Iraq War 7 Year Anniversary
- Thread starter HughJass
- Start date
HughJass
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 3
timbo said:
It's even more interesting how some people can't bring themselves to accept that a man who basically f*cked up everything he touched might have also got it wrong on Iraq's WMDs, especially when experts were telling him he was mistaken, and opt instead to believe in wild conspiracy theories about those WMD's going walkies over the border.
The UN teams who were actuall inspected his weapons certainly seemed to think so. But instead we chose to listen to armchair experts sitting in offices in London, Canberra, Washington.....
Nene
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 12
Bryan said:Nene said:
Have you considered the possibility that we've also helped establish another fledgling democracy in the Middle East, which could have profound implications for that region in the future?
Nene said:
The Bush administration really did believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. I'm not saying that they always used good judgement to promote that idea, or were beyond using rather questionable evidence; but they _did_ believe it.
Nene said:
Huh? Where did you get THAT idea?There were other foreign intelligence services which believed it, too, like the Russians and Germans (if I remember correctly).
Nene said:
No, of course not. We obviously have to choose our battles carefully, we can't just take on the entire rest of the world (we can't invade North Korea, for example). But our military experts _did_ think we could stage a successful invasion of Iraq, which is why they did it.
Bryan, I will respond to you point by point.
1. I did consider it but only history will tell if the price we paid in lives and money was worth the cost. Honestly, right now I think it's only fomented more anti-american sentiment in the middle east.
2. Bryan, I hope that Bush and his pals honestly did believe it. If they took us to war knowing full well that there were no WMDs, there is no word to describe how heinous a crime it was. My opinion is that they may have suspected it but didn't know for sure.
3. As far as I know, most of the intel the Bush administration had was garbage and if other nations suspected it, you'll have to show me articles or some sort of link proving it. There is a reason why the international community was up in arms with our unilateral attack.
4. Even if we did suspect they had WMDs, pre-emptive war was never a part of America's foreign policy and I think it should never have been. In the past we've only attacked a nation after they've attacked us or after it's been very clear that war is inevitable. In this case, we weren't attacked by Iraq and war was certainly not inevitable.
- Reaction score
- 42
Nene said:
I generally agree with you on that.
Nene said:
I know this isn't "proof" like you requested, but below is part of a reply to me from my sister, who is a former US Ambassador, and also a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. I had emailed her a few years ago asking for her opinion of the often-heard statement that Bush had "lied" about WMDs, and this is part of her reply:
Re the WMD question and Bush's 'lying,' you know how much I loathe the man. However, I do not believe he was lying. I believe he truly believed that Saddam had WMD which could be a threat to US and Western security. I should also point out that other intelligence services in Europe also believed that Saddam had WMD. Apart from the British, however, they felt containment was the better course of action.
A few points: (a) It is important to understand that the collection of intelligence is a very difficult job, especially in a closed police state like Saddam's Iraq where reliable humint (human intelligence) is virtually impossible to obtain. (b) We now know from books/articles/research papers that there was significant doubt among some in the intelligence agencies about the existence of WMD....but others really believed WMD existed. The latter were ideologically inclined to support the Administration and some were politically inclined (George Tenet, for ex.) to want to support the Administration. The latter group was in control of the intelligence that went to the White House, thus.... (c) Many non-Administration supporters bought the argument of the existence of WMD in Iraq because Saddam refused to let the Internatl. Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in to carry out their inspections. Why would Saddam refuse to let them in if he had nothing to hide?
So, in my judgment, the combination of Bush's/Cheney's being ideologically hostile to Saddam (combined with Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity and his tendency not to questionquestionquestion the intelligence/policy options being presented to him), together with Tenet's assurances that WMD existed, convinced Bush that Iraq indeed had WMD.
In a way, whether Saddam had WMD or not may be irrelevant. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he had WMD. What then are the policy options for dealing with the problem? There are at least two: (1) containment via sanctions, as the West contained the Soviet Unions successfully for half a century; and (2) invasion. I favored the former; Bush favored the latter. My point is that the Administration never appeared to seriously consider any alternative policy initiatives to that of invasion.
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
finfighter said:
optimus prime
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 11
aussieavodart said:
If we give them a healthy democracy, then in 20-50 years time it will be seen as a huge success.
However, like you said, if we give up on the now then it is the ingredients for Saddam 2.0.
I'm surprised you think this is some kind of bait.
The opposition to the war manifesting in political and civil protests worldwide before the invasion, highlighted many of the reasons why it mustn't be pursued.
Terrorism will worsen
Iraq destabilising
No WMD or evidence for it
Granted they were theoretical, it was certainly a possibility that none of those things would have happened. But they all seemed pretty sure, in hindsight - it seemed they had 20/20 foresight.
Personally I thought they were exaggerated, I believed war to be wrong in principle, regardless of the outcome. That is, invasion, regime change and long-term occupation being fundamentally wrong.
Virtually none of the STATED outcomes by the pro-war camp materialized. Virtually all of the outcomes predicted by the anti-war camp DID materialize.
That is not to assume that the STATED outcomes were the actual objectives ie. peace and democracy, humanitarianism, non-proliferation of WMDs.
For many months before the war, I was rather baffled. My intuition is usually spot on - I felt that war was being pushed by any means necessary, as a matter of urgency. Any and all reasons were given purely to advance the cause.
The actual reasons for war are unknown. Oil is the popular mantra - but logically it doesn't seem plausible that such comprehensive and intense policies were for the purposes of making a quick buck for an elite few. It makes little political sense and not much economic sense.
My most plausible theory is that the American political elite realised that domination and control of a strategic part of the world was essential for the continued status of the American 'superpower'. This could simply be a fact that is unavoidable.
The difference is, when the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Ottomans, British, French etc. Empires planned for this - there were no moral or legal hinderances.
America is the first true superpower to be subject to global, stringent inernational laws which hinder the progression of an Empire. A way around it is what was attempted.
I say human civilization is crossing a point where Empires in the classical sense are being rendered impossible. America is the first to taste this transition. The democratization of the individual is being extrapolated to a national level.
In Britain, it took 300 years for our democracy to be universal and equal. The electorate was once less than 1% of all people - namely the elite and aristocratic. So...I think long-term this war marks the end of classical national endeavour.
The opposition to the war manifesting in political and civil protests worldwide before the invasion, highlighted many of the reasons why it mustn't be pursued.
Terrorism will worsen
Iraq destabilising
No WMD or evidence for it
Granted they were theoretical, it was certainly a possibility that none of those things would have happened. But they all seemed pretty sure, in hindsight - it seemed they had 20/20 foresight.
Personally I thought they were exaggerated, I believed war to be wrong in principle, regardless of the outcome. That is, invasion, regime change and long-term occupation being fundamentally wrong.
Virtually none of the STATED outcomes by the pro-war camp materialized. Virtually all of the outcomes predicted by the anti-war camp DID materialize.
That is not to assume that the STATED outcomes were the actual objectives ie. peace and democracy, humanitarianism, non-proliferation of WMDs.
For many months before the war, I was rather baffled. My intuition is usually spot on - I felt that war was being pushed by any means necessary, as a matter of urgency. Any and all reasons were given purely to advance the cause.
The actual reasons for war are unknown. Oil is the popular mantra - but logically it doesn't seem plausible that such comprehensive and intense policies were for the purposes of making a quick buck for an elite few. It makes little political sense and not much economic sense.
My most plausible theory is that the American political elite realised that domination and control of a strategic part of the world was essential for the continued status of the American 'superpower'. This could simply be a fact that is unavoidable.
The difference is, when the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Ottomans, British, French etc. Empires planned for this - there were no moral or legal hinderances.
America is the first true superpower to be subject to global, stringent inernational laws which hinder the progression of an Empire. A way around it is what was attempted.
I say human civilization is crossing a point where Empires in the classical sense are being rendered impossible. America is the first to taste this transition. The democratization of the individual is being extrapolated to a national level.
In Britain, it took 300 years for our democracy to be universal and equal. The electorate was once less than 1% of all people - namely the elite and aristocratic. So...I think long-term this war marks the end of classical national endeavour.
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
Hammy070 said:
United Fruit Company says hello. I don't see why it's logically implausible at all. It's what "elite fews" have been doing for centuries.
If Joe Plebian makes a bad investment and loses a few grand, he's sent to bankruptcy. If Elite Few makes a bad investment and loses a few trillion, he gets bailed out, and the loss is put on the back of the taxpayer.
Feudalism never really died. They've just learned how to package it better to avoid all of those nasty pitchforks and torches incidents.
- Reaction score
- 42
Hammy070 said:
They didn't really, except for the last one. There turned out not to be any WMDs, but Iraq now may be settling down, albeit slowly.
Hammy070 said:
So that's all you meant by "foresight"?
Okay, whatever...
Hammy070 said:
I think you're going way too far with that. We certainly got rid of that bastard Saddam Hussein; on the other hand, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, maybe the religious crazies in Iraq actually NEED someone who rules with an iron fist? I _hope_ that turns out not to be true, and that Iraq eventually settles down and fully joins the rest of civilized society. Holding my breath on that one.
Hammy070 said:
I do agree with you on that one. I think "oil" is a silly explanation for our involvement in Iraq.
The war was much less likely to be about getting rid of Saddam Hussein than oil. No man is that important. Not saying you were implying that it was for that reason, just I see it as irrelevant. It's akin to vigilantes in revolutionary France sending to the guillotine all aristocrats who fall in the 99th percentile, but a slap on the cheek for the 98th percentile. It's overkill for one, underkill for the other.
I fear my analogy is unsuitable - what I mean is the policy is extremely inconsistent, very contradictory. The actual policy is not as such, so any theories should at least be somewhat consistent and only partially contradictory.
I fear my analogy is unsuitable - what I mean is the policy is extremely inconsistent, very contradictory. The actual policy is not as such, so any theories should at least be somewhat consistent and only partially contradictory.
Any country would rather have their future decided by them, good or bad.
Americans should at least be aware of this. When the 13 colonies declared independence, the 'founding fathers' were under no illusion that for a time - post seperation there was going be a painful, bloody transition from a colony to a nation. John Adams knew this, Franklin knew this.
The mindset of being under occupation even influenced Adams to such an extent he recommended George Washington had some additional title to President, such as 'His Highness' or 'Your Majesty'.
It's an unavoidable process - unfortunately. Or perhaps it just appears that way. Nobody reads about peaceful, uneventful transitions as much.
Americans should at least be aware of this. When the 13 colonies declared independence, the 'founding fathers' were under no illusion that for a time - post seperation there was going be a painful, bloody transition from a colony to a nation. John Adams knew this, Franklin knew this.
The mindset of being under occupation even influenced Adams to such an extent he recommended George Washington had some additional title to President, such as 'His Highness' or 'Your Majesty'.
It's an unavoidable process - unfortunately. Or perhaps it just appears that way. Nobody reads about peaceful, uneventful transitions as much.
If America transitioned from occupation > nation in such violent a manner, I am tempted to muse hypothetically the greater scale of tumult were it now to transition from nation > occupation.
Perhaps some idea of it can be observed in Iraq, which right now is fairing better than past times in other lands, but these things can last a century - as I'm sure you've learned.
Perhaps some idea of it can be observed in Iraq, which right now is fairing better than past times in other lands, but these things can last a century - as I'm sure you've learned.