The Iraq War (General)
Under "The Human Animal", Matt raised the subject of the Iraq war. I took it up purely in order to give my subjective answer to your question about your soldier friend's position. I don't mind if you, David or anyone else wishes to engage in a political discussion on the Iraq War, East v. West, the UN, oil-based politics, Al Qaeda etc., but let's put it on another thread.-A few facts concerning the Iraq War. The reason given to the British people for the invasion was that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was also suggested that he had links with Al Qaeda. Both allegations were untrue, and many people believe that Blair already knew they were untrue. As regards resistance to the war, there were massive antiwar demonstrations here and indeed worldwide BEFORE the invasion (one estimate put the worldwide figure at 36 million between Jan. and April). Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary, resigned in March 2003 in protest, and Clare Short ... International Development Secretary ... resigned shortly after the invasion, also in protest. I attended a lecture she gave at Hay on Wye, and she did not mince her words about Bush and Blair's connivance and personal agendas. She at least had no doubt who was responsible for the war. I watched the UN debate in which Dominique Villepin ripped to pieces the bogus case for invasion, and the vast majority of countries, including France, Germany, Russia and China, opposed the USA plan to invade. In USA itself, you say there was very little resistance at first. I read that on 15 Feb. 2003, between 300,000 and 400,000 demonstrated in New York City, and there were smaller demonstrations in many other cities. In Jan 2003 CBS News / New York Times held an opinion poll in which 63% wanted a diplomatic solution and only 31% favoured military intervention. (I can't vouch for these figures, because like most people I depend on the media for such information.)-David, the 1930s appeaser was Neville Chamberlain, not Anthony Eden. You say I should have learned from the 1930s attempts at appeasement. Let me set the record straight. I am not a pacifist. I was totally in favour of the 1991 Gulf War, after Saddam had invaded Kuwait in an act of blatant aggression. There is a time for diplomacy, and there is a time for action, though I appreciate that one's judgement in these matters is subjective. Mine is that there was every justification for the 1991 war against an aggressor, and none for the 2003 war, in which we were the aggressors.-As regards the link between your two paragraphs, it is widely believed over here (and also, I think, by many Americans) that Iraq was invaded in order to gain control of the oil, and other reasons such as WMD and Al Qaeda were merely a pretext. If this is true, appeasement does not even enter the debate. If the purpose was to develop Iraq as a semi-democracy friendly to the West, I would say, as many ... including Robin Cook and Clare Short ... predicted BEFORE the invasion, that the war has only increased the threat of terrorism and added to the instability of the Middle East. You are right that "the USA is the world policeman", but if a policeman kills my neighbour, cripples my son, destroys my property, and tells me how to live my life, can he really expect me to call him friend?
The Iraq War
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 23:16 (5086 days ago) @ dhw
> David, the 1930s appeaser was Neville Chamberlain, not Anthony Eden. You say I should have learned from the 1930s attempts at appeasement.-I know I was wrong, shortly after I typed that comment, but I was already gone from the house on an errand, and never got back to put in a correction. Churchill was always such a bull dog of a stateman, Eden always came across as a wimp to me as a young kid following Europe after the war. That is what mixed up my memory. I've not studied the history, I lived it. As for appeasement, that is what is happening now by the European governments, not our glorious leader, dhw. -> > As regards the link between your two paragraphs, it is widely believed over here (and also, I think, by many Americans) that Iraq was invaded in order to gain control of the oil, and other reasons such as WMD and Al Qaeda were merely a pretext. If this is true, appeasement does not even enter the debate. If the purpose was to develop Iraq as a semi-democracy friendly to the West, I would say, as many ... including Robin Cook and Clare Short ... predicted BEFORE the invasion, that the war has only increased the threat of terrorism and added to the instability of the Middle East.-Your paragraph above describes an attempt to isolate Iran as a I stated yesterday. Carter got us into that mess, and Iran is becoming very dangerous. The Iraq approach got rid of a nasty dictator who killed lots of folks, fought for years with Iran, killing how many (?) and with no reason tried to absorb Kuwait to get oil and sea coast. Your statement also supports reality foreign affairs policy. Appease the Arabs, let dangerous dictators go about their business. Yes Iraq stirred up reactionary Muslims but the Wahabis were always stirring things up and continue to do so with petroleum dollars. OBL is a Wahabi. -The ideal world would have all freedom-loving nations producing all the oil they can, the hell with global warming, and not continue to kowtow in a mamby-pamby way to Arabs, (just to have their oil) who can't stand democracy and need powerful dictators to run their lives.-I obviously think Iraq was a noble experiment in statemanship, ignoring 'reality' accommendations. In this regard, Afganistan is a worse trap. It have always itself run by a powerful interlocking tribal system. They don't want any foreigners on their soil at any time, and the USA has added troops under Obama, while the real quarry in hiding in Pakistan. We can't invade a nuclear power, and OBL keeps going.
The Iraq War
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 17, 2010, 03:18 (5085 days ago) @ David Turell
David, > > As regards the link between your two paragraphs, it is widely believed over here (and also, I think, by many Americans) that Iraq was invaded in order to gain control of the oil, and other reasons such as WMD and Al Qaeda were merely a pretext. If this is true, appeasement does not even enter the debate. If the purpose was to develop Iraq as a semi-democracy friendly to the West, I would say, as many ... including Robin Cook and Clare Short ... predicted BEFORE the invasion, that the war has only increased the threat of terrorism and added to the instability of the Middle East. > > Your paragraph above describes an attempt to isolate Iran as a I stated yesterday. Carter got us into that mess, and Iran is becoming very dangerous. The Iraq approach got rid of a nasty dictator who killed lots of folks, fought for years with Iran, killing how many (?) and with no reason tried to absorb Kuwait to get oil and sea coast. Your statement also supports reality foreign affairs policy. Appease the Arabs, let dangerous dictators go about their business. Yes Iraq stirred up reactionary Muslims but the Wahabis were always stirring things up and continue to do so with petroleum dollars. OBL is a Wahabi. > -No, American/British meddling was to blame for Iran--not Carter. Kermit Roosevelt Jr. is the guy to blame here, together with the SIS. The only reason we reinstalled the Shah was because Mosaddeq expelled the hugely profitable Brit-owned oil company. The Shah was the direct result of a REAL push for oil--and keeping the Soviets away from it. No--Iran should have been left alone. The Soviets had Iranian oil during their Afghan war; Iran would have been inconsequential had the soviets managed to push into the region--after all, we already had Saudi Arabia, and the most awesome Saddam Hussein of Iraq. - > The ideal world would have all freedom-loving nations producing all the oil they can, the hell with global warming, and not continue to kowtow in a mamby-pamby way to Arabs, (just to have their oil) who can't stand democracy and need powerful dictators to run their lives. > > I obviously think Iraq was a noble experiment in statemanship, ignoring 'reality' accommendations. In this regard, Afganistan is a worse trap. It have always itself run by a powerful interlocking tribal system. They don't want any foreigners on their soil at any time, and the USA has added troops under Obama, while the real quarry in hiding in Pakistan. We can't invade a nuclear power, and OBL keeps going.-Don't worry, he'll die of old age, eventually.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Iraq War
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 23:59 (5085 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-Concerning some of what you said about war protestations here in the U.S.: public opinion reported during the conflict generally supported the war. I was a protester myself, though only in online campaigns. -Again, I agree that the public reasons for that war were completely contrived--and an absolute farce--you must remember that warfare in the democratic age requires an asymmetry of information. Especially in terms of decisions. -Bush came from the neocon block of conservatives. Here in the U.S., this referred to a block of ultra-right wing religious conservatives whose social leaders have often regarded Israeli control of Jerusalem paramount (to bring the second coming of Jesus), and that democracy really SHOULD be spread by force. (As if that is even possible...)-But the broader military goal is exactly this: I'm not an intelligence expert. I knew that our invasion of Iraq was going to be looked upon in the middle east as something to generate more hatred for the U.S. However, I think this was well-known and it was done because of this. The military engaged in an act of attrition by putting our soldiers in about the most perfect geographical position we could want them to be--all in an effort to draw Al-Qaeda (and anyone else who hates us) into combat. I'm not an expert--and I was able to put this together. With the kind of brainpower in our NSA (the actual arbiters of military policy) and your own SIS--I think that all Bush did was put the rubber stamp (and an awful oratory) because his neocon buddies want another crusade. -Whatever Bush's intentions--and I was opposed to the war until just this year--I think the outcome has been and will be more stability. Iraqis are standing on their own quite well, thus far.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"