Why We Fought

A question , if he had no weapons .Why the hell did he behave as if he was actually hiding them? As far as I remember, UN inspectors were not given many facilities, in fact, they always claimed Saddam was hiding information, or impeding inspections, the kind of things which made suspicion fall upon him . The truth is that, on the eve of the invasion, Mr Blix was convinced that Iraq probably held WMD.

Maybe all the events we presenced during the war were not what we believed them to be. When Saddam was finally caught, he was a pathetic sight, looking like a person which has been held for months without the most elementary living standards - a kidnapped person, not the leader of the insurgence. A very useful puppet to make American troops believe Saddam was the head of the insurgence.

I suggest Saddam's regime was in serious peril before the invasion took place. Maybe some of his officer made deals with Al Quaeda in order to turn Iraq into a deathly battlefield for America(a new version of 80's Afghanistan), and taking over the control of certain quantities of WMD and nuclear technology, which were meant to be carried to a safe place.( Iran ...)

This is a mere supposition. I don't want it to be considered seriously. Just as a possibility.

Yes, I have heard the liberal chant before. It rhymes to make it easy for them to remember.

If you read the opening to this thread, you can plainly see it is not revisionist anything. Try going back and actually comprehending what the author wrote.



Wow, the Dems sure did a job on you.

Krygyzstan----fighting for democracy.
Ukraine----fought for democracy.
Lebanon----fighting for democracy.
Pakistan-----moving toward democracy.
Saudi Arabia----historic first election, moving toward equal rights for women, and away from madrassas....will be a democracy
Egypt---moving toward increased freedoms for their people.
Iraq----a new democracy.
Afghanistan----a new democracy.
Pakistan and India are making historic advances toward peace.
Israel and Palestine are making great advances toward peace.

Bush has put it in the water--and it is permeating the souls all over the world who yearn to be free, and have a voice in their lives.

For anyone to carp about this negates the value of their opinion on the matter. You don't instantaneously arrive at a perfect democracy--but steps have been taken that NO ONE ELSE dared to attempt, and that NO ONE ELSE had the vision, plan or stamina to bring about.

It is not short of miraculous. It required strength of character to withstand bad polls, something very few politicians have the balls to do.

George Bush will be lauded by historians as one of the most effective, most powerful figures in modern history--and one who used that power for the good of humanity.

Get on board. Why be against something so wonderful? Check your motives.

Jesus, you're living in a completely false world. You are completely removed from reality Lash.

You list Krygyzstan and the Ukraine as if they have anything to do with what we are doing. They don't. But it is typical to see Republicans taking credit for everything that happens... except the torture and 9/11 and gigantic sums of money missing in Iraq, noone is responsible for those, unh huh.....

Why don't you take a step back and examine your own motives...

Cycloptichorn

So, you think it's just a really, really big coincidence that democracy is busting out all over, eh?

Typical liberal. Foreign policy is truly foreign to some.

I wouldn't count my democracy eggs before they are hatched, Lash.

And how exactly is democracy 'busting out' in the Ukraine and Krygyzstan? Especially since it was election inaccuracies that prompted the local revolts by the citizens; isn't that a pre-existing democracy asserting itself?

Tell me, do you support Spain removing it's troops from Iraq in the wake of the Madrid bombings? That would be good ol' Democracy asserting itself! It must make ya proud.

Also, not to bring up a, yaknow, oft-repeated point or anything, but surely you recall the original plan in Iraq from Bushco wasn't for a democracy. What say you to that? How could that have been the grand plan that you say history will laud him for?

Typical Republican drek; take credit for other's accomplishments and ignore problems continually.

Cycloptichorn

I know the reasons the US government gave for invading Iraq at the time.
I read the newspaper reports, I watched the TV news, I demonstrated in protest.
There is nothing wrong with my memory.
I get exasperated with folk who re-write history to suit their own agendas.
I believed the invasion was wrong then & still think so now.

If Russia is pulling the strings, and cheating the election--something post-USSR countries are as used to as air--but, NOW the are getting out in the streets and demanding that their voices are heard--hell yeah--it signals quite a departure from business as usual.

Bush put the word out several times, most recently during the SOTU. He put the world on notice that we would actively support bids for increased freedoms and democracy.

If you know how oppression was fought off throughout history, you recognise it when you see it.

Spain does as Spain pleases. Would I send in troops to stop them from leaving--must be what you're asking--because the two spectres are preposterously dissimilar------no. They are a sovereign country.

So glad you asked about the invasion of Iraq. Getting Saddam Hussein out of there solved a myriad of problems.

Fighting terrorism was one. A big one. Planting a democracy is the only way to effectively fight terrorism. I've said it several times. People such as yourself, who don't understand foreign policy, hear one catch-phrase, and drop all pretense of trying to see something for what it really is--rather than what the DNC tells you to see.

It most certainly WAS the plan. The plan had several aspects, and motives.

And, they have obviously worked fabulously well.

Note the incredible success.

If you read the PNAC papers, and Bush's campaign speeches and interviews (pre-2000 election), you will see his foreign policy--and you will see promoting democracies was his plan all along.

Interesting analysis.

Re: Osama bin Laden & Zarqawi as neutered terrorists. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that we haven't caught OBL yet. It is ridiculous to think that we can immediately or even quickly capture a man with serious capital, the willingness to kill, maim and torture opponents or suspected middle-goers, in an area where he is widely regarded as one of the greatest heroes of Islam. On the other hand, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that he hasn't had any impact since 9/11. Zurqawi, who you mention, has been in contact with OBL since 9/11 and has been responsible for many American deaths. Evidently there has been some collaboration though analysts think now that al Qaeda is more a loose confederation of independent actors than a top-down hierarchy. He also seems to have galvanized a great number of people to act against the US. Osama is apparently now by far the most popular name for baby boys in the Muslim world. Even when we catch him, if we kill him, then he will likely become a martyr. There's not much either the Dems or Rubs can do about that. Time will tell. Zarqawi's been neutralized? That's news to me. I thought I heard a couple hundred got blown up just the other day.

Re: Saddam Hussein as neutered terrorist sponsor. The primary group that Hussein worked with was the Mujahadeen-e-Kalq, an anti-Iranian terrorist organization on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Other major sponsors include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who thinks their information on the goings on in Iran is quite good, especially with respect to their nuclear program. None other than the arch neoconservative Daniel Pipes spoke at a rally they threw in Washington DC (!) last year. They operate quite freely in the United States. A large number of them are currently being held in Iraq, evidently as the Administration decides whether or not to turn them over to the Iranians (where they would certainly face torture and most likely summary execution) in return for certain members of al-Qaeda being held (and most likely tortured given that al-Qaeda as a radical Sunni group is quite anti-Shia Iran) by Tehran.

Re: Muammar Qadaffi as neutered sponsor of terrorism. Well, he just got caught last year having put together the plan and operations for the assassination of the crown prince--I think it was--of Saudi Arabia. He also appears to be meddling in Sudan with respect to Darfur. It is not clear what Qadaffi, a notoriously mercurial "leader", will do once he is awash in the cash coming in now that the sanctions are being lifted. With respect to the nuclear program, it appears that the invasion of Iraq was not the major motivator. Cf. the op-ed piece by Flynt Leverett, former Director of Middle East Affairs for the National Security Council, in the New York Times last year -- here's a link to the text. On the other hand, I think that the invasion of Iraq probably did not tip the scales against coming to a detente with the West ... it must of been a consideration in Qadaffi's thinking. (His long-term relationship with Nelson Mandela--South Africa gave up the bomb voluntarily--is likely another important consideration.) Still, time will tell as to Qadaffi's future role in international affairs. Neutered sponsor of terrorism? Not yet.

Re: Lebanon & Syria as neutered sponsors of terrorism. An interesting take, but I think it is a bit premature to say that the terrorist organizations native to Lebanon will cease to be so should Democracy take hold. The Syrian withdrawal is interesting on a number of levels -- the reason they were there in the first place was to counter Israel and to put an end to the anarchy of the 20 odd year long Civil War that was causing them cross-border problems. A primary cause of that war was the Israel-Palestine conflict, where a great number of Palestinians elected to move their struggle to Lebanon. (If I remember correctly, it was the headquarters of the PLO for some time.) Of course, the Syrians leaving does not mean that the Lebanese will all of a sudden work out all their problems and begin to make civil compromises which is so necessary to the establishment of Republican institutions. In fact, the Syrians may well be counting on the re-erruption of conflict which we ourselves paid dearly to try and arrest under Reagan on the theory that either the US or our proxy, Israel, will be forced to expend force in order to attempt to re-establish order which means that we will have that much less forces at our disposal to utilize against Syria (jokes about flying a nuclear-armed F15 over Damascus aside.) On the other hand, the Cold War is over and with it several ideological viewpoints have been delegitimized and the Lebanese well remember the consequences of the Civil War and their subsequent occupation. Perhaps they will choose to settle their differences peacefully and democratically. I certainly hope so. But that does not mean that the causes that they hold so dear will all-of-a-sudden disappear and a pro-Israel stance is not an electible one in Syria as far as I know. Syria itself will not likely end support for Hamas and other terrorist organizations due to this withdrawal -- of course Hamas has as a policy not to target the US (which is in part due to, ironically, the Iranians.) Syria, I suspect, will not radically change their understanding of their national interests due to our muscular policy in Iraq ... their interests remain basically the same under most conditions.

Re: Iran as potentially neutered sponsor of terrorism. Well, since Iran has had a policy of not targetting the US since the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, this is pretty moot. Indeed, Iran has been cooperating with American efforts against al Qaeda, though very quiety, since al Qaeda is a great enemy of Iran. (I understand there are pictures of Iranian special forces fighting alongside US special forces in Afghanistan that are quite astonishing.) Last year Agence France Press -- I think it was -- reported that the Iranians gave the US the intelligence that caught Saddam Hussein. (No one on either side will confirm -- it's pretty much politically a minus to do so -- but given that the Iranians probably hate Saddam Hussein more than any other man on earth, seeing as he was responsible for a million war dead in the Iraq-Iran War, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.) No less than Rafsanjani himself last year gave a speech where he said it was the duty of all pious Muslims to give the Americans advice on how to arrange the situation in Iraq safely so that we might quickly get out! In any case, Iran is not likely to drop their support for the Palestinians given the political popularity of their cause.

As to a people power type revolution in Iran, I think it unlikely any time soon given that the Revolutionary Guards have such a huge stake in the current system. That said, Bush is probably the most popular man in Iran, on both the conservatives and reformers' sides of the aisle given that he has made their strategic position in their near afar the best it has been in millenia by a) getting rid of a hostile government in Afghanistan (a millenial concern), b) getting rid of a hostile government in Iraq (from which the original Arabic Islamicizers came under the Kaliphate in the 9th century AD, I believe), and c) shoring up the buffer Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (Russia being a centuries long concern.) Certainly some in Iran hope that Bush will invade and kick out the mullacracy, but when you speak of democracy in the Middle East, it must be said that Iran is the most democratic state in the Middle East, unless you regard the denial of suffrage to the Palestinians of Israel as democracy. It is a fair example of why some urges in a democratic Middle East might just not be to our liking, though it is certainly nice to hope that democracy will bring with it a US-friendly and normal relationship to the West politics.

Tangent -- the irony of the success of the elections in Iraq. For some reason the pundits seem to have forgotten that the reason the elections were held so soon was because the Administration was basically forced to by Grand Ayatolla al Sistani. It was at his insistence that a speedy timetable was arrived at and that international observers were brought in. The Administration resisted mightily at first, saying that it was impossible and refusing to set a solid date. Prior to the setting of the date the Dems were criticizing the Administration for having Machiavellian motives for the invasion, the moment the date was set, those dumb bunnies, they began to say that the Administration was not being Machiavellian enough!

By the way, al-Sistani's list was by far the most successful at the ballots and though he is not officially against a theocracy a la Iran -- Najaf is the traditional place for Iranian dissenters to preach, Khomeini being one of the more prominent predecessors -- he is for a Sharia basis to the law. Sistani is fairly vehemently anti-Israel and I would expect a democratically elected government in Iraq to be politically against them. Will they be pro-US? Time will tell.

I noticed two very prominent places that you did not include in your list.

1. Afghanistan -- a success. Of course, it wasn't really the Rubs' proposal to go after Afghanistan was it? There wasn't any real Dem opposition to the idea, was there? ... it was America's policy to take down those sumabitches. Indeed, it was pretty much the world's policy. Certainly the elections there are encouraging and I don't think it is reasonable to expect us to get rid of the warlordism of several millennia over night. On the other hand, it is not clear to me why Iraq was so pressing -- minus WMD -- that we couldn't afford to have more people on the ground there making sure things work out. But that's a quibble.

2. North Korea -- a total unmitigated friggin disaster. Right after 9/11 North Korea dropped out of our monitoring program for their nuclear reactor. Did we have the political will of the world following 9/11 to deal with a state building nuclear bombs whose only export is weapons and who has a missile that can reach Seattle? (though they probably can't fit one on one yet.) Did we squander it on a country which we likely could have spent 10 years getting the world to agree if we had to? Well, I think so anyways. The party of national defense, eh? In the meantime I have to listen to Rumsfeld, that hawk, tell us that the reason we didn't have enough troops in Iraq at the start was because of Turkish obstructionism. Yeah, blame it on our longest standing Muslim ally.

Hmmm...I think I've seen this line of reasoning before:
Liberal this, Conservative that.....

Speaking from the left of center, I many on "my side" would have had no problem with Bush setting out to liberate the middle east in the first instance.
It just so happens to be a fortunate ex post facto by-product of an intelligence "fraud" his handlers masterfully (in the most complimentry means possible) manipulated and altered to their favor.

Own up that you f*cked up and change course deliberately and transparently--don't pretend this was the plan all along.
That's a problem.

Cyclo--could you perhaps see Bushco's agenda in a different light had this happened?

Funny. I would have had serious disagreements had that been the one and only reason for the war.

We can't liberate everybody--so why them?

But, fighting terrorism--to me, was a good enough reason.

Fair enough Lash.
...and I agree.

"Fighting terrorism", however, has taken on a very ugly persona considering who the leaders are leading the "good fight".
*Abu Gharib
*The Patriot Act
*Racial Profiling
*Guantanamo Bay and all that comes with it

...not to mention perhaps an anti-Arab psycho-social consciousness that I am waiting to see emerge (maybe, maybe not); one of a culture of fear that the post 9-11 generation youths will carry with them into their adult years.

bayinghound wrote:

2. North Korea -- a total unmitigated friggin disaster. Right after 9/11 North Korea dropped out of our monitoring program for their nuclear reactor. Did we have the political will of the world following 9/11 to deal with a state building nuclear bombs whose only export is weapons and who has a missile that can reach Seattle? (though they probably can't fit one on one yet.) Did we squander it on a country which we likely could have spent 10 years getting the world to agree if we had to? Well, I think so anyways. The party of national defense, eh? In the meantime I have to listen to Rumsfeld, that hawk, tell us that the reason we didn't have enough troops in Iraq at the start was because of Turkish obstructionism. Yeah, blame it on our longest standing Muslim ally.


Whose administration actually allowed North Korea to become that "Total unmitigated friggin disaster"? I'll give you a clue-----Madame Albright was his Sec of State and she was the clueless wonder who believed the liars in NK.

Strangely, candidone, after 9/11, and into the present, I did not feel the fear I was supposed. The feeling was, and is, remarkably like anger.

Glad to hear that.
Anger at who?

...not to intentionally ruffle feathers, but was there any (even subconscious) thoughts that, "you know, we kinda had something like coming to us, givin our history (of shady backroom deals with terrorists, puppet governments, unofficial regime changes--you know the bit).

Or was the anger an arms in the air "what did we do to deserve this?" or "why us?" type of anger?

It's a serious question...not a fight starter.

No rayban, I'm afraid it's you that needs the clue, they stopped the monitoring program during Bush's Administration and then his policy for the next two years was simply not to talk to them while he prosecuted a war on Iraq with a knowingly falsified casus belli. It happened on your watch, buddy ... and you dropped the friggin ball.



certainly to the substance.



Dunno to whom you're referring here, but perhaps you ought to check this out, if you haven't already:

J. Bookman's The President's Real Goal in Iraq Atlanta Journal-Constitution 9/29/02

No, I never had the thought that we "kinda had something like this coming to us", and I was sickened by those excuses starting out something like "Of course, I don't excuse terrorism, but. . . ."

At whom? At anyone who would participate in, encourage, or excuse actions like this. I seriously sympathize with the conditions imposed on the Chechens by Russia. Those that deliberately take hostages and murder kids too young to have formulated an ill thought against them.

Sure...I gathered that from what was written in the PNAC.
Kinda frightening actually--and that's probably why there were so many contrived (and logically confusing) justifications for the pre-emption.

You can't rally up a whole lot of support by telling the "civilized", "uncivilized", nuclear, and non-nuclear, democracies and dictatorships of the world that you want America to emerge as a full-fledged global empire without creeping out a few dodgey rogue nations. Hell, I think it would be unsettling to a great deal of American allies to see this as their official mandate.
...mind you, you'd have to be an idiot to not see this as their agenda as they swiftly undergo their transformation.

So, the US (as a nation in the broad sense, not the individuals in the WTC Sept 11) was just an innocent by-stander akin to the child walking to the store gunned down by rival neighborhood gang gunfire?

Surely an angelic personification of a nation reponsible for some pretty shady things over the past 5 decades, doncha think?

...and you're right, tacking the "I don't excuse terrorism but..." qualification contributes nothing to the dialogue.
But, I am a teacher, and I do see good kids bullied by not so good kids, and when they snap at the end of a long class, a long week, a long month, a long year, or a long few years of various verbal, physical, social and even economic abuses, I can't help but to say "what did you expect them to do? Take more and more and more and more without giving back but an ounce of the hell they have had to endure?"

Even a Jesus-freak like Bush would concur that "You reap what you Sow".
Being shocked and awed when retribution comes knocking just means you weren't watching what seeds you were sowing....

It's a shame, a pity and a tragedy of epic proportions.
Indeed.

*edited to change quote attribution*

If that is what you got from my response to your question, well, that's what you got