Thor Q. Mada

Dear Lamma,

I think you don't know much about the region, the people and the religion.
Iraq was a secular place were women were relatively free (it still was a conservative society) and could take any job they wanted. Alcohol was allowed, and other religions were left in peace, and religion was not a pre-requisite for getting a job within the governement. Girls were well educated and advanced into relatively high positions within the administration.
health and education were the best in the region, and to go to Iraq I didn't need a certificate of being baptized unlike in the country of your "allies": Saudi Arabia.
The Iraqi's were vere friendly and hospitality was not just a word. And when I say Iraqi's I mean Kurds and Arabs all alike.
Now this place is virtually inevitably going to fall into the hands of the only remaining power, i.e the backwardness of religious fanatism. It is Iraqi all right but whther it is an improvement is in doubt.
And by the way, when are you guys going to finish the job in Afghanistan, where the government only rules Kabul, and even then. That was a great democratic success wasn't it??

Ion

Hey, I didn't start that one either.

It's Bush!

Not me. I swear it.

If I had political power, I would invest the taxpayers' money in stimulating the economy, not waste it on bizarre wars.

Zar

Totalitarianist,

Okay on all that, but you haven't really answered my question.

I'll try to just guess. Are you saying that even though you are a totalitarian, that doesn't mean you have to admire the dictator? Are you saying that although the population should not be a participant in government, there still should be just cause for what the absolute ruler does?

HaysooChreesto!

I think you don't know much about reality. This perplexing view that Iraq was some sort of progressive nation is utter hogwash.
I'm so sick of spineless leftists who cry that "it can't be done"! Methinks you also don't know anything about the US. Forget it, I've said my peace and don't need to argue with ignorance.

Majestyk

Don't know. Don't care. If, there are WMD's we'll find them. If, there are not any WMD's then we'll know they weren't there. Either way, it's a side issue.

You may even call it a ruse or a pretense. President Bush, evangelical ramblings, aside and his Neo-Con advisors, world domination ramblings, aside both correctly identified the religious fanatic terrorism, from the Middle East, as a regional problem, within the Middle East. As such, it has to be dealt with in a regional manner. Which means if, the governments that comprise the Middle East cannot keep their problems from spilling out of their region, "WE" will replace them with governments that can or governments that will not get in the way of such replacements. We will do this on a regional scale until the threat of terrorist attacks is minimized.

If, that means burning every beating heart, regardless of its religion, out of the Middle East, so be it.

Hegemonic? Imperial? Too, bad.

Don't like it? Then, take your best shot or sit the fuck down.

eldar1011

That's all well and good, I guess. But, I don't recall Iraq ever being a hotbed of religious fanatic terrorism. I don't recall Iraq being a source of religious fanatics like Saudi Arabia. I don't recall Iraq providing millions of dollars in funding like Saudi Arabia.

Now, if you're saying that Iraq is a first step, a way of securing an operating base for ME restructuring by the US, I guess that makes sense.

What doesn't make sense, however, is whether or not this is even a good idea. How successful are the Israelis in handling their own "regional" problems with the Palestinians? Have reprisals worked? Has increased security worked? Assassinations? Travel restrictions? Any of it?

Tom Sawyer

I think that Bush honestly believed that there were WMDs in Iraq and thought that he was justified in the invasion by stopping Saddam before he got any nuclear weapons and would be much harder to remove as a result. He really wanted to find them there and show up the French and the Germans and prove that he was right.

The fact that the US cannot find any, with entire divisions searching a country which they control and many of the main people who were supposably in charge of these programs in US custody, is a major embarrassment to him. The liberation of the Iraqi people is not a justification for this war. This war was fought on the grounds that Saddam was an imminent danger to the US due to the fact that he was stockpiling WMDs and flouting UN resolutions as a result of that. If there are no WMDs, then Saddam didn't break any UN resolutions and the war was not justified on the grounds under which it was engaged.

If the liberation of oppressed peoples around the world is the job of the US army, fine. That's a valid argument that a number of people make. If that's what the US government is using their army for, however, then they should tell that to the US people and let them decide through the ballot box if that's what they want their tax dollars and soldiers lives to be used for. Saying a war is about something else and then making this argument after the fact once the discussion is relatively moot is not a valid way to run a democracy. If this is to be the task of the US army, be upfront about it and let the voters decide based on the truth, not on a bunch of spin and fabricated facts.

Saying that the war was "net beneficial" is skirting the issue. We went in there for one reason. When that reason turns out to be invalid, changing the subject and saying that it was really about another reason is not the way to go about it. If no WMDs are found, then heads have to roll within the US intelligence community and Bush must apologize to the world. The fact that everything might work out for the best anyways is not a justification and should not be used as one.

Jat

In some regards it was more progress than many of the other countries in the area. For one women were allowed to be part of society as being doctors, teachers, and the like. In many of the other Islamic countries women were not allowed to do many things. In fact right now, in Iraq, many families are keeping their daughters, and even their older women, at home because they are no longer safe outside. And the ones who let their daughters go to school have to wait outside armed to protect them. Under Islam a man is not expected to control his carnal desires and that is why women must be veiled and kept separate from men in most things.

Jat

That is because Iraq was a secular state, but that is going to change now.

CALDONIA

Chinese premier Chou En-lai was once asked what effect the French Revolution had on the world, and his replay was, "It is too soon to tell."

Some of those crowing about our "success" in Iraq in getting rid of Hussein (or have we -- it seems that he is out of the office) have gone onto giving their attention to more current issues like the murder of Laci Peterson.

The consequences of our going to war under false pretenses may not be known for a long time. Those who are patting themselves on the back over our "good deed" might better withhold judgment until we see what happens when Iraq is run by a new "regime" (whether a puppet of Bush or their own). It may turn out that some sort of 'democracy' will come to Iraq, but it is equally possible that the country may suffer endless revolution, political assassination, and anarchy. Just like in the former, we will have to take the "credit" for having made the latter possible.

In a similar sense (and I am by no means making an analogy) Japan in the early 1940s seemed to take no long view in regard to the possible consequences of their short-term foreign policy. Their short-term easy tactical successes were met with horrific long-term results. I think the Bush team is thinking strictly short-term and we may pay for their arrogance.