The Military Fights to Defend our Freedom, or absurdist things the news tells me.

[kai]

Of course. They are terrorists, not suicidal fools. They are not about to march into some US military base to play strongarm directly with the biggest and most expensive military in the world.



Of course it doesn't. That is how wars work, after all.

But I thought we were discussing safety and motivation, not righteousness?



That is arguable at best.

I personally think it may be marginally true, but not to any degree that justifies the terrible price that was and will still be paid in its wake.

Quite frankly, invading Iraq was a case of the USA chewing out its own foot. Raw, at that. It accomplished little more than reinforcing some dangerous American delusions and ruining its foreign policy and public image.



That is a direct contradiction of words. Democracy, by definition, relies on the civil population, never the military.

Much less a foreign military that unavoidably brings with itself the taint of humiliation and fear.

I can't help but wonder how popular such a mentality would be in 1776.

you mean if the French invaded ousted the British and set up up elections trained the militia poured in millions of french francs and announced they were leaving when the Americans could look after themselves?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Badran,

I will not state for you what its for, as i have no evidence, but i can tell you what it isn't. Its sure not for a noble reason. May be, partially the US do have a real intention to really help, but it doesn't justify like i said before the destruction and shameful things that the Iraqis had endure. Also, if you look at what have been said before that war, and how ridiculously the trial of Saddam went, and how much damage the war have cost, i think you should be able to determine that there were bad reasons behind this war.

I am glad you made this point. The US didn't just go to war with Iraq to spread democracy and show what good people we are. The US is first and foremost looking out for the interests of the US. The war was waged to protect the US, now this is obviously a debatable proposition and in ways it went terribly wrong in a number of ways, but the interest of the US were paramount in the decision to use military action in Iraq.

I would say the top three reasons for the US going to war with Iraq:

1. WMD threat, while there were (some old) WMD capability, the stockpiles that the global intelligence community thought Saddam had were not there (and Saddam thought there was no way in hell we would invade).

2. Saddam's ties to terrorism. He supported terrorism (for example, one of the first WTC bombers fled to Iraq). Of course the Bush administration never argued that Saddam and al-Qaeda were orchestrating attacks together.

3. Bringing democracy to the region. The argument being, democratic states aren't state-sponsors of terrorism and don't start wars.

Not Saddam, i'm respecting the people and their rights. They do not deserve nor is the US entitled to put them through this. Iraqi people have their own right for certain things like anybody else, which have been and is being violated today. If the US wants to help other countries, and provide for them a healthy system which will help them live a decent life and prosper (which would be a noble goal), it should do so but without resorting to military operations.

Well, I would argue that the people of Iraq will be better off even though they have gone through the carnage of war. And the use of military action was last resort and we have to remember the historical context here; this was 2003. From the US perspective it was less than two years since the deadliest terrorist attack on its soil, the intelligence (much of which was flawed) indicated that Saddam had a robust WMD program and Saddam had ties to terrorists. I read my fair share about the inner deliberations in the Bush administration and the one thing they were obsessed about was getting attacked again. In that context, it doesn't seem implausible that military would be a legitimate option regarding Iraq.

Like i said, while i'm sure your intentions are true, and you do want your country to help, and you believe it does, i think there is so much damage being done more than good, even for the US and its citizens. It will be really, and i do mean really hard to manage to take the anger and frustration from the Arab world towards the US, especially if it remains in Iraq.

I think actions will speak louder than words. If Iraq can continue to build a vibrant free society through the development of their democratic institutions and many in the Arab-Muslim world still hate the US, then I believe this says more about them than the US.

I'm all for fighting these sorts of things. I don't believe in fighting it through military though. Military or war in other words should be the very last unescapable resort. War is bad for everyone most of the time. Sometimes its the right thing to do, and it does do a lot of good in some cases, but usually that is not the case.

Ideas should be fought with ideas, or in other words we should fight these things that takes place in some countries with other measures.

When thousands of our citizens are slaughtered in a terrorist attack, then yes, we'll use military action in response and I don't believe that is the wrong approach. In fact, in dealing with a lot of these people the only way to stop them is to kill them.

 

[kai]

Sure, although I don´t know if it is a good idea to aim for that specifically.



Maybe we do. I still think the core motivations are mainly political, however.

Of course! Islam is political and militant Islam uses violence in an attempt to reach political goals

 

[LuisDantas]

That is true, but leaves out a lot of important political circunstances, and may therefore be misleading, Kai.

 

[LuisDantas]

you mean if the French invaded ousted the British and set up up elections trained the militia poured in millions of french francs and announced they were leaving when the Americans could look after themselves?

Thing is, such a setup is extremely unlikely and has always been. Countries are always suspicious of "foreigners" and will not fight for them unless forced to.

The Iraq invasion was not altruistic. It happened under false pretenses of self-defense with a pinch of interest in oil, and a measure of messianic delusions thrown in for good measure.

But the early Americans were motivated to avoid and repel the invading British, and in that they were not too different from most Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would it be any different? It is only to be expected. Artificial as they are, national distinctions are powerful motivators all the same.

 

[kai]

That is true, but leaves out a lot of important political circunstances, and may therefore be misleading, Kai.

How so? Most terrorist organisations make their goals pretty clear , its then down to the rest of the world whether they give in or resist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nah, that is just propaganda that they repeat to themselves to forget how they are scared out of their pants. Let them have a more reasonable out and they will behave.

Terrorists are just like that. Quite a few notable Brazilian politicians used to be terrorists themselves. I don´t admire them, but neither do I fantasize their motivations as beyond reason and human nature.

 

[kai]

Thing is, such a setup is extremely unlikely and has always been. Countries are always suspicious of "foreigners" and will not fight for them unless forced to.

The Iraq invasion was not altruistic. It happened under false pretenses of self-defense with a pinch of interest in oil, and a measure of messianic delusions thrown in for good measure.

But the early Americans were motivated to avoid and repel the invading British, and in that they were not too different from most Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would it be any different? It is only to be expected. Artificial as they are, national distinctions are powerful motivators all the same.

I will avoid derailing the thread so i will stick to what some Muslims see as a war against Islam. there's a clue there Luis, Islam transcends national distinctions, a Muslim extremist in London can use US involvement in Iraq to justify killing us civilians in London.and its not because there are American its because they are unbelievers that the involvement is so outrageous.The defensive Jihad argument can be very broad indeed

 

[kai]

Nah, that is just propaganda that they repeat to themselves to forget how they are scared out of their pants. Let them have a more reasonable out and they will behave.

Terrorists are just like that. Quite a few notable Brazilian politicians used to be terrorists themselves. I don´t admire them, but neither do I fantasize their motivations as beyond reason and human nature.

Sure we have politicians in Northern Ireland that used to be terrorists too, but only when they put down the gun and joined the political process did they stop being terrorists. This is a different ball game though.

 

[LuisDantas]

To what extent do they have the choice, however?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

The Iraq invasion was not altruistic. It happened under false pretenses of self-defense with a pinch of interest in oil,

Where is this oil that my country is getting from Iraq?

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi Luis,



Where is this oil that my country is getting from Iraq?

Buried under the incompetence from GWB´s immature dreams. He bit more than he could chew and the whole country is trying to recover from his mistakes.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

Buried under the incompetence from GWB´s immature dreams. He bit more than he could chew and the whole country is trying to recover from his mistakes.

I get it now, so the US isn't getting oil from Iraq (and I highly doubt you could prove that that was the motivation for the war).

Why keep repeating a falsehood like that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Because GWB claimed so, perhaps? Granted, I don´t have a source handy, but still... it is not like he kept it a well hidden secret.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Luis,

Because GWB claimed so, perhaps? Granted, I don´t have a source handy, but still... it is not like he kept it a well hidden secret.

I would like to see the evidence, but I am sure you'll have trouble finding that source.

Ideology trumping critical thinking.

 

[Sunstone]

The US doesn't get much oil, if any, from Iraq. However, US companies are involved in the production of oil from Iraq.

 

[Sunstone]

Because GWB claimed so, perhaps? Granted, I don´t have a source handy, but still... it is not like he kept it a well hidden secret.

Bush and Cheney arranged for US and allied companies to get the vast majority of the oil production business in Iraq.

 

[Aquitaine]

Bush and Cheney arranged for US and allied companies to get the vast majority of the oil production business in Iraq.

Yeah I remember seeing those documents from the Cheney Energy Task Force or whatever it's called where they listed possible clients for Iraq's oil, about two years before the invasion.


I'll just leave these here:

Iraqi Oil map
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts (page 1)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf

Page 2
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Karl Rove, one of Bush's advisors who said something along the lines of "We can use Iraq's Oil to pay for the war"?

I'll try find a clip of that if I can.

*EDIT: Oh wait no, it was Wolfowitz who said that, and Karl Rove who lied on TV trying to claim the Bush Administration never said it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6lJjFPNv1s

 

[Aquitaine]

Heh, I just came across this testimony from Paul Wolfowitz to the House National Security Committee, dated 1998, from PNAC's own website.

It starts off with some sloppy BS about how the US should whack Saddam to liberate the Iraqi people - y' know, 'cause they all truely care about some poor civilians living in the Middle East .

However, in the second-to-last paragraph you can see the real intentions begin to unfold:

This would be a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council. But once it began it would begin to change the calculations of Saddam’s opponents and supporters -- both inside and outside the country -- in decisive ways. One Arab official in the Gulf told me that the effect inside Iraq of such a strategy would be “devastating” to Saddam. But the effect outside would be powerful as well. Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddam’s supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.

Regime change, to turn Iraq into a Puppet for global businesses, basically.

The full thing is here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes any action against Arab/Muslim countries or combatants, terrorists, criminals, organisations,any non Muslim troops even standing on "Muslim soil" etc etc increases the risk of terrorist attack. In order to avoid any increase in terrorist attack we must avoid anything that will upset any "Muslim" with terrorist inclinations.

Or we could just stop waging pointless wars that're mostly based on lies, perhaps?

Didn't the 7/7 bombers say that their justification for the bombing (not that I'm saying it was justified) was our invasion or Iraq? Our aggressive foreign policy has mega blowback, and it has done over the decades.

This isn't about trying to be PC with Terrorists, it's about how our aggressive and intrusive foreign policy makes more enemies than it does friends. A prime example, the Taliban. We helped them (and the foundations of Al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan in the 80s with financing and giving them weapons, and we were even doing deals with them for oil pipelines in the mid to late 90's. Now we've gone and stirred up trouble and we've made another enemy. Not only that, but the rhetoric used to justify Afghanistan and our presence there has gradually changed from "zomg! we've gotta stop Al-Qaeda!" to "zomg! we can't let the Taliban take control of the country, we must defend Karzai!".

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are BS and not only have British soldiers died from it, but British civilians on 7/7 suffered the consequences of it, and the British public will have to foot the bill for these two expensive wars.

And what good has come of it? I heard we're even setting a timetable for withdrawal for around 2014. Well that's just great, so we leave and then the Taliban will jsut overrun the Karzai forces in 2014 and we'll be back to square 1. Seriously, what on Earth have these two wars achieved? Naff all!