Godless Dave

Of course not. But if we're really going to solve any problems we have to act like we know what we're doing, not jump around the globe like a bunch of cowboys with nuclear six-shooters. If we really cared about solving problems we would have made a serious effort to rebuild Afghanistan before starting another war.

Look, I'm no dove. I was opposed to the first Gulf War but later decided I was wrong. If Bush and his team hadn't lied so much going in, and if they had handled the diplomacy like the leaders of a powerful republic instead of like lobotomized bulls in a china shop, he maybe could have talked me into it. I was keeping my mouth shut up until the day Bush announced "diplomacy has failed" because I saw our military buildup as an effective way to scare Saddam into cooperating.

It's hard for me to accept this as an action to take out a dictator when it's coming from the same foreign policy people who supported dictators in Chile, El Salvador, etc. They did that not because they love dictators, but because they thought (wrongly, IMHO) it was in our strategic interest to do so. Saddam was taken out because they thought it was in our strategic interest, not out of any compassion for the Iraqi people. The fact that Americans, not Iraqis, are in control of the bank account that receives Iraq's oil revenue should tell you that, as should the way the US is hand picking the political leaders.

I said before that in my opinion decisions to go to war should be based on strategic interests, so that's not what I'm objecting to. I object to being dishonest about it, and moreover I don't think any of this was in our strategic interests. The strategic gains were not worth the cost in human lives, the monetary cost, the massive diversion of military and intel resources away from antiterrorism, and the diplomatic ramifications.

I also feel strongly that this kind of mercantilist imperialism is no longer in the long-term interests of the United States. I believe the end of the Cold War offered us an opportunity for leadership without imperialism. Instead we're acting like an insecure playground bully, lashing out because we're scared of enemies too small to hurt us.

Tristan Scott

The US isn't really interested in who is pumping the oil, as long as it is pumping. A prolonged war over control of the oil by other parties was not in the best intersts of the US.

Optional

First of all, as to the oil:

Part of it is going to be the exact same thing that has led to the US supporting Saudi Arabia all these years. Sweetheart deals on the oil... If you think the current admin of Iraq is NOT going to build in unbreakable open-ended deals for cheap oil before they hand the reigns over, you haven't been paying attention to history.

Most of it, however, is control. US strategic control over the flow of oil. This pretty much IS the foreign policy of the people currently in power... They want to make sure that the US remains the sole superpower on the planet. Control of Iraq gives us a really good grip on the collective testicles of the world. Or so they believe anyway... Personally, I think the drawbacks involved more than outweigh the potential strategic benefits.

As for what I would have done?

I would have lifted the embargo, and left Iraq alone. Well, sort of alone... I would have saturated the place with spies (real human spies, so I would have probably had to significantly revamp the CIA first) to keep tabs on what they were doing, and blasted hell out of em as soon as one toe of one Iraqi soldier crossed any national border. And I would have made it quite clear to saddam that such was the case.

Ack, time to go home. I'll post later as to my reasons, maybe, if I get enough reaction to this post to warrent it. Basically, reacting piecemeal to various dictators and such would never be a workable policy for increasing peace and stability and human rights on a global scale. We simply don't have the resources to physically intervene everwhere we're needed, or even in any significant percentage of the places we're needed. Therefore, a more general policy that does NOT include violence would have to be created.

How to do that? I'm not entirely certain. If I was, I'd be running for president But... Part would be applying economic pressure (both through aid and through penalties). I wonder, if all of the 'rich' governments of the world pooled their resources, would it be possible to raise the standard of living everywhere in the world? Any ruler that wanted to hold onto their post would have to toe the line, if their people were fully aware of what they will miss out on unless they get their act together...

OK, 6:30 pm, with an hour-long commute home, I don't love you people enough to spend any more time dispensing my Vast Wisdom (tm). I'm out.

-me

Jat

Originally posted by MegaDave

Well except that the piont to Gulf War v. 1 wasn't to liberate Iraq, but to try and stop him from invading another country. Which we did.

Irrelevant. When you defeat an enemy you don't leave them in power so they can do it again.

Uh... yeah, ok. The first war (again) was not about WMD's so there was never a first "trial" for him to be acquitted from. So he was never prosecuted in the first place. So your comment is sort of lacking anything that really adds to this discussion and is little more than an attempt to rile me, is it not?

Again irrelevant. for what he is being accused of now is what he was guilty of as well back then. The USA knew about it. In fact they had even tried to pin the blame on Iran at the time as well.

everlastingtongue

I think that an outright invasion exceeded the terms in the U.N. resolution authorizing force. I imagine that there was fear that some of the coalition members would drop out if we had pushed on to Baghdad back then. I could be wrong, but this is what I remember.

Autonemesis

Another point to take well: The very same people who were back then urging immediate military action and an end to inspections because the WMD problem was SO urgent, are now the ones urging patience in the search for them today. How convenient for them that patience is needed NOW, not before.

Those very same people are also the ones selling the stories of mass graves and torture chambers. I don't know about you, but I have yet to see evidence of any of this, not even a photo of a site alleged to be one of these places. I only hear claims that they exist, by the same people who claim WMD existed. So I am not ready to count any of those things just yet as reason to believe the current apologetics that assert Bush did "the right thing for the wrong reasons" that has become popular in the right-wing press (redundant, I know) lately.

Autonemesis

What an ungainly way to twist the question to try and force a particular answer ("you are willing to make them suffer...") The fact of the matter is that the US helped bring this regime to power, and to maintain it in power. So the factual answer is that yes, the US is and has been willing all along to allow the Iraqi people to suffer, so long as US interests were respected by the Iraqi regime, whatever form it took, however brutally it treated its people. This tradition goes back to Eisenhower.

Next question?

Autonemesis

If "we" includes Halliburton, how does a cool $7 billion in new contracts sound, awarded with no bidding?

Iraq will not be selling oil for Euros anymore. Dollars remain the currency you must use to by oil worldwide. Want oil? Buy dollars first.

Autonemesis

It's just a coincidence that the Interim Govt. is staffed almost completely by Iraqis who happen to be former oil company executives.

auto-da-fe

First I want to say that Godless Dave's comment about "Lobotomized bulls in a China shop" is very funny. I like that.

Second, I have been trying to read as much as I can about the whole fiasco, from the breakdown of diplomacy, to the WMD debate. Here is my opinions.

About the breakdown of diplomacy. I find it hard to buy into this becuase there was so much diplomacy tried. The UN tried several resolutions to get Iraq to cooperate, and nothing seemed to work. Global pressure did not work. Nothing was working. Even a little bit. Sure SH let the inspectors back in, but it was the same old story. "No you can't talk to our scientist.", "No you can't look in that bunker.", "No we have no idea what happened to all our WMD's". The UN inspections team was not allowed complete access, and realistically, the access that they were given would probably have not turned up anything even if it was there.

As far as WMD's go, I am starting to lose faith that they were there. I agree that we should have found something by now, even if we didn't find the proverbial smoking gun. If Bush et al want a little more time, I am willing to give them that, however, if no WMD's are ever found, then I think Bush is in some serious trouble. At the very least, he can expect to not get elected again. Worse case scenario, he may face censure, or even impeachment (I know it is a GOP controlled congress, but even so I don't think it is unfeasable. Look what happened to Nixon). I personally will not vote for Bush in '04 (btw I voted for Gore) if no WMD's are found by the '04 election. At the same time though, I think that these people who are claiming that even if we do find them, it will only be because we planted them, are being a little paranoid. (If btw we have 2 presidents in a row impeached, then I think that is a serious comment on the current state of the US government)

I personally do happen to think that the liberation of Iraq in and of itself was a good thing. I don't think it should have been handled the way it was though. Everything from not getting global support (or at least from our allies), to giving Haliburton the contract was seriously fucked up, and I think Bush will suffer in the end for it once the current wave of WE LOVE AMERICA wears off for the rest of the country.

My prediction is that Bush is going to go the same way that his dad did. Win a war, loose the economy, loose the election.

I still don't buy into the fact that this was all for the oil though. OPEC sets most of the worlds oil prices, and even if we control the oil coming out of Iraq (temporailly at that) I don't think it would have a HUGE impact against OPEC that everyone seems to be implying it would. I personally think this was Bush's way of trying to make sure he was elected again, and there may be some small part of him that honestly believed getting rid of SH was in and of itself a righteous motive.

I agree that the current foreign policy of the US is hypocritical, and lacking in basic understanding of the world as it is today. Bush's "war against terror" is a good idea in principal, but is not something that we can do on our own, or even with Blair and his countrymen on our side. I think the UN has its problems, some of which are pretty severe, but I think that we could work with them on at least some issues, and that there may still be a role for the UN in today's geopolitical environment.

I do think it is a comment on some people though that they started beating the WMD drum within days of the military actions stopping. Almost as soon as Bush said "The war is mostly won", they were saying "Then where are the WMD's". I think that eventually the truth will come out about it, and when it does, Bush better have a damn good explanation for himself if there are no WMD's.

The part I don't understand, is why there is such a call for the blood of the administration already. When Clinton was in office, most of the Bush Bashers (tm) were the ones who were saying that what Clinton did (purjury) wasn't that bad, and now they are saying that what Bush did (lied about WMD's) is so horrible. Agreed the lies were about two very different things, but it is still lying, and Bush was never under oath. Don't get me wrong, like I said, if he did lie, then he is in some serious shit, but I just can't stand that nobody wants to give him the benefit of the doubt, and everyone is ready to break out the noose and the tree and hang the guy.