a hospital or morgue (Iraqis sometimes don't even bother going to those places, if there even is one available...too many dead or too dangerous).

This is a reply to your general argument:

About it being "worth it"...here is a small list of countries the US ACTIVELY SUPPORTS: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, to name a few. All of these countries are just as bad or even worse as Iraq under Saddam. We even deport our own suspects to these countries (Syria as well) so they can be tortured on our behalf. The US detains anyone it wants for no real reason and holds them indefinitely (ever hear of a little bit of America called "Guantanamo Bay"???). We are guilty of torture and killings of prisoners, as well as crimes against the peace and war crimes. We would be invading ourselves if we invaded countries to end brutal regimes.

Iraq is a nightmare. There is no security, there is no guarantee of water or food, there is little electricity, hospitals are in DIRE straights and so are schools, priceless artifacts have been stolen and/or lost, unemployment has skyrocketed (60% unemployment), there is no freedom, there is danger at every turn. Before the invasion and occupation, women could walk the streets without fear, there was relative safety. Research "misery gangs" (gangs who roam the streets and rape women at random; this is quite common), and "honor killings" (the practice of murdering a female relative who has been raped; this is also very common). Fundamentalism and terrorism is at a new high. There is the constant danger of a car bomb, or the occupation dragging someone away from their home in the middle of the night, or a US bombing, or being caught in a firefight. The US occupation has control over the press, and has thrown out and shut down "unwanted" sources (al-Jazeera is but one example). The US occupation has no respect or consideration of anything NOT in the US' interests. Cities have been demolished by this base oppressive occupation. Iraqis are thrown into the detention system for no reason, which is disgusting at best. Iraqis are treated horribly by the occupation, or they are kept at a distance, in a best case scenario.

This is the reality of occupied Iraq. It is vile to think that the Iraqis are better off.

When Iraqis take their country back, only then will they be free.

[LibertyorDeath]

79. It's 100,000 PLUS you need to update your rightwing talking points.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LibertyorDeath]

85. actually

If you want to argue with one of the most respected Medical Journals on the planet fire away.

October 29, 2004
100,000 Iraqi dead--THE LANCET Report

The new study released in the U.K. this morning by the British medical journal of reference, THE LANCET, is devastating. Here's how The Independent summarized the report's findings:

"The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

"More than half of those who died were women and children killed in air strikes, researchers say. Previous estimates have put the Iraqi death toll at around 10,000 - ten times the 1,000 members of the British, American and multi-national forces who have died so far. But the study, published in The Lancet, suggested that Iraqi casualties could be as much as 100 times the coalition losses. It was also savagely critical of the failure by coalition forces to count Iraqi casualties."

This report underscores both the iniquity of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the moral imperative to continue vigorous agitation against the U.S. occupation

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2004/10/100000_iraqi_de.html

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9445/early_online_publication

[Nickster]

13. Saddam or Apple Pie?

Back to topic, I would like to discuss the issue of democracy and dictatorship in Iraq. As progressives, how can we reconcile appearing to be apologists for Saddam's regime, while at the same time being supportive of democracy and human rights? What that regime did was horrible, and the crimes against humanity are fully documented. Should we be opposed to the war simply because Bush did it? I don't support Bush, I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But just because I don't support Bush means I should oppose the war (and thus call for a return to Saddam in power?) It confuses me...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Apologists for Saddam? That's exactly how the GOP would like to frame this issue. Saddam was a bad man, no doubt about it. BUT he was OUR bad man, we supported him and turned a blind eye while he committed these atrocities for decades. He was our bulwark against the radical fundie muslims, we removed him, now you see what has happened. Do you recall when Sec of Def Cheney, after the first Gulf War, responded to why we left the job unfinished? He said occupying Baghdad was not worth a SINGLE American life.

The either or argument is just crazy and is the GOP way of manipulating people about this issue. "So you want Saddam returned to power?" "Aren't the Iraqi people better off without Saddam?" Heck, at least they had running water and electricity, that's more than what we gave them. The discussion should be about how we wrecklessly went into a war that we were lied to about. That we had ZERO planning for what happens afterwards. That our troops STILL do not have adequate supplies or armor while the Corporations are feasting on tax dollars. That innocent Iraqi civilians are being murdered and tortured, and that's all under the great American flag of truth and justice.

This is NOT about pushing democracy, it never was. They said it was about mushroom clouds and dirty bombs in your backyard. Now when that's proven to be so much bunk, we are lead to believe that it was all about doing the right thing for the Iraqi people right from the start. We are expected to pretend like we weren't shown vials of anthrax, and mobile weapons labs. We are expected to pretend it was all about freeing people. Where was Poppy Bush when the Shia rose up and were slaughtered after GW1?

When will the lies end?

[Vickers]

14. You think only 10,000 Iraqis have been killed?

Man, that's funny.

[deutsey]

15. I don't know of anyone here who is an apologist for Saddam's regime

Your logic is flawed in that you equate opposition to the war with support for Saddam.

Speaking for myself, I was protesting outside the Iraqi embassy in DC back in the '80s against his human rights abuses. Interestingly, I was accused then of undermining our ally in Iraq, Saddam Hussein.

Yet, I also oppose the invasion.

For me, the invasion of Iraq was founded on lies and fear. They lied to us about Saddam's WMDs, and they exploited the fear of attack many of us had after 9/11. There were no WMDs, nothing even close, nor are there any connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Apparently, Bush et al., wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11, they were just looking for some way to "market" it to the American public. The invasion was part of a blatant powerplay by the Bush administration to establish geo-political control in oil-rich parts of the world. They tried to take over Venezeula by more subtle means, but the coup they orchestrated there failed.

If the invasion was to rescue the people of Iraq from Saddam (the dictator we helped keep power during much of his reign), then that should have been the crux of their argument. Yet, it was tangential at best. For the most part, their argument consisted of mushroom clouds and terrorist attacks. The "liberation" theme didn't become prominent until it was evident there were no WMDs or al-Queda camps. But even then, the Abu Grahib and other torture scandals (and the fact that the US hired back many of Saddam's torturers) undermined that notion too.

Add to that the deadly chaos resulting from the flawed assumptions and poor planning by Wolfowitz et al. about what post-war Iraq would be like (dancing in the streets, my ass), and you've got a debacle all around.

The thing is, many of us protesting the invasion did so because we were listening to all those in the intelligence community who said Iraq has no WMDs, who said that we don't have an exit strategy, who said that we are foolishly deluded if we believe everything would be just fine once we got Saddam out of power.

[Morose]

66. Yep, classic false dichotomy

nt

[eridani]

126. I see! One of those Premature Anti-Saddamites!

I wrote my share of letters in the 80s demanding that US aid to Saddam stop. Congress did put some blocks on that aid, but those proposals were vetoed by Reagan and Bush the 1st.

And now we get called Saddam supporters by stupid human vegetables who were too damned lazy to put their remotes down long enough to do the same.

[bowens43]

18. LOL! Humanitarian reasons?????

The US MURDERED over 100,000 innocent people (not 10,000 and this after the million or so who have died due to a decade of sanctions ), we destroyed their cities, their infrastructure, we occupied their nation and killed anyone who opposed us. Please, please tell me how that is humane.

You are NOT a progressive if you believe that those opposed to the illegal invasion and occupation are viewed as apologists for Saddam. You do realize don't you that the bushes , father and son killed more Iraqis the Saddam did.

A call for a return of Saddam to power? Don't be ridiculous. You're not confused. We know what you are.

[Igel]

67. The 100,000 figure is a difference in overall

mortality from 4/03 to whenever their cutoff was, and had a very wide error margin. The researchers put it at a 95% chance of the real number being something like 100k +95k/-83k, due to any cause.

Most estimates of the number of people that died under sanctions tacitly include a large number of children "killed" derived from a misunderstanding of an estimate of "missing children". That latter number resulted from two other numbers. One was the number of children alive at the time of the report. The other was the number of children predicted to be alive at the time of the report. The assumption was that fertility would have held steady; this assumption was immediately falsified by looking at published fertility figures. Since the actual birthrate declined, a very large percentage of the "missing children" simply had never been born. I haven't seen a a reliable number for the number of people, children and adults, that died as a result, direct or indirect, of the sanctions. But I'm certainly not going to include the never-conceived in that number.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Well, you have a right to your opinion.

I completely disagree with it, but you have an absolute right to hold it. I will tell you that I would have opposed it just as much if it had been conducted by a Democrat. In a way, I would have found it even more horrific, had a Democratic administration pulled this shit. I don't oppose or support wars based on whether they were carried out by Dem or Repub administration. That's why I pretty much felt that the 1st Gulf war was justified, even though I despised Poppy.

I have alot of very well thought out reasons for opposing this type of war. I wrote a several page long term paper about a year ago, addressing the very issue of why I think this type of war is wrong. If you'd like, I could post the entire damn thing for you. My reasoning is somewhat long and complex, and I haven't got time to spell it out right now.

I believe that your numbers on civilian deaths are off by about a factor of ten. The numbers that I've seen on extra civilian deaths since our invasion are closer to 100,000. The level of violence in that country has increased astronomically. There never used to be people blowing things up all over the place. The death rate from crime has increased greatly. Women are in a much worse position, often restricted from leaving their houses for fear of being raped or abducted, and increasingly subject to Sharia law. Severe childhood malnutrition has doubled. I do not feel that the Iraqis are better off for having been invaded by us. I also don't believe that we have any right to act outside of international law to remove governments at our discretion when we feel that they are "repressive" based on a shifting and inconsistent set of criteria.

You, of course, have every right to feel differently.

[G_j]

20. appearing to be "apologists for Saddam's regime"

you lost me there..
I don't form my opinions or values based on what Rush says.
If I don't believe the American military should attack every despicable leader in this world, it certainly doesn't mean I am an apologist for anyone.
Now that I've once again responded to a RW talking point..
:hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

140. Funny how

these trolls open up a Pandorah's Box for themselves, starting these kinds of threads, isn't it? V..e..r..y counter-productive. A lot of colossal truths covered up by the MSM see the light of day.

DU's the wrong place to try and pull the wool over people's eyes, isn't it... You need to be smarter than a neocon, yet they keep trying. I'm doing them a favour by pointing this out, but they'll blame the messenger!

[PA Democrat]

21. If you are so concerned about humanitarian issues,

I would argue that a significantly greater amount of good could have been done if the money that we spent on Iraq were used to address a number of other humanitarian causes.

Millions of people die each year from malaria, a preventable disease. Look at the suffering in the Sudan. How many people are dying of AIDS in Africa? How many people are dying for lack of clean drinking water?

If the US truly wanted to perform HUMANITARIAN tasks, the money we have spent in Iraq could have saved millions upon millions of people and alleviated the suffering of countless others, and we wouldn't have had to kill any innocent bystanders in the process.

Just think of what could be accomplished if instead of spending money on bombs and bullets, it were spent on food and drugs, and water systems.

Edited for grammar

[bicentennial_baby]

23. "apologists for Saddam's regime"??

Uh, if the rest of your message didn't give you away, that line sure did... :eyes: You're not fooling anyone.

[leftynyc]

25. That's when I stopped reading also

Parroting Rush is a dead giveaway.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[annabanana]

32. plently of echo in the RW noise machine...........n/t

[Malikshah]

28. Good lord-- there does seem to be a pattern here

Wow.

Subtle very much?? ;)

[annabanana]

26. gee... where'd he go?

:shrug: :eyes:

[kentuck]

27. You should not confuse de-stabilization with "democracy"...

We are in the process of de-stabilizing a large part of the Middle East. In the process, many people will die. In the end, some capitalist regime may be in control. Elections alone do not define a democracy. Saddam had elections. But who is in control after the elections are over? Right now, we do not have that answer in Iraq.

There is a denial of simple truths. Saddam was not out of his box. We had him contained. There was no need to invade Iraq.

[leesa]

29. That is NOT why we invaded Iraq. Take your right wing BS

elsewhere. If YOU need to rationalize these crimes, and then self-righteously call it "honest" discussion, you have a long way to go towards being a moral human being. Shame on you!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jdots]

58. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ya babe.

[LoZoccolo]

96. We need to be as shrill as possible!

Everyone knows that right and wrong stands and falls on how loud we yell!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

33. It is a "failure" as we speak....

The situation is worse than before the war, car bombs notwithstanding. And propaganda aside. What do you consider "success"? "Peaceful and democratic" you say? When that happens, then we can re-define the present failure.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

36. If we rebuild a school that we destroyed with a bomb..??

Is that a "positive" story for you? And with bodies laying in the street, torn to bits by bombs or eaten by dogs, you think we should be reporting on painting the walls in a new school? Are you in touch with reality???

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

38. Saddam was not Hitler. Hitler had a powerful military....

and was a threat to the world. Do you really think Iraq and Germany are a valid comparison? You are right about one thing. "War is an ugly thing". Therefore, one should not ever, never, rush into such an "ugly thing" on lies alone. And people should be punished for such acts, do you agree?

[eridani]

127. Saddam was more like Tony Soprano than like Hitler

Hitler actually had a formidable army, navy and air force, for one thing.

Like a mob boss, Saddam would have gotten old and slow, and been taken out by a younger made man, probably not too different from Allawi or Chalabi.

[sendero]

45. Based on the realities..

.... of the situation - I'd say the chances for an overall positive outcome of this debacle at less than 1%. The chances of real democracy taking hold in the middle east would have to be in the 0.001% range.

Why can't you just admit that the stated reasons we went to war are not the real reasons, and since they aren't the questions become

1) what were the real reasons? and
2) would Americans support the war if they knew the real reasons?

[Crunchy Frog]

50. So now you're suggesting that 9/11

was a good thing because something potentially good might have come out of it? Okay, you've lost me there, but if that's what you think, then I can easily understand why you might also think that the unprovoked invasion of a small, unarmed country was also a good thing. I'm very glad that your thinking is not representative of most progressives.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. How does a prediction of logical consequences

morph in your mind into a cheering for failure. That sounds like yet another RW talking point to me, and nothing like what anyone has said in this thread.

I'm not betting on failure, I'm betting on reality. Sure, I'd love to live in a world where everyone's nice to each other and the lion lies down with the lamb, but I still keep my house locked and don't walk around alone at night. Do you by any chance carry insurance? If you do then shame on you for being a pessimist.

Whether Iraq is a failure or not has absolutely nothing to do with my optimism or lack thereof.

We should stand for something, but I don't equate standing for something with having unrealistic expectations or fantasies. I'm sorry that you do.;(

[RapidCreek]

72. Beautifully stated,Crunchy....Man I wish I had that knack for the

succinct and to the point post.

RC

[hector459]

39. Just how bad was Saddam compared to what is going on now in Iraq?

And remember, most of the Iraqis who are overjoyed about our occupation haven't lived in Iraq for decades. They have lived comfortably in the west. Saddam was brutal but no more brutal than the Shah of Iran whom we placed in office by overthrowing a democratically elected leader of Iran. And Saddam in the years just before 9/11 was less brutal than he had been during the time he was our ally simply because we had him fenced in. Some of the most vicious and deadly days of US history occured under our capitalistic system of freedom and "democracy." It was not under a dictatorship that thousands were lynched in the sourth and thousands more were sent to reservations were life was just a little better than concentration camps. thousands died from starvation, illness, and brutality under the American colonial flag. So let's put everything in perspective. The Iraqis who suffered under Saddam always had at their disposal people who were able to rise up against the dictator had they been inclinded to do so. The only fear was death and that is happening all over Iraq right now. It's not a matter of being an apologist for Saddam, it's a matter of relativity and the facts on the ground. Democracies are sometime as brutal and more deadly than dictatorships. So let's not fool ourselves. The jury is till out on whether what we did in Iraq was good. It certainly was not necessary.

[Igotsunshine]

40. Too much damage already. Too high a price to pay.

Your points seem thoughtful and sincere, yet childishly naive. I don't fault you for trying to see the "bright" side. Problem is, no matter what eventually happens in Iraq, it wasn't worth the death and destruction. And to make matters worse, it was all so avoidable. We were lied to. The ends do not justify the means. All you people that say "see, freedom is spreading across the middle east" are blind to the fact that we gave up our "freedom" when we allowed our CIC to get away with leading us into a war based on a lie.

So, go look for your rainbow on the edge of the storm. But, you are missing the real story . . . America falling into the abyss.

[kentuck]

41. Good point. The real question should be :

Is America better off? Not, "Is Iraq better off?"

[Igotsunshine]

42. Brilliant!!!

That IS the point. I wish I cared about Iraq. We've got our own country to worry about, no?

[cestpaspossible]

44. The bullshit ' apologists for Saddam's regime ' meme tells us all

that we need to know about 'what you'd like to discuss'.

[trillian]

47. I think this article says it all....

Out of context, lists of presumptive triumphs in Iraq

By PIERRE TRISTAM
ESSAYS

Last update: March 01, 2005

Most of us get them, those e-mails promising bushels of porn, the end of impotence, permanently flaccid mortgage rates or lucrative friendships with wayward African princes seeking bank accounts to bunk with. It's harmless clutter. It's also a reminder that marketing sugared in smut and guile always finds an audience, otherwise its retailers wouldn't keep at it. So it's natural for the merchants of Operation Iraqi Freedom to hitch their pipeline to our in-boxes. They sell porn of a different kind -- the pornography of war as a beautiful thing, as an orgy of good news the media just won't show because, as one incensed e-mail has it, "a Bush-hating media and Democratic Party would rather see the world blow up than lose their power." (If it's possible for the propagandist to find good news in Iraq it must be equally possible to find a Democrat still in power in the United States.)

The good-news e-mails show little Iraqi kids holding up signs that say "Thank you very much Mr. Bush" or matronly women doing the same with "Iraqi people happy today," pictures of American soldiers cradling olive-skinned kids and showering them with school supplies, and similarly posed presumptions of triumph that reproduce President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" sketch on the USS Abraham Lincoln almost two years ago, but on location. The pictures are a counterweight to the "isolated" bad news the media obsesses over, those images of torture, bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, maiming and killing of Americans and Iraqis alike. Isolation has its toll: Doubtless, some time this week the 1,500th American soldier will be killed in Iraq -- "Thank you very much Mr. Bush" -- and some time this month the 11,000th American will be wounded, disfigured, mutilated and either returned to duty for another crack at making Iraqis happy or returned home to a lifetime subscription to PTSD.

Still, it must be a good thing. Here's the latest variant of lists making their way across the Internet since 2003: "Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq? Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million people? Did you know that 3,100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq? Did you know that 25 Iraqi students departed for the United States in January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program?" And so on.

The stuff is written simply and factually, but in that bullying tone of self-evidence that omits the relevance of evidence -- context, proof, explanation, perspective.How many of those embassies are basement annexes to the same obscure countries sharecropping their way to American favors as part of the "Coalition of the Willing"? What's the use of a government employing 1.2 million people if it can't pay them? How many of those Band-aided schools were wrecked by American bombs? Twenty-five students from Iraq are studying in American universities on Fulbright scholarships for the first time in 14 years. But American sanctions had something to do with keeping them out so long. And in the spirit of the Fulbright program's aim to foster "mutual understanding" between nations, it would be newsworthy if American students were lining up to study in Iraq. They're not.

It's pointless to get caught up in the game. Entire Web sites are devoted to verifying some claims and, unfortunately, debunking most. Unfortunately, because no one should be cheering against good news. But a war costing $2 billion a week -- or $4,000 per Iraqi per year -- had better yield some results worth cheering about other than the Fallujah-style flattening of cities, the surrender of much of the country to anarchy, or a hemorrhage of American tax-dollars that will eventually make the United Nations' $67 billion oil-for-food scandal look quaint in comparison. True, there's a lack of honest reporting. But the unreported scandal from this end is that the investment in deficit-digging tax-dollars is yielding so little return except for the contractors and mercenaries in on the loot. The unreported tragedy from the Iraqi perspective is that the investment in lives is yielding still nothing more than finger-paint parodies of democracy. We'd be better off going home and sending every Iraqi man, woman and child a $4,000 annual check.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN18030105.htm

[Jacobin]

49. Are you 'okay' with the pretexts used to go to war?

Obviously the neo-con agenda was to try to 'remake' the middle east by force, 'spread democracy', take out one of Israel's competitors in the region and shore up oil supplies upon which we are desperately dependent.

Those are the real reasons for the invasion.

Do you approve of the way that we were all lied into this invasion, i.e. 'Saddam a threat and massive WMDs"?

If you don't approve, do you think the american people would have supported invading Iraq to 'spread democracy', take out one of Israel's enemies and shore up our oil supply? I don't, and I suspect that you don't think it would be supported either.

Since the basis upon which the war was sold was completely and utterly bogus, I don't see how anyone can approve of the result, particularly when it has been botched completely.

I reject the idea that a country can unilaterally invade another country 'for its own good'. The Bosnia situation had massive support from other countries and documented genocide on a large scale was ongoing. I can see a big difference between the two.

[Finder]

51. I will discuss

YOU--I'm a Democrat, I voted for Kerry, I don't like Bush, I hate the Christian right and all that jazz. I don't live in America, I live in Cyprus. I watch BBC News/Euronews, not CNN, Fox or anything else.

ME--I also watch BBC and other international news as well as CNN and Fox.

YOU--But I supported the war originally, and I still overall think what we did there was a good thing. I supported it for humanitarian reasons.

ME--I never supported the war, mostly because of humanitarian reasons.

YOU--I call myself a liberal/progressive because I believe in civil rights, human rights, freedom democracy and such. I don't see how Iraq should be an exception.

ME--Iraq is not an exception. Freedom and democracy happen from within a society. Theocracies are not free or democratic. We have liberated the extremists in that society who will now rule. Although Saddam and his sons were brutal and I do agree it is good that they are out of the picture…overall they were the lesser evil. Using the atrocities that happened during Iraq’s war with Iran and the civil war that threatened following the war in 1991 is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

How many mass graves do you imagine there were following our own Civil War? How many millions died at the hands of their own countrymen?(remember, it was the Republican Party headed by Lincoln)

If another nation had invaded and put the losing side in charge what would have happened to the US?

YOU--Whatever you say about me being influenced by media propaganda, I don't watch American news, so I couldn't tell you about that. I thought it was the right thing to do to remove Saddam Hussein.

ME--The propaganda was not just in the American Media, Murdoch and ilk have arms all over the world. You were influenced by your emotions as were millions of others. Millions also disagreed with the war based on history, facts, as well as emotions. I don’t think anyone that opposed the war was a big fan of Hussein and if he was taken out by the CIA or such it wouldn’t have been a bad thing. It is the loss of a secular society that is the problem. We didn’t just remove Hussein, we have taken out the freethinkers, equality and the rule of law.

Here in the US, we are in our own civil struggle between secularism and sectarianism. Unfortunately, the religious right is winning and have begun the “Secular solution” by eliminating all other secular nations in the world. We are witnessing the rewriting of our own history to convince our own citizens that we are a “Christian Nation.”

By allowing theocracies to grow we assure our technological superiority in the future. In a sense, the strategy is in our best interest for the future of our nation.



YOU--I supported it for the same reason I supported Kosovo and Bosnia. We saw what happened in Belgrade in October 2000. Milosevic was severly weakened by Clinton's bombing campaign in Kosovo, and it gave the people a chance to rise up and topple that dictator.

I go to an international school. All the serbian students the next day were smiling at me.

ME--I also supported the the bombing campaign for the reasons you stated. The situation was very different from the one in Iraq though.

YOU--Same with Iraq, back in April 2003, I went to my barber who is Iraqi and he was so happy that we went in there and toppled Saddam. (I don't use the word 'liberate' because then I'll sound too much like a neocon ;))

It's horrible that we've lost 1,500 of our sons and daughters in the ensuing violence. It's horrible that 10,000+ Iraqi civilians have lost their lives. But we don't have a draft like we did in Vietnam. My heart goes out to families of the deceased :(

Back to topic, I would like to discuss the issue of democracy and dictatorship in Iraq. As progressives, how can we reconcile appearing to be apologists for Saddam's regime, while at the same time being supportive of democracy and human rights? What that regime did was horrible, and the crimes against humanity are fully documented. Should we be opposed to the war simply because Bush did it? I don't support Bush, I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But just because I don't support Bush means I should oppose the war (and thus call for a return to Saddam in power?) It confuses me...

ME--Those who opposed the war are not apologists for Saddam. The crimes against humanity we committed are documented as well. War is hell and no war has ever been “clean.”

I don’t think the problem is a Bush problem, it is a policy problem.

You are using the propaganda talking point that being anti-war means a call for a return of Saddam. The fact that you are framing your reasoning in black and white terms explains why you supported the war in the first place. A true Progressive should always consider the “gray” areas since that is where the solution can be found.

[Old and In the Way]

122. Well stated, Finder.

Actually, this is one of the best threads I've read in a long time.

[msongs]

52. why do you think discussions OTHER than yours are dishonest?

do you think everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest, or just people at DU? maybe your view is dishonest? we certainly know George W Bush and his entire logic for the war was and IS dishonest as is his propaganda regarding the war and the outcome.

well, sorry if you think what I am writing is dishonest.



Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Really? And where is it that you heard that?

Just kind of curious.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Yeah and combined with a thread polling us about debating conservatives

here at DU, and a link to a RW site in your sig, I find this thread interesting.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. Nice catch 22 you set up there

[jdots]

95. I don't find it to be an interesting thread at all

I find it to be a search for the lost yo-yo of shmeckdar as sung by
" Marvin Pooty" ....well scripted but lacking funk.
May I ask if you have ever seen death,smealt death,felt the pain of a lost limb or organ or witnessed the brutality of people killing people ? It isn't a computer game or a movie with actors,a picture can't let you feel it with all your sences.
Justify wars you aren't in,it's so noble and macho.

[sandnsea]

74. That's not true at all

Alot of people have had varying opinions about the war and the proper course of action since. What will get people banned is if they post thread after thread, or hijack threads, or it becomes obvious that they're just here to disrupt or evoke crazy comments to post elsewhere.

If you lived here, and had experienced the propaganda and the bold-faced lies the way we did, you might have a different opinion. We didn't need to go to war to topple Saddam, there were plenty of diplomatic means to get rid of him. But then we wouldn't have been able to control the economic aftermath, which is what the Bushies wanted in the first place.

[maxsolomon]

53. is that you bob?

its me matt

[rman]

54. There are 30,000 humanitarian reasons not to support the war in Iraq.

Be honest, was removing Saddam worth that cost?
Wouldn't the world be a better place with Saddam as the leader of Iraq, but without Bush as the leader of the US?
We could still take care of Saddam's dictatorship, along with several other dictators that are arguably worse then Saddam, in a more peacefull way.

[Blue_Tires]

55. remember, from the beginning, this 'war' was allegedly about

saddam being able to attack U.S. soil in 45 mins...He supposedly was sitting on the biggest cache of illegal bio weapons in the world, and so far not a fragment of one has been recovered....

never forget, that was the bush justification for war...and we need to continue hammering that point home whenever someone tries to switch the arguement over to 'spreading democracy' or 'removing a dictator'

[LdyGuique]

56. There is a vast difference between the Balkins and the Middle East

The former Yugoslavia state broke into four countries through civil war and and its subsequent genocidal practices. There was no long term nor standing sovereignty to Bosnia. The world became sickened by the violence against civilians, especially the Muslems by the Serbs. NATO decided to intervene and the U.S. participated as a member of a group of alliance nations who ALL agreed that "something needed to be done to stop the bloodshed."

The U.S. did not have that multilateral mandate to intervene militarily into Iraq, nor will it into Iran, or Syria, or Venezuela, or . . . In fact, the UN refused to vote for military sanctions at that time, even with the cooked intelligence that the U.S. presented. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the decision to invade Iraq was a plan and scheme that was present from the earliest days of the Bush Administration due to neocon influence.

Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge about the Middle East, Islam, or Iraq knew that destabilizing the Middle East through military intervention would bring the Shiite fundamentalists to power as they were and are the majority faction. We knew what had happened in Iran and its ruling theocracy was likely to happen in Iraq OR that the various factions would fall into a civil war, which is still the most likely. Meanwhile, women have lost all of their rights and ae being repressed into 3rd class citizenship through violence.

The U.S. had neither a worldwide mandate to intervene, nor would they have had a domestic mandate if the truth had been told. Iraq didn't pose a direct threat to either the U.S. nor its allies.

When the U.S. has intervened to overthrow brutal dictators by supporting popular insurgencies in the past, it has ALWAYS backfired. We worked with Castro to overthrow Batista. We worked with Aristide to overthrow Duvalier and then failed to support them with the economic help they needed -- and recently supported a coup to overthrow Aristide. We supported the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan to get the Taliban.

We've meddled in most of Central and South America to no discernable improvement in the lives of these people. Our policies supporting the Shah of Iran gave Iran a theocracy, something not supported by its people. Anyone remember "Yanqui Imperialsits?"

Africa has been a disaster of human rights abuses as nation after nation was formed along Eurocentric imperialist lines, rather than ethnic lines -- which has given us nonstop civil wars for 45 years and a huge toll in human suffering.

It is hubris to believe that we can invade another country which has substantially different religious and cultural beliefs than ours and expect that ours will prevail.

However, this is all a moot point as the guiding principles behind our presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with the brutal dictatorships and everything to do with oil -- massive amounts of oil that we don't want going to India and China.

[wiggs]

57. Notice that this debate has disappeared from media discourse?

The worth it/not worth it question is not discussed anymore in MSM. The position that the war is a good idea is not defensible, so the best the administration can hope for (demand) is no discussion.

Stated reasons for Iraq war (WMD, imminent threat, Al Queda, liberation) are baseless and false. Most of the world knew these were uncertain at best prior to the war and this suspicion and concern has been born out.

Other reasons for the war (feeding corporatism and locking down oil rights) are not discussed but are closer to the truth, but unfortunately the wisdom of these is highly questionable and the backlash is potentially fatal for us. Short-sighted, narrow minded, checker-playing corporatists are putting us in a very bad position.

Read Pitt's article today in Truthout on empire, the article on China in Truthout today talking about how China is changing the global dynamic, and "The Rise of Rove's Republic" by Stirling Newberry found on dailykos. These and others start an "honest" discussion on the forest, not just the trees that the administration puts in the way. This is the discussion you should be looking for.

Post #54 makes a sobering statement that not many Americans would have agreed with a year ago: that the world and the US would be better off if Saddam were still in power and Bush/Cheney were not. One day, maybe soon, when Bush is stumping for some disastrous policy or another, he'll ask his bread and butter question that is supposed to be the answer for all debate: Would you rather have Saddam in power? And people may be surprised that they are not sure anymore.

I hope my pessimism is unfounded.

Einstein said that truth is the enemy of power, ever and always. More people, starting with you, need to see the truth of the situation.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Was this debate ever in media discourse?

I don't recall that it ever was, but then I don't expose myself to alot of mainstream media anymore. What I recall is that it seemed to morph seamlessly from being about WMD to being about stopping tyrrany. I don't recall there ever being any real questioning of the major premises used to justify the war, even as they shifted around.

The only questioning was from a handful of liberal columnists who always got drowned out by the RW noise machine.

[killbotfactory]

65. The debate was this:

Do you support the glorious removal of Saddam Hussein and his WMD's which threaten the planet with doom, or are you a hippie peacenik who loves tyranny?

[Zenlitened]

71. And notice that it's always been "invade/not invade"

The fact is, it should never have gotten to the point of "either/or."

Saddam wasn't a threat -- he was a contained enemy. But say, for the sake of argument, that it was time for Saddam to go. A military invasion was not the only option.

A U.S. president with genuine leadership skills -- rather than a pre-set agenda -- could have ended Saddam's reign without the loss of 1500 American lives and the lives of countless Iraqi civilians.

[wiggs]

84. Correct

Both Condi and Powell were quoted before 9/11 as saying that Saddam was contained and not a threat.

[killbotfactory]

60. I don't support wars based on lies and wishful thinking

War is not something to take lightly and should be a last resort. Saddam did horrible things, a lot of them while we supported his government and looked the other way, but so do a lot of our allies in the region. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. We have no moral high ground when it comes to the middle east, and we have no right to topple a government through military action just because we have a hunch that they are a danger to us.

[No Exit]

63. To understand the wisdom of the President's plan

you need a closer perspective, xavier. You may need to actually go among the Iraqi people themselves, in order to see how they are reacting to the removal of Saddam Hussein--the most evil man the world has ever known.

Please join our military. It is the cheapest way for us to get you to Iraq so that you can see firsthand the wonder of President Bush's celestial Plan.

[adigal]

64. I'm a humanitarian too

So let's attack every other country with an evil leader starting with North Korea, China, oops, neither has oil and both have nukes, try again, Iran, yeah, Iran, they have some real mean leaders. OOOOHHH, and LOTS of oil.

Any other countries we should invade to help out, and kill their civilians, and more of our troops?? Anyone?? Anyone???

[zipplewrath]

70. It's not just what you do, it's how you do it.

   We already controlled the skies.  We had international
partners including those in the region who would work with us.
 We could have addressed (and were to some extent) any issue
we wished.  Truth is, we could have easily surrounded him
without ever firing a shot.  Huge portions of the country
would have welcomed our protection from him.  But it would
have required effort, and make our case to the international
community.  We could have pleaded the case to change the oil
for food program.  We could have increased the inspections,
even expanded them.  We could have attempted to bring
international charges against him.  We could have done so much
to address any humanitarian concerns that one could generate. 
And predominately, we could have begun to work harder to work
WITH Iran for peace and stability in the region.   They didn't
like Sadam.  Ossama didn't like him.  Virtually no one in the
region did, and would have gladly worked with us quitely to
change the situation.  

  I personally though Clinton should have marched straight to
the security council when Sadam first threw out the UN and set
up a process where in short order the UN would have demanded
his compliance and ultimately therefor his downfall.  

[LibertyorDeath]

75. One of the worst posts ever at DU

The "logic" you use is twisted beyond all reason.

It sounds completely freepish imo.

Do we have a worst post ever section yet?

[Zenlitened]

78. BTW, your argument is flawed from the start.

There is no continuum, as you seem to imagine.

Bush's invasion failed, in that we were not "greeted with flowers." That's a fact, and that part of the story is over. This is where the break in the continuum occurs.

The U.S. is now trying to recover from that failure. Will this recovery effort succeed, to the point of helping establish democracy in Iraq? That remains to be seen.

If it does, democracy will be the result of successful damage-control, not the result of Bush's half-assed policy of invasion. (edited to clarify)

Democracy may emerge DESPITE the Bush invasion. It cannot, by definition, emerge directly BECAUSE OF the Bush invasion.

[mmonk]

83. Honestly

we don't need to be about conquering countries for global economic hegemony (which was part of the reason, the other being securing the rhealm for Israel) no matter what the positive outcome may be for the subject country. Its lawless and we don't really need a lawless world where countries decide to take over others on an ideological whim.

[riverwalker]

86. one word

Fallujah. Nothing, I repeat, nothing can justify it. I don't care if Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler and Idi Amin were bunkered in the city, NOTHING can justify what we did there. We became what we claimed to be fighting against.

[LibertyorDeath]

87. I call myself a liberal/progressive?????

First of all Saddam Hussein was brought to power in Iraq along with the rest of the Bathists with the help and guidance of the CIA

( While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.)
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

Secondly we armed this nut job to the teeth when he was fighting Iran
How he US armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm


Third we looked the other way at all his human rights abuses as long as he did what the USA wanted.

America did not go to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein we went for control of Oil to build Military bases to project American Military power through out the region. Democracy human rights the removal of Saddam Hussein are complete fucking bullshit ask any liberal/progressive.

It's about Power Control Dominance Wealth Greed and Resources what the fuck do you think INVASIONS of Sovereign countries are about.

This band of thugs has said the Geneva conventions against Torture and abuse are quaint they could give a flying fuck about human right yours mine or Iraqi.

American/British Terrorism and Genocide of the Iraqi People, 1991–2003


http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/AmericanBritishTerrorism.html

[LibertyorDeath]

88. LOL

What is it with these freeps Why Why Why can't they learn to think
for themselves.

[PA Democrat]

89. 1500 deaths are "horrible" but, hey as long as

"we don't have a draft like we did in Vietnam," it is somehow... what??? Better? Less horrible? Or more acceptable to YOU because you can safely support an unjust war without any risk of personal harm?

I find every single component of your argument obscene. If you truly are concerned about "humanitarian" concerns, this Iraq invasion was far from the best use of our financial and human resources to bring about the most good in this world.

We are no longer admired as an example of a country that respects human rights. We are no longer trusted after Colin Powell and Bush lied about the threat of WMD's and Saddam's involvement in September 11. Our invasion of Iraq has swelled the ranks of the terrorists.

I will be thrilled if Iraq ends up with a true democracy and if the people of Iraq manage to restore the infrastructure of their country that we destroyed. But that doesn't mean that it was worth the cost. It doesn't mean that the $200 billion plus and those lost lives could not have been used to achieve a greater good for mankind.

[Spinoza]

90. A nation, if it is a tyrannical dictatorship

like Iraq under Saddam, has no "rights" of "sovereignty" or anything else. What "rights" could Hitler's Germany claim and on what grounds?

[Crunchy Frog]

105. Hitler's Germany had the same rights of sovereigty

as any other country, until such time as it began violating other countries sovereignty by invading them. Can you give me any evidence whatsoever that anyone considered invading Germany prior to its attacking other countries?

Countries claim the rights of sovereigny on the grounds of international law. That sovereignty can only be legitimately violated if that country attacks other countries or if intervention is required to stop actual genocide. (In case your history is impaired, Hitler's genocide did not begin in earnest until after he started attacking other countries.)

Who do you want to invade our country if W becomes too much of a tyrant?

[Spinoza]

134. Hitler's Germany undertook mass genocide and you claim

it still had "rights" of sovereignty? Are you serious? The phrase Hitler's Germany is a misnomer. There was only Hitler as the effective owner of the German people. The German people, especially of course the Jews, had no rights of any kind. Therefor Hitler could not claim any rights of "sovereignty" or anything else. Are you actually maintaining that if Hitler gasses millions of German citizens, but does NOT invade any other country, no other country would have the right to invade Germany and stop him? I would like to hear you explain that to a Jew, A socialist, a gay, a gypsy, etc in Hitler's Germany.

[Crunchy Frog]

136. I said that Germany had rights to sovereignty

prior to the time that it initiated aggression against its neigbors and began policies of genocide. Please don't use hyperbole to misrepresent what I stated in my post.

I believe that a country's sovereignty must be respected unless it is preparing or engaging in external aggression, or internal genocide. Until Nazi Germany began those policies, they did have a right to sovereignty. If you can point me to any historical reference to anyone at the time who suggested otherwise, I would very much like to see it. Incidently, many of the countries Hitler invaded were not democracies. Does that mean that those invasions were alright?

Kuwait was not, and is not, a democracy. According to your beliefs about sovereignty, it should not have been a problem that Iraq invaded it. After we got the Iraqis out, we also should have set up an occupation government in Kuwait and used it to impose democracy. That isn't how international law works. If you don't like it, maybe you should take it up with the United Nations.

Somehow I predicted that you would twist my words into a claim that I was justifying Hitler's genocide, which I very clearly was not doing.

However, under the standards that existed at the time, he probably could have practiced genocide within his own borders and gotten away with it. We did not go to war with Germany to stop genocide, however much we may wish to believe that was our motivation.

I did make it very clear in my previous post that I do believe that genocide, or the imminent threat of genocide, are sufficient justification for intervention by external forces.

At any rate, I'm tired of the RW tactic of trying to use Nazi Germany as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq, which is all that your post seems to be doing.

[Spinoza]

139. Hmmmm, tough question...

>If you can point me to any historical reference to anyone at the time who suggested otherwise, I would very much like to see it<

Winston Churchill (remember him) repeatedly advocated invading Nazi Germany, for the purposes of "regime change" long before Hitler invaded any other countries or instituted actual genocide. He first advocated invasion when the Nazis occupied the Ruhr in 1934. He repeated his advocacy over and over from 1934-1938. You can find this in any of dozens of biographies of Churchill. Is Churchill a good enough "historical reference" for you?

If Churchill had prevailed, somewhere between 60-100 million lives would have been saved. However YOUR viewpoint on sovereignty prevailed instead. So 60-100 million people died. But what the hell huh, at least you are loyal to your principles.

[Crunchy Frog]

141. Well, I admit that I could be better versed

in the history of that era than I am. If Churchill was advocating invasion of Germany prior to the initiation of external aggression, then I disagree with him on that. I guess the German occupation of the Ruhr is kind of ambigous, since it was German territory, but it was being occupied by other powers at the time.

I do think that Hitler's initial moves against the sovereignty of other countries should have been an automatic trigger for military action to stop him and that the appeasment policy was a catastrophic mistake. So I don't see how my viewpoint on sovereignty can be held responsible for the deaths of 60 to 100 million people.

I don't agree with Churchill on everything. You do realize that he used gas warfare against Iraqi villagers don't you. According to your own views on sovereignty, that would in itself serve as a justification for the invasion of Britain.

At any rate, I wish you would not twist my words by suggesting that I take the Chamberlain view towards military intervention when I have very clearly stated that I don't. I think that those lives could have been saved if military intervention had been swift and decisive as soon as Germany began annexing territory outside of it's own borders. Do you disagree with me on that?

By the way, I also supported military intervention against Iraq, when Iraq invaded and occupied another sovereign country, Kuwait. And yes, I call Kuwait a sovereign country, even though it is not a Democracy. Do you disagree with that assessment as well? If so, then how can you suggest that we should have intervened on behalf of the sovereignty of a coutry which according to your definition, had no sovereignty?

I do find your attempts to equate Iraq with Nazi Germany spurious. We were using decisive military force to keep Iraq both disarmed and contained. It represented no threat to anyone when we invaded. If we had followed the same policies with respect to Germany, we probably could have avoided WWII.

I'm just wondering how you are going to twist this post into the suggestion that I would advocate leaving Germany alone to invade and occupy its neighbors and carry out genocide?

[ClayZ]

91. War is NOT HEALTHY for Children and other LIVING things!

For those FLAG wavin' Country Song Writers...

Her Fall


There is a little girl in Baghdad
Who gave a leg and arm.
So, you can go to Starbucks,
Or sing your bar room charm.

She just wants to thank us,
For paying for the bombs.
That gave her country freedom,
What took you all so long?

She had just been playing
With the doll her mommy made.
In that hot IRAQI sunshine,
She was looking for some shade

She never had no Dairy Queen,
She never shot a gun.
But when those "mericans got there,
She sure learned how to run.

She had just eaten breakfast,
Mommy's stove don't work no more.
And the bomb came out of heaven
and blew a hole right through her floor.

She was standing right outside
Now her Mom and Dad are gone.
She will never run from bombs again
Until she straps that new leg on.

Her brother did not make it,
No, they did not aim at him.
They just dropped it out of heaven,
And that's surely not a sin.

Cuz we'r just spreading freedom,
like it were "jam upon her bread.
But while we are spreading liberty,
Her litle brother, still, is dead!

Go on, wave those flags higher,
Hope that coffee is always hot.
When you stop, for just 3 dollars.
She simply knows you, NOT.

She does not know you're waving flags.
She knows not you are alive.
She knows not you have a daughter
That some day will be five.

Keep on singing freedom songs
About your flag and all....
One day this little girl stood up,
And you are clueless of her fall.

Be proud, you patriot thing,
Be hollering for more!
Don't worry your pretty little head
About the hole that was her floor.

[Guaranteed]

93. Stepped over the line. The war was just plain wrong, my

friend- for hundreds of reasons.

[Zenlitened]

94. We hardly knew ye...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=151394

What a riot. Everyone's freeper-radar lit up on this guy almost immediately. He thought he was being stealthy, but we've seen so many of 'em through here, the tell-tales are easy to spot by now.

:D

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

99. The link to the "protest warrior" site forum that he authored on another

thread was a bit of a clue...

[LoZoccolo]

97. There are very few shades of gray on DU on this issue.

I don't think you'll find what you're looking for here. Notice all the blunt assertions (and I was generally against the war, though I acknowledge getting rid of Saddam was a good thing (*gasp*)).

[ulysses]

106. heh.

You ever firmed up an opinion on invading Iran?

[LoZoccolo]

107. No.

See, I know I don't know enough to have one, rather than being a broken clock on this issue.

[ulysses]

144. I seem to recall having seen posts to that effect

(not from you) shortly before the Iraq invasion.

[Just Me]

145. You're shittin' me!!! Good grief, I've never seen so many gray shades,...

,...before signing onto DU!!! *LOL*

To the contary, DUers absolutely REJECT/ED any black/white or toe-the-line propositions, exploring every possibility.

You must've intended to do a sarcasm thingy,...and just forgot to do so.

[DemGirl7]

98. Just because one didn't support the war doesn't mean ...

that they are pro-Saddam or anti-American. Due to the fact that the media in American are controlled by those who for the most part want to please the President, during the Iraq war they had a field day digging up the skeletons of the few who actually had enough guts to speak against the war and the president and showed it to all to those who were watching. I'm an PROUD American...I don't support Bush, I didn't support the War and I continue to do so, and I'm not pro-Saddam, In my eyes, he is a villian, just my President, I'm sad to say. Bush and his little goons(the neocons)are ruining the America, he is just as evil as Saddam...they seem to share alot in common, and it is sad that 51% of America doesn't realize it too.

[moondust]

100. One of the biggest mistakes in U.S. history.

If one lesson can be taken from this unbelievably costly fiasco it is that this was not the way to do it and it never should have happened. If Bushco had not been a tone-deaf dictatorial regime they would have listened to the advisors and scholars as well as challenged the bogus intelligence BEFORE ordering other people to jump off the cliff. There were/are better ways and far better times to deal with Saddam.

[ComerPerro]

102. You want an honest discussion, I will be very frank.

1.I doubt that you are progressive, and I doubt you supported Kerry.

2. Nothing about this war was humanitarian. The "liberation" angle is all bullshit.

3. No one here is an apologist for Saddam's regieme. The fact that you suggested this makes me question your sincerity.

4. Opposing the war doesn't mean that Saddam should be in power.


Let us not forget that its Republicans who supported Saddam and made him powerful. Its Republicans that armed him, its Republicans that allowed him to gas his own people.

And, also consider the way Bush sold the war. Saddam had to disarm, or we would invade if necessary. It wasn't about liberation. It was about WMD. Bush would have let Saddam remain in power.

[Bouncy Ball]

103. Hopefully someone has already said this

but we didn't invade Iraq to affect regime change. We invaded them because they supposedly had all these WMDs that put us in danger. In other words, they were supposedly a HUGE threat to us (remember "mushroom clouds?" "forty five minutes?").

They weren't. OOOPS!

And as for regime change, it violates international law to invade a country to cause regime change.

OOOOPS!

We are wrong on all counts on Iraq. That's NOT to say SH wasn't a bad guy, he was.

But his "badness" did NOT justify what we did. Not in the least. We were lied to about WMDs, and then the regime change thing is illegal.

Period.

[leyton]

104. self-delete

efsdfgasgasfg

[kiraboo]

108. Man! You people covered all the bases! I can't add much to

your resounding condemnation of the initial post. And I agree with you generally. However I'm not absolutely sure we can dismiss the "humanitarian" argument as a disingenuous attempt by a freeper to stir up trouble. Particularly as s/he has already abandoned the U.S. it seems like the poster has been able to distance him/herself from the consequences to Americans of the war. IF a miracle happens and democracy blooms in the middle east, America will still have transformed from a nation that the world loves to hate but loves anyway, to a nation that the rest of the world just hates - a violent, judgmental nation eager to impose its will on the world. We are rapidly seeing many of our civil liberties disappear at least in theory, and we have been thrust into a nightmare world where every time one turns on the t.v. or radio it is mentioned that somebody is planning to blow up somebody else. I believe that this all could have been avoided by using the diplomatic means that WERE WORKING prior to our invasion. As it is, half of America finds itself in an unfamiliar country. A divided country where existence has suddenly become painful and even shameful. In Cyprus the poster doesn't have to live with the embarrassment and shame of having a GWB to represent him and make decisions that affect daily life. And in the absence of this ugly feeling of guilt and depression, maybe the humanitarian argument looks just and logical to one who isn't a deep thinker by nature. Just maybe.

[Skip Intro]

109. The invasion was bullshit. Bullshit. There is no "worth it" moment to come

because the whole thing is bullshit.

Fake prez, fake crisis, fake threat, fake reasons - it was and is a sham.

Iraq not only needs to deal with the chaos and ruin and slaughter visited upon them by mr. bush, they have to deal with their "rescuers" occupying thier, THEIR, nation (eith just a few "for protection only" (I'm sure) permanent US bases).

Let's bring freedom and democracy to everybody!

Bombs away (and hoods/electricity/attack dogs for the rest).

[Skittles]

110. please tell me how bombing and invading a country illegally

leads to democracy. Go on, give it a shot.

[BushIsBurning]

111. Be Honest: War was sold with DISHONESTY DISHONESTY !!!!

[leftofthedial]

112. You are dead right

I think we should liberae Cyprus next

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zulchzulu]

115. Let's bomb the World into democracy

We must invade countries..kill many people...destroy their infrastructure...appoint their leaders...kill their leaders...appoint them again...kill the people for freedom...(repeat ad nauseum)

[dolstein]

116. You aren't alone

Believe it or not, the Democratic Party used to believe that the U.S. should aggressively confront tyranny around the globe.

It was JFK who said: <<Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.>>

Clearly, he wasn't simply talking about the liberty of Americans. JFK was part of a generation that believed that freedom -- not only of Americans, but of people everywhere -- was something that was worth fighting for.

Personally, I had no objections on principle to using military force to topple Saddam Hussein. To suggest that because there are lots of oppressive regimes around the world, the United States can never target ANY regime just strikes me as ludicrous. That's like saying we shouldn't fund cancer research because there are so many other lethal diseases out there.

My only qualms with regard to invading Iraq is that I thought that destroying Al Quaeda was a higher priority. In addition, we abandoned the Powell Doctrine. We didn't commit enough troops, and we didn't have a clear exit strategy. But these are issues of tactics and timing. I think many DU'ers just reflexively oppose the use of force, period.

[eridani]

128. We reflexively oppose imperialism.

Domination is evil, period. No excuse for it ever. And we could have used the money to promote the necessary invention of the post-oil economy.

JFK was no more interested in 'liberty' than any other post WW II president has been. The only 'liberty' involved has been the liberty to force resources from the periphery to the center of the empire at gunpoint. The only difference between postwar Dems and Reps has been that the latter wanted the loot to go to the elites, and the former wanted to share it with society at large (though they've given up on that last part lately).

We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.

--George Kennan, US Cold War planner, 1948 NSC-68 document
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nsc-68/nsc68-1.htm
--Source: Naval War College Review, Vol. XXVII (May-June, 1975), pp. 51-108. Also in U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: > 1950, Volume I.


The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

--Thomas Friedman, "A Manifesto for the Fast World," The New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999

[Nickster]

130. So where was he during the Bay of Pigs?

We didn't bear any burden to support Liberty for Cuba did we? I'm just saying....

I agree with you that Afghanistan was the higher priority and should have been the prime focus until Osama was captured. I was very happy that we invaded Afghanistan, I'm sure just about everyone was. Iraq is just plain wrong all the way around. There's a difference and it's not just a knee-jerk reflex to war. You go to war because you have to, not because you WANT to.

[Zhade]

143. The fact that you agree with a banned freeper says a lot about you.

Doesn't it make you uncomfortable to agree with a freeper about an illegal war?

[dolstein]

146. I care about ideas, not who expresses them

I think the sentiments that were expressed are certainly legitimate, and are in fact quite liberal, in the traditional Democratic sense (not to be confused with the so-called liberalism of the New Left, which movement actually represented a repudiation of much of what the Democratic Party has historically stood for, especially in the area of foreign policy.)

This war wasn't illegal. The United States had ample authority under international law, while I would have preferred a formal delcaration of war, Bush nonetheless obtained the tacit approval of Congress.

You may not like what Bush did (and even I have problems with it), but to suggest that it was somehow illegal is just plain silly. The left thinks that every action it disagrees with must somehow be illegal. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. You win some, you lose some. Not every political defeat is a lawsuit in the making.

[Just Me]

147. Excuse me,...what did JFK believe in,...just prior to his assassination?

You are trespassing upon some very sensitive territory with your statements.

I really do object to history revisionists,...especially when they mischaracterize someone like JFK. Of course, I've noticed revisionists who do the same thing with FDR and MLK,...and that really boils my blood, too!

[Gyre]

117. Well, that opened up one big ole can of whoop-ass!!!

Doubt Xavier86 will be showing up around here for awhile anyways. Good job kids! :)

Gyre

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PowerToThePeople]

123. It was total BS

We should never had gone in. It was lies that took us there. I was watching the whole thing unfold from the towers falling to today. Iraq was "wanted" by *. He did everything and anything to get us in there, lies, propoganda, and what not. THe war should never had happened. It is a travesty to the world.

[ghardy68]

132. Sincerely Real

Yes Saddam should be in power right now and those troops that were killed should be enjoying their families right now. I really don't give a damn about freedom abroad because we don't have freedom here in the good ole USA. Democracy is a hypocrisy because there is no such thing. Democracy means do what our government say or you will be considered a terrorist. What if some foreign country invaded America, would you just sit back and watch big tanks roll down your street? No you would use any means to get them the hell out of you city or town. So would that make you a freedom fighter or would that make you a terrorist? So when would you stop fighting for your freedom, never so the so called war on terror then would never end. What the administration tells is propaganda and they could be on this site and others monitoring what we are saying. So when you disappear and find yourself with probes on your genitals in Saudi Arabia remember this is in the name of democracy and freedom.:wtf:

[Old and In the Way]

124. OK, here's my opinion on your post

Style = 9 points You sound so darn reasonable. Polite. Well formed sentences. No cuss words. No coded language.

Content = 3 points Good story line. Weak on supporting facts.

Flammability = 9+ You got comments, that's good!

Argument = 0 Sorry, no sale.

[eridani]

125. 'We' love dictators who allow US military bases on their soil

Like Karimov of Uzbekistan, who boils his opponents alive. But if he ever decides to renege on US military access, just watch how fast 'we' have to save those poor people from the Butcher of Tashkent.

Recall that several of Iraq's neighbors, fearing instability, tried to avert war by arranging for Saddam to go into exile. Whether or not that would have worked is beside the point--the Psychopath in Chief announced that the invasion was on even if Saddam left.

[ananda]

129. pretense

The pretend reasons for attacking and occupying Iraq, which have changed over the ensuing months, have nothing to do with the real reasons: to control the oil, establish an overshadowing USA military presence in the ME, and to move a massive amount of money out of the control of the working, poor, and middle classes into the hands of huge corporo-fascist interests so that many more people can be manipulated into becoming wageslaves.

Get a grip.

Sue

[buddysmellgood]

131. You're uninformed

Women will suffer greatly under the new theocracy. This was nothing like Kosovo. I don't believe you. I don't think a progressive person can look at the lies from Dubya and then support this war.

[MadisonProgressive]

133. Maybe I'm missing your point...

Could you please restate? No, you can't? You've been tombstoned?



Well that's pretty rude of you right in the middle of an 'honest discussion'! :evilgrin:

[Lone Pawn]

137. Why the Hell did you post this in DU?

DELETED MESSAGE
DELETED MESSAGE
DELETED MESSAGE

This ain't the place for free flow of ideas--especially not on the war. And especially if you're not a Freeper. Unless you like being reamed.

Come on, did you think you could get away with it?

[Lone Pawn]

138. You want to wait until you have at least 500 posts before you pull

anything remotely flammable. I mean, son, you look like a Freeper. You're spouting right-wing talking points. You're calling us apologists, you're saying that opposing the war means calling to put Saddam back in power, you use crimes against humanity that the US all but authorized in '92 to justify an invasion in '04...you honestly look like a Freeper.

[simcha_6]

142. Here's my thoughts on the issue

I didn't support the war because:
1. We were supposed to go in to take out WMD, which proved to be non-existent. That was the rational for going in and the only legitimate reason, according to international law, that I could see going in. Since they didn't have it, and the UN wasn't in favor of it, I'm not sure we should take international law into our own hands this way. It's fine if there's an active genocide; we should have invaded and killed Hussein when he was killing all the Kurds. But we didn't. Prior to the war, he was a thug, but there are dozens of countries worthy of invasion for military reasons: Sudan probably tops the list, and we could have intervened in Iran or Syria for being repressive and sponsoring terrorism, Lebanon for being ruled, more or less, by the political arm of Hizb'Allah, Saudi Arabia for being repressive, Israel for the occupation, Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh Republic for the occupation of Azerbaijani territory: but we didn't.

By taking justice into our own hands without a dire situation such as active genocide, we set a dangerous precedent saying that we are fit to judge other countries and take military action based on those judgments. Then Iran could easily say that it was going to nuke Israel because, in their judgment, Israel is evil. Saudi Arabia or Kuwait could invade the UAE or Qatar for allowing women to go about uncovered. Russia or China could bomb us because we oppress our weaker citizens.

I find it odd that we've come to view democracy as a G-d given right that we must give to the rest of the world. I like democracy, of course, and we should support it wherever it's worthy of the name. But a lot of problems have come about because we tried to enforce democracy rather than letting it develop on its own. Somalia, where we try to place democracy regularly, is a mess. Somaliland, which we ignore (Google Somaliland for more info on this de facto state) has built a decent democracy on its own. If you take offense to me saying democracy isn't a G-d given right of a perfect system for everyone, read Kurban Said's novel "Ali and Nino." It really opened my eyes.

Finally, it is the stated duty of the president to protect and defend the United States against all enemies. Hussein might have been an enemy, but by attacking him we've created chaos and a lot more anti-Americanism. It seems to me like he's made the U.S. less safe.

One more thing. Watching "Control Room," a documentary on Al-Jazeera (sic?), you'll see that a lot of Arabs were against the invasion. Iraqis, soon after the U.S. took over, chanted "Yes to Democracy, Yes to Islam, No to America, No to Saddam!" If they don't want us there, if it's a slight on their pride to have Americans in Najaf, then we probably shouldn't come in.

When it comes down to it, security is more important than democracy. You mentioned an Iraqi happy that the U.S. took out Saddam, but I assume he doesn't live there. When you have suicide bombers running amok and no security, democracy might take second place to the question of whether your kids will be able to grow up safe.

Let me know if you saw this, or if you have any other questions about my reasoning. I like you post.