Iraq Reconsidered

@farmerman,

We may both of been members of the #3 Club,but apparently for different reasons.

The whole WMD issue was never much of the reason for me supporting the invasion, and I'm still pissed off at Bush for making such a BFD about them. That he didn't know exactly where they were before he gave the green light to invade is either proof that he was duped by his advisors or just foreshadowing of the arrogance, incompetence and poor judgment that followed.

There were two reasons I supported the war:

1) The moral imperative of rescuing the Iraqi people from the monster that was Saddam
2) The strategic promise of establishing a non-sectarian Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East

This was hardly a cynical view; quite the contrary. It was Neo-con ideology; it was naive.

Not surprisingly, liberals/Democrats/progressives (take your pick) have attempted to turn "neo-con" into an epithet. Turn about's fair play of course and so I don't fault them (they wouldn't be calling themselves progressives if Republicans/conservatives hadn't been so successful with doing the same thing to "liberal"). However, most of the people who do use the term as a slur have no idea what-so-ever about what it means, even in a distorted way.

Comments have been made about the complexity of the circumstances surrounding the war, but they usually mean the complexity of the perfidy and evil intent behind it, giving no credit at all the to possibility that the Neo-Cons they so despise might have had some notion that their ideas were truly beneficial to Iraq, America, and humanity.

Not a lot difference between this view and the one that holds that Obama and liberals want to decimate America.

The lesson of Iraq, for me, (and frankly I am embarrassed that it has taken me this long to learn it) is that it is not only impossible, but harmful to fashion a foreign policy based on the positive nature of man. There are plenty of Black Knights riding to the field, but, unfortunately, there are no White Knights with the skill to defeat them, it takes Gun-Metal Knights.

2 Replies

Oh look, this was just a platform for Finn's trademark straw man allegations against those whom he despises politically. Who would have thought?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

So Walter this is supposed to be an intelligent response?

Before I hit the "reply" button, I thought, "Well, actually Russia was on of the "Allies" and so maybe I should change that adjective," but then I thought, "Oh c'mon, even Walter isn't going to focus on that."

Man was I wrong.

So give yourself an entirely worthless point Walter.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Having revealed it for what you predicted, perhaps you will be so kind and intellectually steadfast as to depart from it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Naw, it's still an important topic, even though you are, as usual, playing fast and loose with the truth in order to score some imaginary political points.

So, at a cost of more than one hundred thousand lives, we "rescued" the Iraqis from a monster? Hmmmm . . .

About your non-sectarian democracy in the heart of the middle east, i'd say that prediction is more than a little premature. Just the sort of thing the neo-cons were peddling, while they took their fairy tale scenarios around to convince people that war was necessary. Of course, that's because the situation was, and remains, far more complex than their fairy tale version. Iraq will do very well indeed if it doesn't result in a one-party, Shi'ite-dominated government, in the orbit of the Persians.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Before I hit the "reply" button, I thought, "Well, actually Russia was on of the "Allies" and so maybe I should change that adjective," but then I thought, "Oh c'mon, even Walter isn't going to focus on that."

Well, I live here (in the British Zone) for most of my life. And since I've seen the cars from the Russian military liaison mission nearly every week until 1990, I know that they were 'Allies' as well.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

You had such noble sounding reasons, I just realized late in the game that it was all-of-it a pack of lies and why try to find some nobility in it.
It was obvious that the decision to go to war preceeded the "Ad CAmpaign" that was used to sell it to us. You dont feel used and irrelevant?
Why did you vote for Bush's second term then? You must have held on to some bit of belief in him to vote for him in 2004.

AT least I came to earlier in the game.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

1) "I knew it was a travesty, never supported it, and it's obvious it was a bad an action as I thought it to be."

That's me.

It was clear that the aim of the war was empire building, and the age of empires is over.

Plundering another nation's wealth requires a ruthlessness that we (thankfully) no longer have.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Plundering another nation's wealth requires a ruthlessness that we (thankfully) no longer have.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

It's only because you have such a facility for lying and dispensing fatuous propaganda, Finn, that you even dare to venture onto the pages of A2K.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Plundering another nation's wealth requires a ruthlessness that we (thankfully) no longer have.

But you've got help spreading your propaganda from DrewDad, Finn.

Quote:

The Real Reason For The Afghan War?
By Russ Baker on Sep 10, 2012

When the United States decided to invade Afghanistan to grab Osama bin Laden—and failed, but stayed on like an unwanted guest—could it have known that the Afghans were sitting on some of the world’s greatest reserves of mineral wealth?

We’ve raised this topic before (see here)—where we noted the dubious 2010 claim, published by the New York Times, that “the vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was [recently] discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists.” Other evidence, and logic, point to the fact that everyone but the Western public knew for a long time, and before the 2001 invasion, that Afghanistan was a treasure trove.

So we were interested to see a new piece from the Times that emphasizes those riches without stressing the crucial question: Was the original impetus for the invasion really Osama—or Mammon?

The failure to pose this question is significant because the pretense of a “recent discovery” serves only to justify staying in Afghanistan now that the troops are already there—while ignoring the extent to which imperial-style resource grabs are the real drivers of foreign policy and wars, worldwide.

As long as we continue to dance around that issue, we will remain mired in disaster of both a financial and mortal nature. As long as we fail to tote up who are the principal winners and losers then we fail to understand what is going on.

Some of the least likely candidates for insight are waking up. To quote Alan Greenspan: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Who will say the same about Afghanistan and its mineral wealth? Once we acknowledge what General Wesley Clark claims (and which the media keeps ignoring)—that he was told the U.S. had plans ready at the time of the 9/11 attacks to invade seven countries (including Iraq and Afghanistan)– then the larger picture begins to come into view.

...

http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/09/10/the-real-reason-for-the-afghan-war/

0 Replies

@Setanta,

This is a classic Setanta response full of bile and fury and simply ludicrous.

I know you prefer to respond to my posts based on a superficial reading that provides you with perceived targets, but once again I have to point out what I wrote rather than what you would prefer to attack.

If I had written that I think the war was justified because we saved Iraqis from Saddam, then your smart-assed retort about the number of Iraqis killed might have had some relevance, but of course I didn't.

About "my" non-sectarian democracy in the middle east, if you bothered to read what I actually wrote, you would know that not only am I not predicting the goal will be realized, I've acknowledged it failed, but then it might not have given you the opportunity to demonstrated your affectation with the use of "Persians."

You go out of your way to tell everyone that you avoid my threads with the use of "BTW" which deserves an award for A2K's most disingenuous bullshit and then you can't resist responding to what you've announced is beneath your consideration.

You are pathetically insecure Pooch, but if you insist on proving your intellectual manhood by taking me on, at least have the intellectual honesty to critique what I actually write. This habit of yours in light of your good ole reliable charge of straw man arguments is truly laughable.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Of course you did Walter.

The question is whether or not you had to point it out.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I did have, what I thought were, noble reasons, and now I've found, once and for all, that nobility and Government can seldom, if ever, be accurately used in the same sentence.

Unlike you, I don't think it was "all" a pack of lies.

If you honestly think that Republicans/Neo-Cons/Conservatives are incapable of noble thought while Democrats/Progressives/Liberals can have no other such thought, then tell me now so I can put you on Ignore.

I voted for Bush for two reasons:

I thought and still think that he was primarily motivated by what for him was noble thought.

I thought and still think that John Kerry has never had a noble thought in his life.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Knowing wwhat u did about the fraud of the Iraq War fter it began, you still gave Bush a pass and voted for him because you "didnt trust" the other guy? However,You seem to admit that "some" of what we were told were llies, but still trusted Bush enough to vote for him because

Quote:

he was primarily motivated by what for him was noble thought.

Wow, we really do see different realities dont we .

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I thought and still think that John Kerry has never had a noble thought in his life.

The fact that the "Vietnam Vets for truth" was a concept concieved as a total lie and was as ignoble as Henry VIII's view of marriage.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You go out of your way to tell everyone that you avoid my threads

Quote:

but if you insist on proving your intellectual manhood by taking me on, at least have the intellectual honesty to critique what I actually write.

Good advice, Finn. Why don't you follow it instead of hiding in your little ignore hole?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Apparently we do.

You seem to be of the group who entertain the entirely contradictory notion that Bush was a simpleton and an evil genius.

What I don't admit or believe is that what W told us were lies.

I've already written that he is to blame for the failure of the Iraq "strategy," but that never seems to be enough for the "Charge Them as War Criminals!" crowd.

This War Criminal **** is just that unless the people urging it advanced the same nonsence about every president since FDR (the last one who held the office during a war declared by congress): Including Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama.

I can't help it that you bought on to the invasion for superfical reasons. I didn't, and yet you seem to want to equate my reasons with your own ignorance.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Kerry's character.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Good try Finn. If Im ignorant, youre oblivious.
The neat thing about ignorance is that it was educable. Obliviousness, in your case, not so much.

0 Replies

Iraq Reconsidered

Quick Links

My Account

able2know