Still at it, protesting yesterday’s war with yesteryear’s talking points to mark the 6th anniversary:
Read ‘em and weep celebrate.
22 Mar
This is soooo 2003-2006
This entry was posted in Liberal Idiots, Military, The Iraqi War. Bookmark the permalink.
Sunday, March 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 am | 3 views
- Share:
Where are the “Impeach Obama” signs?
Moveon must be losing funding due to people forgetting about them. Guess they had to do something about it.
More like soooo 1969. Are they going to resurrect Abbie Hoffman?
Nixon is right- this IS 1969, in more ways than one.
As before, we are offered two…and only two positions from which to choose- unquestioning support for the war, or immediate pullout.
Sorry, thoughtful and reasoned arguments are not desired or tolerated. Screaming slogans and bumpersticker quips are mandatory.
The folks in the video are not worth taking seriously- but there SHOULD be a serious discussion about what our goals are in this war, and more importantly, what we plan to do about the OTHER war.
We began all this in order to “prevent another 9-11″.
Is the only way to prevent a terrorist attack really to occupy and pacify the entire Islamic world?
It seems like that is our strategy, as we morph from our original goals into a slowly escalating war involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, possibly Iran, someday Somalia, Yemen, and on and on.
Even after all this energy, effort and money…how difficult is it to make a terrorist attack on America? Not very- with a couple assault rifles and grenades, even a tiny handful of terrorists could paralyze the nation.
The best-case scenario for Iraq is that we will “win” in 3-5 years, leaving behind an Shiite-dominated state that is exceedingly friendly with Iran. It isn’t all that unreasonable to wonder if this is a net plus for America, compared to leaving anti-Shiite Hussein in place.
With over 100,000 US troops in Iraq – it’s perfectly legit and democratic for people to protest this – whether you agree with them or not. It’s hardly an non-issue. In fact I would of thought some of you would love the fact that war protestors are still out there and campaigning against Obama’s timetable for the withdrawal of troops.
What does pointing and laughing at them have to do with legitimacy? Where is anyone advocating that their democratic right to protest be stripped away? Are you attempting to take away my “legit and democratic” right to call them fools?
In 2009, what is there to protest? “Out of Iraq NOW“? Logistically impossible and morally irresponsible.
Perhaps someone who “speaks their language” can shake some sense into them:
For those who profess to be “anti-war” and “pro-peace”, will abandoning Iraq prematurely and squandering the gains we made in 2007-present make Iraq a more peaceful place? Will it end the suffering or escalate it by a hasty withdrawal? These protestors are protesting 2003-2006, arguing against yesteryear’s headlines. Our presence in Iraq isn’t the problem. It’s part of the solution to stabilization and a reduction of body counts.
The situation today:
Gaffa:
You mean the timetable that essentially amounts to Bush’s timetable? Who says I don’t “love the fact” in some sick and twisted partisan smirkiness? It is just a bit of cruel satisfaction to watch anti-war protestors who more than likely voted for Obama come to grips with “Obama the pragmatist” rather than “Obama the Kucinich”:
In ’08, a number of Obama supporters told me “he’ll end the war”. I saw that as already happening, thanks to Bush and the decision to Surge- opposed by Obama. These same anti-war protestors were wrong to oppose the Surge. Basically, these protestors mostly oppose our presence in Iraq because they think we’re creating the problems. That civilian casualties and suffering will go down, not up.
I give them a leg to stand on when they opposed the war before we invaded, but after that? Mmmm….not so much. Neither do they think what the consequences of having kept Saddam in power might have entailed (not that anti-war activists really care. Regardless of the “D” or the “R”, peace fascists won’t ever recognize a good and just war if it spat them in the face; to them, all wars are bad).
Peter Feaver:
If they truly care about the welfare of the Iraqi people, they’d be rooting for our success and our support of a budding democracy and go protest the takfiri terrorists and insurgents and former baathists who have purposely sewn discord and chaos and made the civilian populace the focus of their violence.
And I am thrilled that their candidate of choice is creating more disappointment in them by escalating our footprint in Afghanistan. And how do the locals feel about that?
This data is in keeping with other recent polling, and it bolsters the argument that the Afghan people are only growing tired of foreign forces because they aren’t doing enough to defeat a terrorist enemy that Afghans despise.
Who’s winning hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan? Soldiers or the so-called self-proclaimed “peace” activists?
Yeah, I’m sure that’s what Glenn McCoy had in mind: drawing his cartoon up for interpretation. Way to stretch.
And I’m sure we can’t tell whether the boy is running to this soldier for protection or to watch him gun down his famiily [/sarcasm]:
Khalid Mohammed- AP
1. Wordsmith, thank you very much for your comments.
2. To the GaffaUK and ChipD ilk, you remind me of those Japanese Imperial Army holdouts that clung to their belief that the Emperor was still expecting them to hold fast in their isolated jungle hideaways 40 years after the war was over. Bet you look good in your loin clothes and pith helmets! Sayonara, chumps!
Look at your title of the post. I’m saying it’s still a 2009 issue. Pointing and laughing is fine:)
Nowhere. Didn’t say you or anyone else were advocating that.
Not at all
Protest that the US is still there and of course it is logistically possible to pull out. Morally – that debatable. Whilst I disagree with the – the timetable as set out by Bush and later by Obama is better. I don’t agree with those protestors BUT it’s still an issue. Iraq is not a modern functioning democratic country that can stand on it’s own two feet. I would agree pulling out now would make it worst.
No – but that’s not my point. We are where we are. Practically it’s better for a phased withdrawal in line with continued increase in stability.
I would argue it isn’t 2003-2006 but 2003. Once the US and UK went in – Iraq became a tar baby. Rather than go through all the pros and cons of going in the first place – the US is there now so it needs to see the job through. BUT those consistently against the war and wanting an immediate withdrawal are a legit and necessary democratic voice which is getting smaller. So why worry about it?
Yes
No one is saying that
Well I imagine most of those who are impassioned enough to keep protesting are probably peaceniks who originally opposed the war. Whereas I’m sure there are many US and UK citizens who felt they were either lied to or that the intelligence was purposefully twisted and hyped – particularly over WMDs when presented to them. Personally I say I was against the invasion as I felt it was an unneccessary diversion from Afghanistan which was more important – and is still a mess.
Possibly with some. But we can argue all we like about whether the West who propped up Saddam for long enough really went in because of their sudden concern for the people of Iraq. I wonder if the people of Sudan, Korea, China, Zimbabwe, Iran etc are holding their breath and waiting to liberated.
Yes I agree – there are some who are paficists.I don’t get that – seems very naieve. But there are also those who agree with all wars and/or what ever their country does is automatically right.
Well I’m certainly glad Saddam has gone. But look at the price in Iraqi lives.
I don’t think peace activists even feature in the hearts and minds of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would expect the feelings of the people in those countries towards the soldiers depends on their experience under the Taliban or Saddam compared to the soldiers. If friends or family died in fighting against the US or they themselves were harmed then they may be bitter and angry – whereas if they believed their treatment of themselves, family and friends being tortured or repressed by the Taliban or Saddam was worst then they may think the US/UK invasion was a blessing.
Look at your title of the post. I’m saying it’s still a 2009 issue. Pointing and laughing is fine:)
It’s a non-issue because there’s nothing really left to protest about regarding our presence there. Tell me what the arguments are? Listen to the “man on the street” interview in the AP broadcast. Are their reasons to protest based upon the situation on the ground as it stands today?
Drawdown has been happening, irregardless of whether it is Bush, McCain, or Obama in office. And the question one of the fringie idiots in the video should ask himself is not whether or not Obama was “co-opted”, but whether or not Obama now understands something he doesn’t; that he is privvy to information that has made the pragmatist in him realize that an “immediate pullout”- which is what these moonbats want- is not possible. Nor will it bring the peace they crave for, if they got their way.
Nowhere. Didn’t say you or anyone else were advocating that.
Dude….this is what I responded to from you earlier:
How should I interpret that? You’re the one telling me it’s their “perfectly legit and democratic” right to protest….you set up the strawman, not I.
Protest that the US is still there and of course it is logistically possible to pull out.
Reread what you cited from me. I boldened the relevant word. It is not logistically possible to do what the militant peace extremists are always advocating and what they say in the AP video: “Immediate withdrawal….NOW!” Not in 19 months….not in 2011…not even in 16 months. Getting equipment out of Iraq is going to take around 18 months to achieve.
You can see that; they can’t. And what are the good arguments in 2009 for withdrawing not in 2011, but right now? There are none I can think of.
No, but it’s the point I make to those in the video; and you’ve seen fit to come to their defense.
You see what I see; can you tell me what they see that I don’t see?
That’s a “duh”. But it’s not the reasoning they use. And it is 2003-2006; for as “your side” likes to point out and which I concede (at least in this thread for the sake of argument), it hasn’t been all roses, with the war “mismanaged”. At the height of the insurgency violence, I can understand some of the voices who wanted us to leave in 2005-6 (whether they felt that way in 2003 or not). But in 2009?!?! When Iraq is trending in a positive direction? All the gains made can be lost whether we stay or go; the future has many variables and anything can happen. But leaving prematurely all but insures that the gains made in 2007-9 is squandered, with Iraq returning to more violence and innocent lives lost.
I wonder if you miss the point. You again bring up the non-issue of them having a “legit and necessary democratic voice”. They can bitch all they want and I can bitch about them bitching.
Well I imagine most of those who are impassioned enough to keep protesting are probably peaceniks who originally opposed the war.
I agree most of them probably are. And what I am arguing is that they are applying 2003 (pre-war arguments plus “no wmd”/”Bush lied”), 2004 (abu ghraib), 2005 (Haditha), and 2006 (so-called “civil war”) headlines and arguments against remaining in Iraq to the situation on the ground today in 2009, post Surge-success. It’s the kind of blinders on mentality that has them only highlight every set back, every negative, every flag-draped coffin, every penny spent, without seeing any of the investments and any of the gains, any of the successes, and any of the consequences we and Iraq might suffer from a premature and irresponsible withdrawal. It’s the same kind of mindset that has John Kerry and Jane Fonda not acknowledge that more suffering happened, not less, when we failed to honor our commitment to defending our South Vietnamese allies. The hippies had their way, but it didn’t bring about less killing; it didn’t bring peace. It had the opposite effect.
Today, the key to peace and stabilization is to support our efforts in Iraq. 4,260 U.S. soldiers and 179 British have died serving in Iraq. One way to make sure the anti-war activists achieve the reality of their belief that those lives were meaningless deaths, is to pack our bags and basically give up all the hard-fought gains made for the last 6 years.
Essentially, the anti-war message in 2009 is one of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Absolutely. But what does that have to do with the situation on the ground TODAY???? What I am asking them is to face the reality of today. Not 2003. Those arguments about wmd and flawed intell and whether we were lied into war is irrelevant to dealing with where we find ourselves now. I think you understand this. Anyone making the case for withdrawal in 2009 because “no wmd found” and “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ is stuck on stupid.
I’m sure some actually are; but we didn’t go to war out of concern for the Iraqi people any more than peaceniks are concerned for people by standing up for the Castros of the world. And by the West “propping up” Saddam…you mean France and Germany supplying him with the majority of his weapons, along with China and Russia? Basically, the ones who opposed our U.S.-led invasion for oil contracts and billions owed them by Saddam?
No one I know…
The cost has certainly been high. Far higher than anyone would have liked; but I don’t know any plan that is ever mistake-proof. And I still believe that the world is much safer now that Saddam and his murderous sons are pushing up the daisies. It’s a legitimate question to pose, as Peter Feaver points out in his blogpost. The case for removing Saddam centered much around his capabilities and intent to acquire wmd as much as the uncertainty regarding his wmd status. Marry that to his sponsorship of exported terrorism. Terrorist proxies + wmd = bad news.
By 2009, how many more Iraqi deaths under Saddam had he remained in power? Most likely not as many. But whereas I forsee improvements in Iraqi lives and possibly less senseless dying as time moves on, under Saddam and his sons succeeeding him, what would that future have held for Iraqis?
As long as money continues to be spent and lives lost in Iraq – even with a significantly improved situation in Iraq – it will raise protests. Irrespective of the anti-war brigade – I’m sure there are Iraqis who would like the US to leave sooner than later. Of course you and I disagree with their views BUT there are reasons to protest. And I don’t think you can unshackle the whole lead up, justification, invasion, insurgency etc from the situation today. Yes it would be folly to throw up all the struggle to get to this point but the slate hasn’t been wiped clean. People will have to rebuild their shattered lives – in Iraq and in the US and it’s allies.
Whilst I’m sure Obama has had some info from the generals it is also the difference between what people say on the campaign trail and what they do in office. How many politicians have been guilty of that? Reminds me of FDR promising that the US wouldn’t get involved in WWII. Easier said than done.
I wasn’t implying that you wanted to legally strip away their rights but saying similar to ‘hey shut up you idiots’ is kinda of trying to silence debate. Of course not that anyone would listen. With the build up to war I remember there wasn’t enough critical debate on the war in the media- it was deemed in some quarters to be ‘unpatriotic’ to even question the intelligence reports and what we were fed.
That’s the trouble with ‘your/my side’ – it sounds like there are only two polar views to Iraq. I think there are more views than that between those totally for the war, the reasons for going in and for staying the course and those totally against it from the start and want to pull out now. I was (and remain) against the war but I don’t support a hasty withdrawal.
I agree.
Again I don’t see it as a non-issue. I think their numbers of protestors are growing smaller BUT I believe there is a danger of the media and people in general forgetting about Iraq as if it’s all a bed of roses now and can be forgotten. The job is not done until the soldiers return home. I want to know the news – good and bad – from Iraq. I want US and the UK to draw lessons from this and see we can find better ways to resolve such issues. Yes and that also means reforming a corrupt and bureaucratic semi-funtioning UN.
I agree to the extent that a lot of anti-war protestors seem to highlight the bad things and some may even want the US and UK to fail. There probably only a few who would actually praise Saddam’s regime. On the flip side – you also have people who only jump on everybit of ‘good’ news about Iraq over the last 6 years, who wear rose-tinted glasses, who post only pictures of soldiers giving sweets to Iraqi kids – who underplay the amount of lost done in lives that this cost. I guess you never seen that? All I’m saying is that the debate is over polarised – that there are notable extremes on both sides and the truth most likely lies in the middle.
As for Vietnam that draws an interesting comparison. The US got bogged down in that civil war for over a decade – inherited from the French. A lot of people in the US say it was a ‘draw’ which I think is wishful thinking. Certainly it cost many more US soldiers lives with little to show for it. And it was a Republican who withdrew. Hippies can protest all they want but you don’t have to listen to them. You can bomb the VietCong as much as you want but it didn’t seem they were going to go away. With Iraq – this didn’t start as a civil war – it was a pre-emptive strike. I think the US can put in enough stability in Iraq so it can withdraw. What would be unfortunate is if a country like Iran stepped in once the US goes or if there is another coup internally within Iraq. Is the US going to continually yo-yo back with troops to ensure there is democracy in Iraq?
I agree.
I agree but support for the war did drop when people believed that their governments hadn’t been entirely straightforward with them. That’s not a reason to go now.
Of course Russia and France go their hand caught in the cookie jar. As usual they were posturing about how concerned they were for Iraqi people which was BS. They had massive contracts with Saddam. However the US and UK did give Saddam money and did very little to stop Saddam before the Gulf War. The US and UK have geopolitical reasons to be in Iraq. It isn’t primarily about the concern over WMDs or Iraqi lives. Oil plays it part.
No one you know personally or generally? Have you never heard such views where people are automatically pro-war and see any protest against war as being unpatriotics?
Well I don’t know the exact cost in dollars or lives but if someone had said it’s going to cost about a trillion dollars and going to cost over 100,000 human lives to remove one dictator out of many who represses his people and to find out that he was bluffing over WMDs – no thanks to dodgy intelligence – I wonder how many people would have wanted to spend that in cash & blood. I’m more concerned with Afganistan and Pakistan which I feel – along with Iran – have been neglected. Saddam was boxed due to sanctions. He wasn’t the highest priority. I can’t see a President (Republican or Democrat) launching a third war with Iran after the Iraq War. Iran exports far more terrorism than Iraq I believe.
And I don’t see Iraq (unfortunately) becoming a beacon of hope and democracy for the Middle East where suddenly and magically the other rogue states around it will sudden have democratic revolutions. Again – I feel the whole Iraq War has little to do with Iraqi lives. How would the US feel/react if Iraq chooses to tilt heavily towards the Shite brand of Islam in an election, become anti-US, sell oil only to France & Russia etc? Or wouldn’t Iraq have that free will to truly do what it wanted. Would it be all worth it then?
Missed a Quote box above – so it’s out of sync from about a third of the way down…
As long as money continues to be spent and lives lost in Iraq – even with a significantly improved situation in Iraq – it will raise protests. Irrespective of the anti-war brigade – I’m sure there are Iraqis who would like the US to leave sooner than later. Of course you and I disagree with their views BUT there are reasons to protest.
That is reasonable; however, the ones who are out protesting I believe, are the activist fringe who primarily are fixed not on the situation now, but on yesterday’s talking points. A single death will give validation to their inflexible, fixated belief, no matter what the contrarian statistics/current facts are.
Body counts and war-costs are mostly used by them to further a political ideology; do you think the ones I am speaking of would still not be out there protesting if those things were even 1/100th of what they are?
And how do you “rebuild shattered lives”? Not by packing it in, prematurely and give up the gains made.
The whole “lead up, justification, etc” reasoning is beside the point, as it relates to my post. We’re there now. That’s the point. You understand this, yet are trying to justify the protests who use that line of asymmetric reasoning. Let’s say the war was based upon lies: Oh…ok, since that’s the case, let’s just go home regardless of what’s happening now in Iraq. That makes perfectly sound, logical sense [/sarcasm]. It’s the “two wrongs don’t make a right” conundrum, you know.
Whilst I’m sure Obama has had some info from the generals it is also the difference between what people say on the campaign trail and what they do in office. How many politicians have been guilty of that? Reminds me of FDR promising that the US wouldn’t get involved in WWII. Easier said than done.
True. And he’s been experiencing some of that ‘read my lips” backlash (even expressed in the AP video).
I’d like to think I’m pretty careful about how I address people and how I conduct myself. But in the case of the anti-war hardcore diehards, I really see them, in general, as a dense movement of know-nothings.
If you think I’m “silencing debate” for calling them idiots, I disagree. If any of them wish to take umbrage with my post and debate their idiocy, they’re free to do so.
I think you might be right regarding the media; but I also think they mismanaged explaining to the American public what the case for war was all about. The Administration was horrible at making its own case to the American public and a lot of confusion arose over how Saddam, wmd, al-Qaeda, and 9/11 were linked. The Administration was wrong in allowing the media to steer the focus on wmd possession; basically, they looked the other way and allowed the perception to happen, because it clearly drummed up public support for the war. But if you look at the language used, much of the case for war was based not upon saying Saddam possessed nuclear weapons, but upon the fear that based upon his history of intent and usage, history of deception and defiance, clear ties to terrorism, that we had to stop Saddam before he acquired wmd arsenal that could be delivered into the hands of terrorist proxies.
I disagree, however, that anyone at the time in the run-up to war was labeled unpatriotic. Sure you can point out the hard-right man on the street joe-schmoe; but point me to a politician who questioned anyone’s patriotism.
That’s the trouble with ‘your/my side’ – it sounds like there are only two polar views to Iraq.
Which is why you’ve taken it upon yourself to defend the anti-war activists, failing to perceive that I’m addressing a “polar opposite” viewpoint that is inflexible. You might not share their fringe inflexibility, but they are on “your side” of the fence, just as they stand on Obama’s side of the fence.
And this post isn’t about “you all”. It’s about the fringe anti-war activists and those who are so ignorant, their line of thinking falls along the lines of simplistic “war is bad…mmmkay?” and “books not bombs”. It’s the kumbaya koolaid drinkers.
Again I don’t see it as a non-issue. I think their numbers of protestors are growing smaller BUT I believe there is a danger of the media and people in general forgetting about Iraq as if it’s all a bed of roses now and can be forgotten. The job is not done until the soldiers return home. I want to know the news – good and bad – from Iraq. I want US and the UK to draw lessons from this and see we can find better ways to resolve such issues. Yes and that also means reforming a corrupt and bureaucratic semi-funtioning UN.
I really think you’re misreading the point of my post and bringing to bear your own hang-ups and issues you care to talk about. It’s like you’re injecting peripheral issues into this.
When you speak of “the media forgetting about Iraq as if it’s all a bed of roses now”, well it’s the if-it-bleeds-it-leads media that is always happy to report the negative. The real crime here is in the lopsided nature of reporting negative news in blitzkrieg fashipn and remaining all but silent when things have taken an upturn for the better. That has a huge influence on the perceptions of the general public. And maybe there’d be greater public support and even more of a lessening of the anti-war crowd if the positives were fairly and more frequently reported upon with the same kind of fervor and proportion that the negative news has been reported upon.
I agree to the extent that a lot of anti-war protestors seem to highlight the bad things and some may even want the US and UK to fail. There probably only a few who would actually praise Saddam’s regime.
Usually, it’s the obligatory “But”-monkey lip-service: “Yeah, Saddam was an evil guy…..BUT“. They say it, but aren’t really interested in hearing about the details of his murders and tortures and mass graves; similarly, those on my side tend to downplay the effects of the violence and “collateral damage” upon real Iraqi lives.
I see that aplenty and am one of the ones who push the agenda. FA is a partisan blog. MSM is not supposed to be, but is digested by the mainstream public for the straight news. It’s different in the UK.
My decision to post positive photos of U.S. soldiers helping Iraqis is offered up as a counterweight to all the abu-Ghraib and Haditha-type news stories and photos that sway public opinion into the perception that our soldiers are over there raping, pillaging, murdering, torturing Iraqi citizens. I get my daily dose of that from MSM and lefty blogs.
Yes and no.
The anti-war candidate, McGovern, was defeated in a landslide. His campaign slogan was “Come home, America”. He campaigned as the anti-war candidate who would end the war. Nixon campaigned on bringing peace with honor. And he was achieving just that.
Richard Nixon committed himself when he became president to the idea of “Vietnamization”, which was to train more and more South Vietnamese troops to become self-sufficient; and consequently, part of the plan was the steady troop withdrawal and intensified bombing. In ’72, when Nixon was running for re-election, and after Operation Linebacker II, he finally got the North Vietnamese onboard with the Paris Peace Accords. Part of the package included two secret agreements: one was billions of dollars in reparations, after the war. But the North did not get it, because they had broken their agreement by invading the South. The 2nd secret agreement was with the South Vietnamese. He gave them a solemn pledge, in writing, that if the North broke agreements, and invaded the South, America would get back in, and provide whatever aid the South needed; even troop support. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, Nixon was driven from office by the Watergate scandal. When the North Vietnamese invaded the South, an unelected President in the form of Gerald Ford pleaded with Congress to enforce our agreements and honor our pledge to our South Vietnamese allies. In 1975, more than one million innocent Vietnamese fled in terror from a massive invasion by the North. Congress and the anti-war movement did nothing to alleviate the suffering.
That’s the thought-out compassion of the anti-war left.
Sometimes they’re difficult to ignore when they’re lying down in the middle of Wilshire Blvd, during rush-hour traffic. They are kind of “in your face” with their activism, you know? Yes, they can be ignored in many cases; but more importantly at times, is to counter them, which is what Skye and her fellow Sheepdogs do every Saturday. You don’t win arguments by just remaining silent to the propaganda shouted out by the other side.
You’re going to have to draw me a map to the point you wish to make here, because you lost me. All I’m seeing is apples to coconuts.
If we left prematurely, under the conditions of “defeat”, pre-surge, we probably would have expended more lives and more treasure to find ourselves going back in again. But soon, Iraq will be on its own to carve out its own future, on its own merits. No, we’re not babysitting their democracy into eternity. But insofar as their future affects our future, yes, I’m all for intervention that is tied into our own national security interests.
As Obama mentioned in his 60 Minutes interview, leaders often face bad and worse, and you make hard decisions based upon the cards you’re dealt. If Iran steps in there, we’ll deal with that if we turn that corner. What if, what if, what if… If we had never invaded Saddam’s Iraq in 2003, we’d still be dealing with what if scenarios. What if Carter had stood strong with the Shah of Iran in ’78-9? Would we then have had to make hard choices that saw Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? And then later arranging for war against him, decades later? Would we be facing Iranian Shia-driven Islamic militancy today?
I agree but support for the war did drop when people believed that their governments hadn’t been entirely straightforward with them. That’s not a reason to go now.
But you do understand that the ones this post was aimed at ridiculing, are those who don’t understand this, right?
Of course Russia and France go their hand caught in the cookie jar. As usual they were posturing about how concerned they were for Iraqi people which was BS. They had massive contracts with Saddam. However the US and UK did give Saddam money and did very little to stop Saddam before the Gulf War.
Yes, for reasons similar to why we found ourselves in support of Stalin during WWII. It goes back to the pragmatist leader making choices between bad and worse choices.
Yes. But not in the manner in which the fringe BDSers want to scream empty-headed “no blood for oil” slogans and “Halliburton” and “Bush just wants to get his rich friends richer by stealing Iraqi oil”.
No one I know personally. Of course you can always find the nutcases in every crowd. But I also see where liberals have used the strawman “my patriotism is under attack” whining, caricaturizing the criticism that is actually being leveled at them.
And in some cases, yes, I do question the patriotism of those fringies who call for soldiers to shoot their officers or celebrate when insurgents kill one of our own. Who irresponsibly protest in a manner that does serve enemy propaganda purposes in a Jane Fonda-like way.
Well I don’t know the exact cost in dollars or lives but if someone had said it’s going to cost about a trillion dollars and going to cost over 100,000 human lives to remove one dictator out of many who represses his people and to find out that he was bluffing over WMDs – no thanks to dodgy intelligence – I wonder how many people would have wanted to spend that in cash & blood.
That’s the tricky thing about hindsight quarterbacking. I think based upon what we knew at the time, the irresponsible course of action was the status quo of keeping Saddam in power. Post-war information hasn’t changed my opinion on this. Nor the conduct of the post-war period (insurgency); those are separate if related issues to the original decision to invade. Was the insurgency inevitable? Perhaps. The thing is, you can stop the buck at any point in history to having cost the world any amount of dollars for poor decisions and lives “wasted”. If it weren’t for God, there’d be no human misery in the first place. So why not begin there, if you want to blame-hand?
They have not been neglected, other than perhaps by media focus. Just as Iraq hasn’t been neglected simply because it’s no longer frontpage news but Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Iran are beginning to dwarf Iraq in headline news.
We were heavily criticized for sanctions as a cause for Iraqi children dying. Enter “Food for Oil”….a scam that enriched corrupt UN officials and Saddam’s coffers while his people continued to suffer.
I think it’s a strong likelihood that had things run its course, we would have seen a lifting of sanctions. Saddam was actively working toward this end, and he had friends within the UN and French officials who were working toward this end.
And as we now know, Saddam had wmd programs read and in place to be reconstituted once that happened:
At the time, wasn’t Saddam’s Iraq the #1 exporter of state-sponsored terrorism?
Due to his violations of the original Cease-Fire Agreement and 12 year violation of 16+1 UN Resolutions, when it came to eenie-meenie-minny-moe between the 3 Axis of Evil, I’d say Saddam was the likely candidate of choice. They’re all threats.
I agree. Again, it goes back to making choices between bad and worse. And I think it’s a soft bigotry of low expectations for pundits to insist unequivocally that democracy is impossible to transplant. Some were nay-saying that Japan, which had never known democracy, would never successfully democratize. No one- including Bush- said that Iraq will have a democracy that would look like ours; and democracy has to begin somewhere and at some point in time. If you don’t start now, then when?
Who knows if Iraq will go north or south? Prosperity or hell? Friends with Iran or allies to us? Alliances and friendships between states are never permanent, sealed in a blood-oath of allegiance. We’ve warred with Britain, Mexico, France, Japan, Germany, etc, and are today allied. Doesn’t mean that something in the future won’t set us against one another again. We’re not BFFs. The future is ultimately unknowable.
Of course not. It has to do with America’s security; and a stable, Iraq and feathercap “win” for the U.S. is tied into our national security and “salvaging” of our international reputation “in the eyes of world opinion” for whatever that’s worth. Because in certain instances, I say “Eff world opinion.” It matters and it doesn’t matter.
That said, it’s cynical and untrue to believe that Americans who are for staying don’t care about Iraqi innocent lives. I think George Bush cares. I care. And at the same time, it is tied in to American self-interest.
We didn’t invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons; that’s a side responsibility. But you tell Iraqis that Americans don’t care about them when they receive soccer balls from American smalltowns, school supplies, etc. When our government, at the expense of American blood and treasure- not Iraqi oil- has stood by their side to try and make their lives better by rebuilding infrastructure, training Iraqi security forces, and nurturing a fledgling democratic government. It’s not perfect, but it’s the right thing.
I think George Bush and his Administration has already addressed that possibility. They’re free to make those decisions. But if it threatens our national security interests, don’t be surprised by American interventionism. Democracy isn’t being shoved down their throats. Many Iraqis have given their lives to support a democratic government.