Was Bushes war justified??

Bush told Saddam, "You can't kill your people! Only WE can kill your people!"

Lol good one, keep em comin guy's.




-Hans

It was not "Bush's War". Perhap's "Saddam's War" if you want to personalize it. It was really only a continuation of the Gulf War after Saddam reneged on his promises, and the conditions for halting the active combat. The Gulf War, and its continuation, were compaigns fought to bring stability to the region and reduction in state supported terrorism. It IS disappointing not to find the terror weapons that virtually the whole world believed that Saddam either had, or was trying to produce. Saddam could have avoided the reopening of hostilities if he wanted to by fully complying with the conditions of the armistice. Saddam didn't think that the West, the United States, would actually back up its threats to use military force to gain compliance. He relied upon his financial backers in France, Germany, and Russia to forestall military action. He watched mobs in the streets of Paris, Berlin, London and New York clamor against the use of force against tyrany. He was wrong, and now he sits in a jail cell awaiting judgement by Iraqi authorities.

Actually, things in Iraq have gone reasonably well.

ya maybe 40 years ago but modern warfare against a pathetically armed nation and losing 1000 people is considered bad. ya and its only going good for the us economy do think they are praising bush in iraq?? also Bush was on a bit of a personal vendetta along with getting at his "precious" oil. Also the only reason iraq is a danger in the first place is because the us armed him!!! Its a modern frankenstein story!



-Hans

Bush had his sight set on this war before 911. He twisted every fact and arm in sight to get it. He has increased the number of terrorists in the world with his war. It was not at all justified.

War?
I can't dignify the Bush Invasion of Iraq with that term.

It's a mess. The very thing that George W seems to specialize in. I hope he doesn't end up doing as much harm to the U.S. as he did to the businesses he was involved in.

I'm sure you folks believe that, but a great many others do not.

I'm not so sure how most Iraqi's feel these days about current events. There certainly are still followers of Saddam and the Ba'athists who will do anything they can to subvert attempts to make Iraq a more civil society. The radical terrorists certainly don't want an Iraq that doesn't support their fanatical fantasies. My guess is that most Iraqi's are very happy to be rid of Saddam and his thugs. Rebuilding Iraq is going to be a long, difficult and expensive process. This is a society that has lived in terror and oppression for generations. Whatever security they know, is associated with their own family ties and the ties of their sect and/or tribe. It will take time for them to build trust in one another, and pride in themselves as a complete nation rather than merely exchanging one despot for another. This is going to be tough, and no one has ever said otherwise, but it must be tried. Iraq can become a model, and a productive part of a stable region.

There is a possiblility for progress today, something that certainly wasn't evident when Saddam was still in power.

I'm sure you are sincere, Asherman. I don't see Iraq remaining stable for very long if it ever gets that way once. You have your take; others have theirs.

Edgar,

You may be right, the situation in Iraq may not be fixable at this time. What was/is the alternative? To say that the country and its people are not capable of governing themselves in a civil society? It seems to me that we need to try. After our wakeup call on 9/11 serious initiatives to deal with long-standing problems in SW Asia were called for. The whole region has for far too long been a simmering cauldron of intolerance, poverty, and despotism. The region has been unstable for at least half a century, and western civilization can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the problems there.

Israel is not going to go away, and the United States will continue to support it's strongest ally in the region. Over the last few decades some progress has been made. The governments of Egypt, Jordan, turkey and some of the Arab States have adopted a de facto peace with Israel, and that's something. If the Palestinians spent more on building their infrastructure, economy and developing the assets at hand instead of a futile effort to exterminate Jews, things might get better.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

A more objectvie historical perspective, please!


Really Mr. Asherman, ever since the death of Rabin (by the hands of a Jewish Israeli), Israel has systematically obstructed the development of the Palestinian territories, and what's more, under the guise of "fighting terrorism", a popular excuse for breaking international law these days, they have been destroying the means of a future Palestinian state to support themselves, burning citrus orchards, destroying infrastructure and housing, closing borders to imports AND occupying and annexing Palestinian land. Everything to make the Palestinians totally economically dependent on Israel. The Palestinian police has been attacked by Israel time and again and is subsequently accused of not being effective against the terrorists (created by Israel).

I would like to remind you that the legality of the state of Israel is shaky at the very least and that Israel has ignored UN and international law ever since its conception. I also find it a bad sign that Israeli's have been in the habit of voting terrorists and war criminals into power (Begin, Shamir, Sharon), in that sense they are no better than the Palestinians.

How would you react if a bunch of armed native Americans came knocking on your door and tell you to get packing, because you are living on land that belonged to their forefathers 200 years ago. Their Great Spirit has given the land to them, so you are just a squatter. And if you require proof they will point to the history books. Would you agree to move quietly back to Europe where your ancestors came from?
Note that in the case of Israel the time lapse is not 200 but some 2000 years!

2000 years ago Great Britain was inhabted by Celtic tribes and the Angles and Saxons were still linving in Scandinavia. The vikings, who became the Normans had yet to become a people. If we followed Israels reasoning, the Irish and other Gaelic speaking peoples could tell everybody with an Anglo Saxon or Norman name to evacuate the British Isles, because history teaches that they once belonged to their ancestors, etc. Where would you end up Mr Asherman?

Palestinians were forced off their land under threat of lethal violence, by the (incumbent) state of Israel, which has ever since denied the right of these refugees to return. Paletinians remaining in Israel have been treated as second class citizens. Palestinians in the occupied terrirtories are used as cheap labour. The Palestinians are denied the right to form their own destiny; they have no state, no army with heavy weapons or an air force with which to defend themselves against daily incursions of the Israeli army on their territory. The Palestinian police is under constant atack and denied the means to act against Israeli citizens occupying more and more Palestinian land. The elected president of the Palestinians is denied freedom of movement, by Israel. Israel is walling in more Palestinian territory (de facto annexation) in the name of fighting terrorism, etc. etc.

And you talk about the Palestinians focusing on building up their country.

Afeter Bush broke down the wall naturally we owe a debt to get it up and standing again. The big question is, when do we do more for Iraq and less for Bush's plans for holding on to military bases there after the government becomes able to survive. American efforts at infrastructure are a joke. I don't see that our presence is stabilizing things that much so far. In short, most of their progress could well be despit our presence, not because of it.

I actually think their efforts were for nothing once the lager part of the american presence leaves it will become a dictatorship once again.



-Hans

Paaskynen,

The legitimacy of the State of Israel can be argued until the cows come home of their own accord, but its existence is recognized by the community of nations. The ultimate legitimacy of any nation is the degree to which it occupies and is able to defend the territory it claims. The State of Israel exists and is the most militarily able nation in the region. Further, it has been a long time ally of the United States and the developed world. Whether you, or anyone else likes it, Israel will continue to exist. As a nation, Israel has the right to defend itself against attack in pretty much any manner they choose.

Edgar,

There are many reasons that the United States would benefit by having a base in Iraq, why shouldn't we? If the Iraqi government would like us to leave, all they have to do is ask. However, that isn't likely to happen, is it? Iraq is still very chaotic, and the forces that would like to returned to the good old Ba'ath days are still very active. International terrorists don't want the Iraqi people to live in a nation where radical Islam isn't forced upon them. Coalition presence is like a wall against a high wind that shelters a sapling. When the sapling grows into a tree, the wall may remain but it is no longer necessary.

Svarionman,

Yes, "things have gone reasonably well". Before the opening of hostilities many here gave dire predictions of a massive bloodbath, and environmental disaster that would devastate the whole region. The combat stage was concluded remarkably fast, and with the minimum amount of destruction. Both civilian and Coalition casualty rates were low compared to the violence inflicted to win the victory.

In the wake of every armed conflict there is some degree of chaos, and Iraq is no different. A generation of brutal dictatorship based on civil terror suddenly was removed. Those who lost power resent it and resist. Those who were victims want revenge, and to place their own group at the apex of power, or their own nation. Elements outside the country see this period as an opportunity to advance their own agendas. Though our military efforts were directed at legitimate targets, there was collateral damage. The infrastructure, and the oil reserves that are Iraq's most valuable resource has to be rebuilt after years of neglect and recent sabotage by diehards.

Some accused the United States of imperialism and predicted that we would never turn the government over to the People of Iraq. However, a new Iraqi government has been formed, and now exercises sovereignty. Schools, hospitals and the infrastructure has been repaired, though much remains to be done. The civilian justice system has been reformed and will try Saddam for his crimes, and a new Iraqi army is being formed.

Coalition casualties in the post-conflict phase have been distressing, but really modest given the difficulties that the task of transforming Iraq present. The military has generally been effective in its occupation duties, though the new mission of "nation-building" has not been equal to their combat ability. The military has tried, and its nation-building ability will profit from the experience.

You might contrast conditions in Iraq with those in Europe after WWI, or after WWII in Germany and Japan. comparatively, things in Iraq have been going reasonably well.

Re: Was Bushes war justified??

Is it really that hard to post political threads on the politics board? Show some respect for the site and the members. If it is alright for you to do this, then it is alright for me to post my conservative ideology on any board on the site as often as I like, no matter how inappropriate.

By the way, your phrasing of the poll question assumes that posters are already in agreement with your political viewpoint.

Mr Asherman,

You are basically saying that the Israeli's have carte blanche to occupy what they consider to be their territory (and many of them consider all of the Palestinian areas to be Israeli territory) and use any means at their disposal to "defend" it, even if that "defence" involves the destruction of the Palestinian population (as a pre-emptive measure against terrorism)?

In your view it is thus equally OK for the Palestinians to acquire the military power to invade Israel and reclaim Palestine for the Palestinians. I would consider your definition of a nation's right to existence a recipe for eternal bloodshed. Perhaps you would reconsider if you were on the receiving end of that doctrine?

And, by the way, where I live the cows do come home of their own accord when it is time for them to be milked.

Paaskynen,

We all live in nations that exist because we occupy them and defend our claims against others. Finland might have become a little bit of the Soviet Union, if you had not been able to defend it. Reaching an accommodation with Hitler's Germany helped Finland survive. No one should blame the Fin's for either survival strategy.

During WWII the Axis Powers threatened the sovereignty of every nation in the world. Today, radical Islamic terrorist threaten western civilization by carrying out terrorist attacks against anyone they regard as their enemy. As a member of Western civilization, you qualify as an enemy of those folks and they would not hesitate to kill you. On 9/11 radical Islamic terrorists carried out a terrible attack on this nation, not over territory but simply because they wanted to kill a lot of Americans. That shocked many in this country. I had been expecting something of the sort for many years, since our interests abroad have been under attack since at least the mid-90's. In fact, during the week of 9/11 I was part of a discussion on the probability of a terrorist attack on the United States in a little house just outside Washington. Terrorism is a direct threat to us all whether we live in Israel, Iraq, Spain, Russia, or even Finland.

"I would consider your definition of a nation's right to existence a recipe for eternal bloodshed." When you're right, you're right. This age old test of legitimacy goes back to the very beginnings of human affairs, and no matter how much we may deplore it, it is still the bottom-line. Oh, we've tried to formulate rules, treaties, and international organizations to constrain the likelihood of nations going to war, but so far none have proven very effective. In the case of Israel v. the Palestinians, the Israeli government gave up its claim over territories it had won in wars fought for its very survival against combined hostile neighbors. That was unpopular with many of the Israeli people, and was an indication of the Israeli governments willingness to find a negotiated peace. The Palestinian nation came into existence as a result, and upon lands given up by Israel to halt the violence. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Cause isn't just for land that they will never recover, but because they hate Jews and would like to kill the lot of them. Terrorist bombings and attacks by faceless fanatics continue to threaten Israelis, no matter their age, sex, or politics. To the extent that terrorist acts within and against Israel are based in, supported, financed, planned and organized within the Palestinian State, and with the connivance of Palestinian leadership, the Palestine State IS a legitimate target of Israel.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that Israel is as dedicated to killing innocent civilians, as the Palestinians ae with their campaign of suicide bombers. The Israeli military, it seems, have pretty much directed their attacks to killing those responsible for terrorist activity within the State of Israel. Certainly there is collateral damage, but it appears that it is constrained as much as possible given the operations. On the other hand, Palestinian terrorists try very hard to kill as many innocent people and rescue workers as possible inside Israel.

If the terrorist acts were to cease, I believe that the Israelis would heave a sigh of relief and relative peace would prevail. If Israel tried to expand its borders after the Palestinian State genuinely made peace, or if Jewish settlers broke the peace by trying to occupy land, then Israel would doubtless be condemned internationally.

BTW, just Asherman, or Ash, is fine. No need for the honorific, though I do appreciate your courtesy.

This forum is a mix of both so it can be on either one.




-Hans