OT, just in case you didn't know: Iraq was wrong!

[Mr Punch]

Apart from the tens of military advisors and senior commanders in the UK and US who advised against it logistically (or at least advised that way more troops and a way longer time were needed) and were ignored...

Here's a good article.

I think it's safe to say that you could substitute Blair for Bush through most of it too, especially given that for some reason Bush's govt decided to use British advisors on Arabism (and even then way after they should've appointed any advisors: i.e. before the invasion!).

And yep, I know it's from the socialist scoundrels that are the Guardian, but if you're gonna argue about it at least try refuting some of the points - I dare ya!

[Chosen-frozen]

Okay, I didn`t read the entire article because it kept repeating the same points over and over. But those points seemed to be that no one was willing to offer any opnions that ran contrary to Blair`s.

The three academics said they thought it was a bad idea, but no one in the foreign service office said they thought it was a bad idea. The academics never briefed the diplomats in the Middle East section, but one would pressume that`s because the people in that section are already weel versed on the topic.

I don`t generally follow the British papers, so I don`t know if Blair had stated that he thought this would be over and done with quickly. But I do remember Bush saying that it would require years and years.

But considering how long theU.S. occupations of Germany and Japan were after WWII, and the fact that we were still getting small amounts of guerilla activity in Germany 8 years after the end of the war. I don`t think any of what`s going on in Iraq now was unforseen. But then again the majority of the population is always looking for the quick fix.

"Those who do not learn from History are destined to repeat it." H. G. Welles

[Merryprankster]

Hmmm... this will get a billion responses or none. I'm going to guess I've read every point in that article tons of times. My thoughts, for all they are worth, or not:

The Iraq war was a bad idea from a "solvability" perspective. Furthermore, it set a bad precedent (preventative war vs. preemptive strike). It was launched on false premises, (premises vice PRETENSES - please keep those notions separate, thanks) by an administration so blinded by their ideology that one of the defining American traits - pragmatism - was overwhelmed by theories about how the world works that ignored historical evidence (after all, history isn't important in a "globalized" age, because it changes everything, right?)....anybody remember that we were to be hailed as liberators and that Iraqis would just up and become a peaceful, stable nation?

In execution, it was a badly botched campaign (genuinely getting better now), matching the wrong type of forces against the wrong type of challenges, using a wrong-headed strategy that ignored the historical and cultural nuances of the region. It has had a destabilizing impact in a strategically important (for more than just oil, thanks...please pay attention to life a little harder) area, and improved the relative position of Iran as a regional power.

Our severely crippled moral authority has allowed Russia and China to assert themselves in ways I say they wouldn't have dared do, prior.

In the meantime, important issues, like finding Bin Ladin, getting a jump start on Africa, which IMO will be THE issue of the 21st century, etc, have gone unattended to.

Yeah.... Iraq matters.

Let's talk now about what it wasn't:

1. It wasn't about "getting the oil." Basic understanding of the oil market renders this argument stupid.

2. It wasn't illegal. The French claimed there was no "automaticity" built into the UN resolutions the United States cited in its justification for war. I've read the relevant resolutions; the French need to learn to ****ing read. You don't want "automaticity?" Write a better resolution next time.

3. It wasn't "built on lies." The Intel community didn't cook the books. They screwed up royally, but lying requires intent. You can make an untrue statement without that intent. Neither did the Bush administration lie. Blinded by American exceptionalism? You bet. Total ****tards in not questioning the data that were behind the analysis on such a major decision? Oh yeah - anything major, I'm going to want to talk about what information the analysis is based on. I'm not talking about sifting through the raw reports. I want to know what TYPES of sources and corroboration exist, etc. Completely ignorant (or merely IGNORING) the area's history? Sure. Lying? Nope.

I wish they had lied. I really really do... because lying is easier to deal with and a hell of a lot less scary than a group of people in power who are utterly and implacably convinced of the moral rightness of their chosen courses of action. That's a path to justifying empire (We aren't one. Words mean things. Empire means something specific. It has been co-opted into colloquial use and then that loose meaning has been used by the vaguely literate or those with an axe to grind.)

I personally plan on holding an election day and inaugural day party, regardless of the election's outcome; any of the potential (ie those with a realistic chance of winning) candidates are better than this.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Wait....hold on a sec....

You mean George Bush isn't saving my ass, whether I like it or not?

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Iraq war was a bad idea from a "solvability" perspective. Furthermore, it set a bad precedent (preventative war vs. preemptive strike). It was launched on false premises, (premises vice PRETENSES - please keep those notions separate, thanks) by an administration so blinded by their ideology that one of the defining American traits - pragmatism - was overwhelmed by theories about how the world works that ignored historical evidence (after all, history isn't important in a "globalized" age, because it changes everything, right?)....anybody remember that we were to be hailed as liberators and that Iraqis would just up and become a peaceful, stable nation?

Fighting wars in other peoples back yards is never a good idea, you may win battles, but you won't win the war, the "insurgents" have no where to go...

In execution, it was a badly botched campaign (genuinely getting better now), matching the wrong type of forces against the wrong type of challenges, using a wrong-headed strategy that ignored the historical and cultural nuances of the region. It has had a destabilizing impact in a strategically important (for more than just oil, thanks...please pay attention to life a little harder) area, and improved the relative position of Iran as a regional power.

Everyone saw this coming, one wonders why they "didn't"...

Our severely crippled moral authority has allowed Russia and China to assert themselves in ways I say they wouldn't have dared do, prior.

No one saw that coming either....

1. It wasn't about "getting the oil." Basic understanding of the oil market renders this argument stupid.

No, its was about establishing a clear cut sizable presence in the Gulf since they had to leave SA, and why did they want a presence in the Golf? why because of the sandy beaches.

3. It wasn't "built on lies." The Intel community didn't cook the books. They screwed up royally, but lying requires intent. You can make an untrue statement without that intent. Neither did the Bush administration lie. Blinded by American exceptionalism? You bet. Total ****tards in not questioning the data that were behind the analysis on such a major decision? Oh yeah - anything major, I'm going to want to talk about what information the analysis is based on. I'm not talking about sifting through the raw reports. I want to know what TYPES of sources and corroboration exist, etc. Completely ignorant (or merely IGNORING) the area's history? Sure. Lying? Nope.

They were quick to believe what they wanted to to justify what they wanted to do, for whatever reasons they wanted to do it.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Shaolin Wookie

Wait....hold on a sec....

You mean George Bush isn't saving my ass, whether I like it or not?

Don't worry, he still is. The war on terror, which is still underway, has been pretty successful.

In execution, it was a badly botched campaign (genuinely getting better now), matching the wrong type of forces against the wrong type of challenges, using a wrong-headed strategy that ignored the historical and cultural nuances of the region. It has had a destabilizing impact in a strategically important (for more than just oil, thanks...please pay attention to life a little harder) area, and improved the relative position of Iran as a regional power.

One reason is the planners thought this would just be like Iraq War I, and needless to say it wasn't. War planners hate unconventional warfare and deal with it by ignoring it's possibility even after it happens.

My opinion in regards to Iran is that it was only a matter of time before they gained more power, and I don't think Iraq sans Sadaam would have survived very long. So in a way we pushed the time line up of something that was almost inevitable.

[xcakid]

[Liokault]

Originally Posted by Merryprankster

1. It wasn't about "getting the oil." Basic understanding of the oil market renders this argument stupid.

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.

Originally Posted by Merryprankster

3. It wasn't "built on lies."

Yes it was, the whole WMD thing was clearly a pretext. Look at the whole "Iraq has WMD's that can be deployed in 45 minuets, were all at risk" thing, as it was presented to parliament and was one of the key reasons that the UK went to war, where it latter turned out that they meant there were WMD's that could be deployed locally in the field in Iraq.......so no one was under any level of threat until we went in!

[Seppukku]

Originally Posted by Liokault

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.




Yes it was, the whole WMD thing was clearly a pretext. Look at the whole "Iraq has WMD's that can be deployed in 45 minuets, were all at risk" thing, as it was presented to parliament and was one of the key reasons that the UK went to war, where it latter turned out that they meant there were WMD's that could be deployed locally in the field in Iraq.......so no one was under any level of threat until we went in!

Are you sure you're not talking about the Bay of Pigs?

[MasterKiller]

Originally Posted by Liokault

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

[Shaolin Wookie]

American globalism?

They missed the imperial train by a century. I can't believe this kind of rhetoric is popping up again.


Take up the Democratic Burden

Send forth your sturdy kin,

And load them down with Bibles

And cannon-balls and gin.

Throw in a few diseases

To spread the tropic climes,

For there the healthy ******s

Are quite behind the times.

And don’t forget the factories.

On those benighted shores

They have no cheerful iron mills,

Nor eke department stores.

They never work twelve hours a day

And live in strange content,

Altho they never have to pay

A single sou of rent.

Take up the White Man’s burden,

And teach the Philippines

What interest and taxes are

And what a mortgage means.

Give them electrocution chairs,

And prisons, too, galore,

And if they seem inclined to kick,

Then spill their heathen gore.

They need our labor question, too,

And politics and fraud—

We’ve made a pretty mess at home,

Let’s make a mess abroad.
And let us ever humbly pray

The Lord of Hosts may deign

To stir our feeble memories

Lest we forget—the Maine.

Take up the White’s Man’s burden.

To you who thus succeed

In civilizing savage hordes,

They owe a debt, indeed;

Concessions, pensions, salaries,

And privilege and right—

With outstretched hands you raised to bless

Grab everything in sight.

Take up the White Man’s burden

And if you write in verse,

Flatter your nation’s vices

And strive to make them worse.

Then learn that if with pious words

You ornament each phrase,

In a world of canting hypocrites

This kind of business pays.

--Crosby (edit)

[MasterKiller]

Look at the names on that charter list:

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,

D1ck Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes,

Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle,

Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby , Norman Podhoretz,

Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen,

Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

Sound familiar?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Originally Posted by MasterKiller

Look at the names on that charter list:



Sound familiar?

Look at the net worth of some of those names.

[Golden Spider]

So,
How do you folks feel about MONSANTO owning 80%+ of all food producing technology in the western world? Donald Rumsfeld used to be on their board of directors I believe...?

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Liokault

So, what was it about? Certainly nothing to do with terrorism, unless the point was to 'grow' the threat.

I don't think so, but part of it could be unfinished business. The US takes a dim view of it's presidents being assassinated, more so when the target in question is your dad.


From the organ of the vast right wing conspiracy, Frontline

During the former president's visit to Kuwait to commemorate the coalition's victory over Iraq in the Gulf War, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in a car bomb plot to kill George H.W. Bush. Through interviews with the suspects and examinations of the bomb's circuitry and wiring, the FBI established that the plot had been directed by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. A Kuwaiti court later convicted all but one of the defendants.

In retaliation, President Clinton two months later ordered the firing of 23 cruise missiles at Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad. The day before the attack U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright went before the Security Council to present evidence of the Iraqi plot. And, after the U.S. attack, Vice President Gore said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented."

From the journal of neo-con thought...

U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."

Clinton said he ordered the attack after receiving "compelling evidence" from U.S. intelligence officials that Bush had been the target of an assassination plot and that the plot was "directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service."

In regards to WMD, don't forget that Sadaam thought of himself as a master games man. Acting like he had WMD was possibly a cheap way to deter enemies and something to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The Russians may be using the same type of ploy with their "missing" nukes.