What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?

Didn't agree with either invasion (1990-1991) or (2003-2011). If one argues concepts about brutality, why hasn't Syria been invaded? How about virtually all of the African countries? The first invasion was "justifiable" from a world perspective, however, justifiable doesn't necessarily imply moral or correct. Weak to fair arguments can be made that Hussein was set up to invade Kuwait and then obliterated after he took the bait.

 

The big thing that is going on all the time is trying to get control over the masses in the Middle East and bring them under the umbrella of the Arab League (under control of an empire they are still building since 1945, and this empire building is speeding up since 9/11)
They give/gave people the idea that when they can vote they have freedom and a better live, but in the end people will loose everything, and all end up in an empire (this ritual is going on for thousands of years, again going on) Imperialism means ruling over the masses, and destroying them in a war. All this 'regime change' is deception, one politics go, the next come, but the rulers in top of power stay in control, the people can't see them. Same in the West, we only vote to cause 'presidential change', the rulers in to of power stay, and enforce their power all the time (building an empire around us, try to reach absolute power) Empire building via regime change'. Saddam also another puppet who couldn't see he was a used as a puppet, Hitler was a puppet dictator as well, Nero (Rome) as well, and so on. It's alway the same. This is going on for thousands of years.
People again can't see it, again going throught the same ritual/process.

 

If "just" is the rationale, then our failure to act "justly" in Uganda, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Darfour only highlights our hypocrisy, imo. Just because some legal scholars say it was "just" does not make it any less "stupid" in my book.

and thank you for yours as well, sir.

Again... just war theory or not, I am philosophically against injecting our will by armed might into the politics of another country. I am all for helping Syrian rebels, just like I was all for helping Iraqi rebels overthrow Saddam as was the purpose of the ILA in '98. Aid is one thing. A massive invasion, conquest and ten year occupation is something else entirely.

One of my tours of duty was as a military observer/crisis mediator with the UN Truce Supervision in Palestine. I must say that I have a completely different opinion of Israel than you do, but I understand the depth and strength of your objections to them. I have kept in touch with many people in Israel since my departure there and I would share one little tidbit for you about why Israelis are critical of Palestinians. Before they turned over Gaza to the PLO, Israel had many industrial concerns in the area. One was an extraordinary high tech hydroponic vegetable farm that grew some of the most amazing produce in the world. They shipped their products to the finest restaurants in Europe as well as throughout the middle east. When Israel left, they did not dismantle the farm in any way. They even left instructions on how the Palestinians could continue to run the facility and bring much needed income into Gaza. Within a week or two of the turnover, the farm had been completely looted. All the extensive piping systems were broken up and sold for scrap metal. Palestinians have NOT created a paradise and it seems they really have no interest in doing so. I used to fly over the area between Israel and Lebanon quite often and it was incredible to see - on the face of the earth - the difference between land that Jews were stewards of and land that Arabs were stewards of. You didn't need any signs to tell you when you crossed from Southern Lebanon into Northern Israel. There was a solid line of demarkation. To the north, the land was brown, to the south, it was lush green.

I know that the actions of all our troops was brave and noble, but you cannot tell me that "shock and awe" was a fine episode in the exercise of American principles. Well... of course, you can tell me, but I will respectfully disagree. You said earlier about how Iraq was the fulcrum between sunni and shia... it was also, perhaps not a fulcrum, but certainly the demarkation between arab and persian. Most folks I know view Iran and a much greater threat to our interests than Iraq ever could be. I think that, as bad as he was, Saddam acted as a reasonably effective foil against Iranian hegemony. Now.. if the simmering civil war that our departure has let loose ever resolves itself, the shi'ite majority if Iraq will, I fear, become a willing ally of their shi'ite brothers in Iran and will NOT EVER be the strong American ally in the middle east that Dubya told us they would be. ANd I am not sure that our invasion of Iraq taught the Islamic world the lesson you think it did... I think it taught them that, if America invades, all bets are off.

 

If we hadn't...

... Saddam Hussein would still be alive...

... and making the Iraqis lives...

... a living hell.

 

and somehow, that was worth 40K dead and wounded American soldiers and BILLIONS of dollars flushed down the toilet?

somehow, that was worth it, but saving the people of Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, Darfour et. al. from the same or worse fate, was NOT?

 

"What's your opinion on invading Iraq in the first place?"

I would say if we wanted them to be at war we should of let them fight it out with Iran

this was cost too much.. in both $$$ and lives

 

Justifiable does mean moral. The second invasion was also moral, as I have stated.

The reasons other countries are not invaded, for morally justifiable reasons of genocide, and systematic abuse and imprisonment, include:

• no geopolitical reason tying interference in said state to regional issues important to us
• limited resources, with protracted recovery. We can't police bad behavior around the world

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I am just showing you the other side of the coin.

 

I would treat your statement as fair if you fully supported a USA invasion of Syria immediately. Do you?

 

Action in those countries/areas is not tied to US geopolitical concerns. No hypocrisy.

If just war theory justifies injecting our will by armed might into another country, busy making life hell for its "citizens" long-term historically, AND it is tied to geopolitics, and it is done more rarely than rare, what is your philosophical objection?

Perhaps, in some small way, it counter-balances our material support for autocratic regimes for purposes of stability to promote resource acquisition, at the unfortunate expense of its own people.

Now the Palestinians cannot very well give the Israelis a public relations success, now can they? It is an unconventional, asymmetric war and information operations are critically important. The same thing happened with abandoned settlements in Gaza, IIRC, or that may be the same location.

The Palestinians lack of a Paradise is directly related to the Israelis active, long-term, strategic suppression of economic development in the occupied territories. (I went off in this thread and gravely insulted a Canadian officer, although he asked for it by attacking me rather than addressing my points. I don't think he could address them)...

As far as Lebanon goes, I guess they have to spend their money elsewhere.

I readily concur that the average Israeli works their nose off to establish what they have, whereas the average Palestinian and the average Lebanese does not. The average Israeli gets a lot of encourage and economic support to do so, whereas the average Palestinian or Lebanese does not. They may actually be encouraged to do the opposite...IO again.

Let me take this opportunity to place the blame squarely on the Zionists and not the average Israeli, for the long-term, planned, strategic invasion of Palestine, justly accounting for brainwashing of the masses...

We have our own concerns in that regard, here in the US, on both sides of the aisle. God forbid someone disagrees with the status quo! They will find themselves an independent faster than you can say Joe Lieberman and uninvited, with prejudice, from the weekly community BBQ.

That said, I have been to multiple Arab homes, amidst the rubbish in questionable neighborhoods, across the ME, and these people keep their homes SPOTLESS!

Yes, another fulcrum. We are up to three fulcrums, now. Other humanitarian crisises have at most one fulcrum, and a minor one at that, given their lack of important resources and geopolitical significance.

Rising regional power of Iran was planned and purposeful, IMHO. It forces Sunni/Arab land to rise in response. It forces Turkey to play a regional role. There, two good reasons.

This is a wonderful exchange we are having and I would like to thank you for that.

 

Not at all. There is no (minimal) geopolitical concern for us, there. We did the dirty deed once, in Iraq, and effected change. No need for a repeat.

 

No good, loving grace. Another working class brain-dead supporter of the elite. Consistency is the key. Either you want humanitarianism or you want privilege. While I respect your USA-centric concerns because I also live in the USA, there is an inconsistency.

 

Blind consistency, huh? And are there only two choices? Darn.

 

Haha. Nope. Absolutely nothing to do with the Cold War. Would you like me to prove it?

 

How does the USA defend ignorance of Syria if humanitarianism is the modus operandi? If energy is the modus operandi, obviously, the rules are different and should be discussed.

 

Why are you making me repeat myself?

http://www.politicalforum.com/diplo...invading-iraq-first-place.html#post1061513577

EDIT: let me add that the US is providing intelligence, training, op planning and comms gear...so we are not ignorant of Syria. Do you really think we should send in the troops?

 

Because it is illogical and not convincing.

 

mmm. how so?

 

I went through the Palestinian thread, I posted earlier, and picked out some core argumentation I engaged in.

• The start of my argument
• Proposed Palestinian 2 contiguous state solution
• Proof of long-term strategic Israeli suppression of Palestinians
• Confronting the senior respected Colonel, who is taking ****
• More with the Colonel
• Acknowledging legitimacy of terrorism, while not supporting it
• Summary of the core argument
• More on long-term, planned invasion of Israelis into Palestine
• A poster admitting that the west materially supports autocratic regimes across the Muslim world, who in turn suppress and oppress their population
• The last post: a wonderful poem. It brought tears to my eyes.

 

Before I try to enlighten Giftedone..

This is no small footnote in the history of (failed) imperialism. In a signing statement, President Bush declared that he will bypass Congressional legislation that forbids the establishment of "any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq," and will also ignore any legislation that forbids administration actions "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

These intentions were outlined in the 2007 "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship", an agreement between the Bush administration and the Maliki government. The Declaration permits US forces to occupy the country indefinetely. The declaration also commits Iraq to:

Furthermore, in March 2005, the editors of the Financial Times osberved that:

 

Nonsense. A bunch of babblers. What do you know that I do not? A specific question to justify atrocities that you haven't answered.

 

The reality is that whatever the legalese around Palestine, the Palestinians have been and are still at War with the Zionists, since 1936.

and rightfully so, although I am not supporting their tactics, only legitimizing their aspirations.

Why doesn't Israel extend the basic human right of voting to ALL Palestinians, within the boundaries of the UN proclamation? Aren't they supposed to be the beacon of democracy and human rights in the Middle East?

This post sums up the proclivities of Israel in suppressing the aspirations of the Palestinians quite nicely. I had not previously known that Israel maintains the right of zoning approval for Palestinian lands, yet doesn't offer them a vote...

I suppose one would have to say that Egypt is the beacon of democracy. Not sure who the beacon of human rights is...probably Jordan.

YMMV, and I have taken the thread off topic. My apologies.

 

If the JUSTification for the invasion was not geopolitical but humanitarian, then failing to react to similar JUSTifications elsewhere in the world IS hypocritical, imo.

I happen to philosophically object to this school of thought where America deems itself to be the world's puppet master, enthusiastically entering in to other nation's personal affairs in an attempt to rig the outcome to suit the wishes of the puppet master. WHether that is overthrowing Mossadeq in Iran, or assassinating Allende in Chile, or arming the contras against the duly elected sandinistas in Nicauragua... I am against all of that.

And...the decade delay in response to the plight of Iraq's "citizens" shows the invasion for what it was. It had ZIP to do with Iraqis and everything to do with the PNAC vision for the future. It would be like, you living down the block from a ten year old bully who routinely beat up his kid brother. A full decade passes... another kid from the same neighborhood intentionally runs over your family pet dog with his car. Your response is to go back to the first kid, who now is a senior in college and pummel him for the crime of beating up his brother a decade ago and JUSTifying it on humanitarian grounds.

sure they could, if making an economically viable state was part of their goal. But we both know that they don't really want a two state solution at all... they want a ONE state solution and that would be a arab palestinian state on the mediterranean and the sea for miles and miles littered with the bodies of dead jews.

And I put the blame on the palestinians. I think that zionists act an awful lot like the women's pro-choice lobby in America. They KNOW that their opponents will CLAIM to be willing to negotiate and settle for compromise solutions, but those claims will ultimately be overrun by the next round of demands from the other side. I think that pro-choice women would gladly compromise on no abortions after 20 weeks, maybe even parental notification, IF they believed for one nanosecond that the pro-life crowd would then stop their all out assault on Roe v. Wade. Similarly, Israel would gladly give back much of the West Bank, Gaza AND the Golan if they thought for one nanosecond that the palestinians would then put down their weapons, shake hands and start being friendly neighbors. They KNOW that won't happen. Beyond that, is the totally intractable issue of Jerusalem. Muslims will NEVER accept a compromise that allows Israel to retain the city and Israel will NEVER accept a compromise where they must give it up.

I agree, by the way, about arab homes. They are ALWAYS spotless inside and even when the street outside is reduced to rubble by some armed confrontation, they are back out there straightening it all up and making it look normal even before all the bodies are dragged off.

planned by US? Again... it's like a puppet show entwined with chaos theory. If we tweak this situation a little bit over here, we should see other reactions to that that will be in our better interest... we hope. If we assassinate this guy or overthrow this guy that will be better for America. That presumptuous ruthlessness abhors me.

ANd I agree... talking intelligently about this topic is something I have longed to do for years. You have no idea how many many many times I have been called a ******* loving traitor on internet message boards for daring to question our invasion of Iraq.

 

Mediocre foreign policy.

 

Prelude
Let me first observe that we have a fairly complicated exchange occurring here. It has bifurcated several times and we have Iraq and Palestine and general puppet mastery and other things to boot. I will do my best to rearrange the sub-discussions, for us. Perhaps a separate thread on Palestine would be pertinent, since it is very complex.

Iraq

I do not agree with this. The geopolitics were not part of the justification for invasion, IMHO. However, the coupling of a proper justification with a geopolitical reasoning is necessary. I suppose another way of saying what I am trying to say is that having just a justification is not sufficient. You MUST have geopolitics as well. The absence of geopolitics in these other areas with humanitarian problems causes us not to act which prevents us from being hypocritical about it.

We need a Just War Theory justification AND a geopolitical reason.

The analogy is a bit simplified, no offense. The other neighborhood kids would not let us address the bully when he was 10.

Analogy aside, nothing is ever as simple as one thread of reasoning, like PNAC...other than the general statement of breaking the geopolitical iceberg in the broader region, however that happened to play out.

As for why we couldn't help in the preceding 10 years or why we broke our promise to help the Shia when they revolted, all were entirely due to other Arab states preventing us from removing Saddam. 9/11 allowed us to avoid that prevention, although we had to act "unilaterally".

This is why I think the public PNAC plan was bogus, as we don't have the resources or legitimacy to go rolling around the entire ME.

I do think that a geopolitical analysis was done. I mean, I freaking hope it was done, although another example of blind ideological action would not really surprise either, I suppose. I suppose some folks had done a geopolitical analysis and others had not. Some people paid attention to the analysis and others had not.

If said geopolitical analysis did not include analysis of Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, well...I do not know what to say.

The fact is, it was well known that invasion in Iraq would ripple across the region. W and Cheney and Rice and Rummy all mentioned the broader geopolitical context and connected action in Iraq to democratic aspirations across the region.

US puppet mastery

Sure, we are the superpower. We are responsible for the free flow of petroleum and trade goods, internationally, by the dictates of history. Therefore, we are definitely involved in the internal affairs of other countries. We do this by the occasional invasion or war. We do this even more significantly with the disbursement of foreign aid. We are the responsible party for maintaining autocratic regimes across the Islamic world.

Osama bin Laden's geopolitical analysis was correct. We are the far enemy preventing democratic expression in the Middle East.

That we have followed Osama's prescription, minus the caliphate (at least so far) is quite interesting, I think.

That Israel is viewed here in America as the representation of democracy, in the Middle East, is beyond hypocrisy as the Israelis deny one person one vote to the Palestinians.

I highlighted a comment you made that really rang a bell with me. Events take "crazy Ivans" and we do not have firm control over world events. Case in point: our attempt to establish a non-democratic government in Iraq, after the invasion, to control the establishment of a new constitution. Al Sistani correctly negated that idea.

Palestine

It is a mess. It is rooted in the immoral establishment of the state of Israel. Whatever the legal wonks say about its legitimacy, the Arabs know it is not legitimate, at a moral level. It is a planned invasion, since 1881, and it is not a democracy, as the Palestinians have no vote. The Palestinians have been uprooted from their lands and suffer planned, long-term human rights abuse as Israelis deny zoning, building structures, schools, roads, electricity and water to the Palestinians. Western powers materially and militarily support Israel. That Israelis criticize Palestinians for not creating a paradise for themselves, with the meager resources the Israelis deem to give them, takes real big hairy balls.

Either the Israelis get busy defining that 2 contiguous state solution or all hell is going to break loose.

Israelis use the principle of Lebensraum to justify their expansion at the expense of the Palestinians. Can you believe that? I love a good irony.

The Arabs rejected the original plan, of a 2 state solution with Jerusalem internationally administered. That Britain helped the Zionists in the 1936-1939 war, probably pissed them off a bit.

loving our fellow *******s

Yeah, they live according to good principles, in general. Truthful, non-harmful, generous, faithful. Of course, those tend to be the quiet ones, raising their families, not those running about with the megaphone and an AK-47.

No worries, for sure it is a valid opinion, especially coming from one such as yourself, from your perspective and experience. I am in the interesting position of favoring the invasion, for the benefit of the broader Arab world, not for resource acquisition by the west. "Mursi, Mursi, hat al kursi!" (Mursi, Mursi, has the throne!)

It is a real shame that more intelligent, courteous discussion can not take place between those with different opinions. In my book, that's when such discussions can be most fruitful, when there is fundamental disagreement. You and I do have some fundamental disagreement, I think, but it is good, you know?

 

So a just war is not "just" enough on its own? We need to find ourselves a "just" war in a region where we believe we need more than the subtle moves of the puppet master to accomplish our goals of manipulating the lives of the people somewhere else for our benefit? Did I get that right?

the other kids would not let us address it? We could have kept rolling all the way to Baghdad in February of '91 and what "kid" in that neighborhood would have dared try to stop us? We had a massive force on the ground there. What other Arab state could have stopped us from helping the Shia... which we wouldn't have HAD to do if we had taken Saddam out when we had the chance.

and again...9/11 is the kid running over your dog. Your response to that act should be aimed at HIM....

The decider himself did not even know the difference between sunnis and shi'ites, so I feel like the nuances of any detailed geopolitical analysis of the states and factors you mention would have been lost on him in any case. And I take issue with your suggesting that there is some sort of legitimate cause and effect relationship between OUR invading Iraq in 2003, and the Arab Spring phenomenon of 2011/12. I realize that all of Dubya's team believed that they would easily waltz into Iraq, greeted as heroes, and, in short order, establish a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-sectarian Jeffersonian democracy that would blossom on the banks of the Euphrates, but that didn't happen. ANd people like me were predicting that shiites and sunnis would be at each other's throats soon after our departure... which has proven to be the case.

I am not as organized in my thoughts as you...much of this was answered in the previous section. I guess, to summarize my objections... I am not against the use of influence, subtle coercion, intelligence, careful use of disinformation, all the tricks of the diplomat's (and spy's) trade. I draw the line at wet works. I draw the line at ousting other country's leaders, or killing them, or invading other countries - without the provocation of an attack - simply to move some chess pieces around.

Palestinians today publicly bemoan the fact that they were not allowed to accept the original UN partitioning as that would have been better than anything they have had the chance to win at any negotiating table since then. But the fact of the matter is... they were willing participants in the war against the fledgling state of Israel and their stated goal was not the establishment of a harmonious two state solution, but nothing less than driving every Jew into the Mediterranean. I honestly cannot see anyway clear to a solution simply because of the pro-choice/pro-life similarities I mentioned before.

I agree wholeheartedly. When I lived in Beirut, the VAST majority of people were friendly and kind...they would invite me into their homes, and to their daughter's wedding even. I have fond memories of MANY delightful Arabs. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's perspective) I still have the face of the mourabitoun fighter manning a checkpoint who stuck his AK-47 barrel up my nose permanently emblazoned in my mind. I WILL kill him if I ever see him again... but then, I have no plans to revisit Beirut and go looking for him either.

We can agree to disagree... I actually think that your rationale for being in favor of the invasion is much more reasonable than most. I have enjoyed this a great deal!