Quit complaining about Iraq and plan your next vacation there.

I dont know but I am beginning to question you.

 

I don't think it's completely illegitimate to tie Iraq and 911 together. If you look at it in terms of Iraq and the terrorists both coming from a part of the world where intolerance and brutal rule is the norm and so endemic to the cultures. Democracy teaches people to compromise and offers other avenues besides beheading people while shouting Allahu Akbar for disagreeing with you.
Basically the simplified version is that both the Islamic terrorist that have declared war on us and Iraq come from a culture(broadly) that is increasingly coming to odds with western culture. Trying to bring democracy and western values to that part of the world might be the only solution. I know it sounds imperialist, maybe it is. But it seems pretty clear that if the western world and the muslim(mainly middle east) are going to live in this world together peacefully, one of us is going to have to change drastically. I personally think our way of life is a lot better but what do I know, I'm just a bloated, stupid American.

 

So we should destroy other cultures for our own benefit that had nothing to do with us being attacked, all the time trumpeting being a 'democracy' of which the US is not even one.

Makes total sense.

 

Since the OP seems to have changed his post every 30 mins this thread is mostly gibberish. Anyway, I reserve the right to bitch and moan about anything I want even and especially if I am wrong. How else am I to be corrected than to make an ass out of myself

 

Iraq shares a culture, in a broad sense, that is endemic to that part of the world. I know it's not politically correct to say, but that culture is at odds with not only ours but every western country's.
I'm not saying we were right to go into Iraq. I'm still torn on the Iraq thing. I can justify the reasons for and against it. But I can see the logic at least in a theoretical sense in the neocons view of it. I don't believe we will find a way to live peacefully with the middle east unless they or we change drastically.

 

This is guilt by association. When you are going to drop bombs, annihilate people on a mass scale, and destroy all of the accumulated western infrastructure and gains a society has made over the last 30 years, then I think the test has to be stronger than guilt by association.

Boobus North Americanus for the most part has already proven that he cannot locate Iraq on a map, I cannot fathom how he deigns the moral authority to begin bombing there based upon coincidences and perceived biases that are not only absent of fact, they are absent of common sense.

See, this is the fundamental failure of and lack of knowledge that permeates the entire Iraq discussion.

Iraq was one of, if not the most modern Islamic countries in the middle east. While Saddam was a brutal dictator (one we endorsed, supplied and supported as he mass murdered his own people), his country had a kick butt public medical system, unlike other countries, women could drive and wear pants, get professional jobs as educators and in the medical profession etc.

While Saddam was a bad guy, the people of Iraq were not militarized, or fanatically religious in the way that the Iranians (post revolution) are.

So when you say broadly, that's like me punching your cousin because you and I have a problem. I don't know how (or why) you could rationalize this sort of behavior.

It might be the wrong solution. Muslims are not western. Their culture is much different. Look around the ME and see how many democracies there are relative to how many countries there are. Already the Afghani democracy is failing, as it is not only foreign to the people living under it, but it is undesirable.

It's arrogant to think you can tell people how to live, when we install a parliamentary democracy and have a representative republic ourselves. Ours isn't a democracy, and certainly not a functional one considering that it is almost impossible for anyone outside the two major parties to run for high office.

Right. And if Imperialism is bad, then ......

You know, besides 9/11, which I am not even sure of, it's not like the Islamic world has been waging a non-stop war of aggression against the West.

On the contrary, for the last 60 years, we have been involved in every country, those same ME despots that we do not like, have been our allies, from the military dictator in Pakistan, Musharraf, to training Bin Laden and putting him and Al Queda on our payroll. To giving Saddam the chemical weapons to commit mass murder, to imposing torture and tyranny on the Iranians, until they have a fanatical religious revolution.

Maybe it's time we packed up our tents and tanks and came home. Minded our own damn business, and stopped trying to tell people how to live. Maybe we should treat others the way we want to be treated.

Because your answer seems to be, subjugate and rule. But we've been trying that for 60 years and failing. How much longer do we perpetuate a failing policy? How many people have to die and how much money has to be spent (on both sides)?

Sure our way of life is better. Anyone who gets in our way, gets killed.

 

Hehe, it does have to be one or the other with Iraq. We either need to act like real imperialists and plant a flag and claim it as ours or we need to come home. I personally do not want to live in the new Roman Empire, it didn't work out so well back then.

 

First, let me be clear, I'm not sure I agree that we should spread democracy by force. I'm not sure it's within our authority or best interests to do so. But if you buy the premise that democratizing the middle east is in US and the world's best interests, then Iraq was a good place to start. Iraq did have some good things going for it compared to other middle east countries but it was in violation of many UN resolutions for years after invading a neighbor and throwing much of the world into a war against it. It was a pretty secular country but probably only because the dictator didn't want competition from religious leaders. The values exercised in Iraq were those typical to middle eastern countries: brutal rule, intolerance to opposition, lack of compromise, etc.

Uum, they pretty much have. All the embassy bombings, the Cole bombing the first WTC, etc.

World politics is complicated. Generally the US are pragmatists which is both the source of a lot of the problems that people have with us and the reason we've been so successful as a nation. Our main goal during the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was still to defeat Soviet communism and keep it from spreading. I think it made perfect sense to do so. Back then the USSR was the number one threat against the modern, western way of life. If intervening in ways such as we did in the Soviet/Afghanistan war causes blowback, then that's just something we have to deal with, to cross that bridge when we come to it.

In a way my arguments are contrived, my heart isn't in them. Instinctually when it comes to foreign policy I agree with you and Ron Paul. I think we should stay out of peoples' business if they stay out of ours. But unfortunately I think the circumstances of the real world makes it impossible to sit idly by within the comfort of our own borders while wars wage against our way of life.

 

@ LF,

You seem deeply conflicted to me. I feel for you. You're not sure it's the right thing, but you worry it may be the necessary thing. That's a lot more honest than many people will admit.

This is not a direct comparison, but I think you will see the analogy in context.

Hitler once thought that fascism was the way the world should run. He also thought that Jews and Gays should be annihilated. He felt he was morally justified to do this.

Prior to 9/11, we rejected the notion of invading people and forcing them to change their way to satisfy our vision of the world. Pre-emptive war is a war crime, and the invasion of Iraq is clearly a pre-emptive war.

To add on, now we know that the evidence for war was contrived. So the pre-emption would have been illegal with valid proof. Without valid proof, it is an atrocity.

I don't know how we can make the world better by committing atrocities, and I suspect deep down, you suspect the same thing I do.

We can't.

 

There was plenty of reasons for war. WMD's was not even the biggest of reasons. I am not saying America alone should of been in Iraq. The UN should of been in there many years before we invaded.

According to the laws of the UN they are supposed to be in to stop crimes against humanity which Saddam was certainly comitting. Saddam should of been removed way before we ever went in. There was reason for war. A lot of reasons. But the way it was presented was poorly done.

 

We gave Saddam the weapons to commit the crimes. Then when he used chemical weapons on the Iranians, we sold the Iranians weapons through Iran-Contra.

The whole notion that Saddam was a bad guy and it is justified to starve 500,000 children to death under sanctions to punish him, is stupid.

That we have invaded and smashed the country, creating millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands dead is also silly.

Saddam was dead years ago.

As far as crimes against Humanity, the UN charges Israel with crimes or violations all of the time. Yet we stand shoulder to shoulder with them when they violate the UN.

 

That's a perfect assessment. I'm very conflicted and that's the reason I've pretty much stayed away from the Iraq subject in this forum up until now. I should probably keep trying to avoid it.

 

sorry i missed your post
be careful and stay safe

 

Irrelevant if we sell weapons to people. We did not tell him to go gas his own people for differing on political views with him.
And we did not give Saddam his torture chambers or anything. We did not have him torturing people for losing soccer matches or for any other petty excuse he came up with.

And it is the leaders fault for the starving. He could of stopped his crimes and no more sanctions. But no he would much rather keep on being his messed up self and live in luxory while his people starve in the streets.


And we all know the UNs' long long hostory of failures. And you just pointed out another.

 

Saddam was our ally when he was gassing Kurds and Iranians with our weapons.

He was our ally when he was torturing people in his rape rooms.

He worked with the CIA.

 

Still irrelevant.
You act as if its okay for him to do things if he is our ally. I disagree. Which is why it is good that Bush went in and made it clear he did not agree with what was going on.

 

Bush 41 went in to protect Kuwait. When Saddam was murdering people, Bush was his good buddy. As was Reagan.

We sold Saddam the chemical weapons, knowing full well who he was going to use them on.

It's lame and intellectually stunting that you continue to dodge the facts.

 

Except that the excess surplus were spent over the years. Not all of it went to Social Security

 

Okay still irrelevant and yet you keep bring it up. I have yet to say a thing about Bush or Reagan. They were in the wrong. So now back to what I was saying.

 

I hope you don't mind, but I am already engaged in conversations with several irrational people. I have to put you on ignore.

Sorry.