Pages
1 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 8:51:53am

Not so much.

The whole “he had WMD therefore we were justified in taking him out” misses the point in several ways.

First, Iraq was a state actor and could be held accountable for its use of WMD. Saddam used them against Iran because he (accurately) assessed that no one would stand up for Iran. We contained the Soviet Union for decades and could contain Saddam until his regime collapsed of its own weight like the Soviets did. It;’s funny what lessons Condi, a Soviet expert, learned and didn’t learn from that.

Second, we had crippled his regime through the various sanctions and control regimes. We owned his airspace. We saw everything that happened there. The idea that Iraq could somehow spring up, fully recovered, and unleash surprise military chaos on the Middle East was a fantasy.

Third, the whole “Saddam was evil” argument misses the point. There are LOTS of evil regimes in the world. Are we in the business of vetting each and determining, from Washington, that each is or is not fit to exist? If so, how did we let Mugabe get away? He’s still there, and he is every bit as evil as Saddam was on his worst day. Is national sovereignty a concept that we only observes when it suits us?

Likewise, the whole “we could remake the Middle East” idea is so breathtakingly stupid that I am astonished Condi still drags it out. It ignores centuries of history that would suggest to any reasonable observer that trying to meddle in the internal governance of the nations of that region is utter folly. (And oh by the way, how is that whole “remaking the Middle East” thing working out for us? How many dead Americans do we have to show for it, and what has it gotten us?)

Finally, any major military exercise ought to include a reasoned and balanced assessment of risks vs benefits. Do you have any sense that such an assessment occurred in a meaningful and intelligent way? This could have turned out much better had it been done intelligently. (Which wouldn’t have made it a good idea, just a bad idea that cost us less in blood and treasure.) Condi tries hard to not be in the room when that is talked about.

I will grant you that Katie Couric isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and she is the wrong person to be having that conversation with Condi, but this is far from a definitive accounting of the circle jerk that was Iraq War II.

2 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 10:57:57am
Iraq was a state actor and could be held accountable for its use of WMD.

Saddam WAS certainly supporting the Palestinian Terror infrastructure. I hope we can agree on that.

NO ONE would stand up for Israel if he helped the PA (or one of its proxies) use WMD against Israel.

If you say that the USA would have… then you must ask what they would have done. Go to war? Then you have the justification you need. Saddam threatened Israel with Scuds, paid money to support suicide bombers, and we know protected and trained terrorists.

In a country the size of Israel, that is a WMD.

3 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 11:03:35am
Likewise, the whole “we could remake the Middle East” idea is so breathtakingly stupid that I am astonished Condi still drags it out. It ignores centuries of history that would suggest to any reasonable observer that trying to meddle in the internal governance of the nations of that region is utter folly. (And oh by the way, how is that whole “remaking the Middle East” thing working out for us? How many dead Americans do we have to show for it, and what has it gotten us?)

No one should think that it is an overnight thing, but freedom (not peace) is spreading in the middle east. History will show that the spread of freedom is a direct result of the war in Iraq. Will it take a long time? Yes. Do they deserve it? I say yes.

All of mankind deserve and yearn for freedom. To say that somehow history, or culture means that these brown people don’t, is IMO pure racism.

Bringing freedom and a true democracy to people is messy. It was messy during the birth of the USA as well. BUT it was and continues to be the right thing to do.

4 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 11:15:52am

re: #2 Buck

Saddam WAS certainly supporting the Palestinian Terror infrastructure. I hope we can agree on that.

NO ONE would stand up for Israel if he helped the PA (or one of its proxies) use WMD against Israel.

If you say that the USA would have… then you must ask what they would have done. Go to war? Then you have the justification you need. Saddam threatened Israel with Scuds, paid money to support suicide bombers, and we know protected and trained terrorists.

In a country the size of Israel, that is a WMD.

No, you don’t get to redefine WMD. It is a term of art.

And was there ever an instance in which Saddam (the most paranoid guy on Earth) was known to trust somebody else with a WMD when he had them?

5 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 11:18:12am

re: #3 Buck

No one should think that it is an overnight thing, but freedom (not peace) is spreading in the middle east. History will show that the spread of freedom is a direct result of the war in Iraq. Will it take a long time? Yes. Do they deserve it? I say yes.

All of mankind deserve and yearn for freedom. To say that somehow history, or culture means that these brown people don’t, is IMO pure racism.

Bringing freedom and a true democracy to people is messy. It was messy during the birth of the USA as well. BUT it was and continues to be the right thing to do.

So is it our national mission to change the internal governance of other nations? And at what price in our blood and treasure? How many thousand American kids are acceptable collateral damage per million people lifted into political systems we approve of?

6 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 12:51:52pm

You are just figuring out now that part of the responsibility of the free is to spread freedom wide?

Was the money spent to keep West Germany free worth it? Do you think East Germany would be reunited today if we had allowed West Germany to starve and fall?

I suppose we will never know for sure. But what we do know is that there is a long and fantastic history of helping people breath free.

Is tyranny really just another form of “internal governance”?

Not for me it isn’t.

7 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 1:00:31pm

re: #6 Buck

You are just figuring out now that part of the responsibility of the free is to spread freedom wide?

Was the money spent to keep West Germany free worth it? Do you think East Germany would be reunited today if we had allowed West Germany to starve and fall?

I suppose we will never know for sure. But what we do know is that there is a long and fantastic history of helping people breath free.

Is tyranny really just another form of “internal governance”?

Not for me it isn’t.

I would respectfully suggest that much of what we did in Europe we did out of our own self-interest.

And if we are willing to fight against tyranny everyplace, all the time, then when do the troops leave for Zimbabwe or the Sudan? Where were they when hundreds of thousands were being slaughtered in Rwanda? Are Rwandans unworthy of American blood but Iraqis worthy? What am I missing there?

8 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD  Dec 13, 2010 1:06:08pm

re: #6 Buck

You are just figuring out now that part of the responsibility of the free is to spread freedom wide?

Was the money spent to keep West Germany free worth it? Do you think East Germany would be reunited today if we had allowed West Germany to starve and fall?

I suppose we will never know for sure. But what we do know is that there is a long and fantastic history of helping people breath free.

Is tyranny really just another form of “internal governance”?

Not for me it isn’t.

Not at the cost of at least 100,000 dead Iraqis and IPU knows how many wounded or otherwise ruined.

9 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 1:08:33pm

You can see self interest, but the anti-war isolationist message you espouse here was very popular before the US joined the Allies in WW2.

Staying out of the fight doesn’t always mean you save blood or treasure.

No one can do everything, however the failure to act in Zimbabwe, the Sudan and Rwanda would be the fault of the United Nations.

You are missing something. And I know I will not be able to change your mind here.

10 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 1:15:26pm

re: #8 Sergey Romanov

Not at the cost of at least 100,000 dead Iraqis and IPU knows how many wounded or otherwise ruined.

OK, that is your feeling. Of course I look at that nice fat number and I see added in the people killed by terrorists, and military deaths.

Freedom isn’t free. You know that. How many Americans and Japanese died to bring freedom to Japan? How many died to bring freedom to the slaves?

11 Locker  Dec 13, 2010 1:18:18pm

Our invasion of Iraq was fucking retarded. It’s not complicated. Our mission was in Afghanistan and we diverted the majority of our forces to a non-threat based on someone’s ego and need to distract the public.

I was there the first time. We blew up his entire country. He didn’t have shit left. The weapons inspectors were there for the duration until the end when we pulled them out for some bullshit reason.

It was stupid, reckless and imo caused the complete failure of our primary mission. Not to mention that we killed a bunch of American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians. Destroyed the countries entire infrastructure, disbanded it’s military which lead directly to all the sectarian violence.

Fuck Condi, Fuck GWB, Fuck Cheney and Fuck that whole stupid, moronic war.

12 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 1:20:37pm

re: #11 Locker

Well I can’t argue with that logic….you certainly showed me.

13 Locker  Dec 13, 2010 1:21:20pm

Fuck off.

14 APox  Dec 13, 2010 1:27:31pm

re: #13 Locker

Fuck off.

You’re arguing with someone that can twist rational thought to its breaking point. I wouldn’t get frustrated.

Somehow a suicide vest in a different country is now a WMD that may have been funded by another country, which is reasoning enough for 7 years of war and 2 trillion dollars.

And Iraq being the same as Japan in respect to “WWII” isolationism. Man. The twisting hurts.

15 APox  Dec 13, 2010 1:28:49pm

“Freedom isn’t free. You know that. How many Americans and Japanese died to bring freedom to Japan? How many died to bring freedom to the slaves?”

ROFL.

16 Locker  Dec 13, 2010 1:29:32pm

re: #14 APox

Oh it’s all good man I wasn’t arguing against him even though he thinks everything is about him. Personally I don’t talk to people who only broadcast one way. He makes statement after statement and if you show direct evidence that his statements are bullshit he just ignores you and keeps shoveling more shit.

My only response to that fool addressing me is and forever will be “fuck off”. Well… maybe “fuck off again.” if he persists.

17 Barrett Brown  Dec 13, 2010 1:33:10pm

I’ll just leave this here.

thinkprogress.org

18 APox  Dec 13, 2010 1:33:13pm

re: #6 Buck

You are just figuring out now that part of the responsibility of the free is to spread freedom wide?

Was the money spent to keep West Germany free worth it? Do you think East Germany would be reunited today if we had allowed West Germany to starve and fall?

I suppose we will never know for sure. But what we do know is that there is a long and fantastic history of helping people breath free.

Is tyranny really just another form of “internal governance”?

Not for me it isn’t.

Those two events are not even close to being equivalent.

19 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD  Dec 13, 2010 1:34:03pm

re: #10 Buck

OK, that is your feeling. Of course I look at that nice fat number and I see added in the people killed by terrorists, and military deaths.

Freedom isn’t free. You know that. How many Americans and Japanese died to bring freedom to Japan? How many died to bring freedom to the slaves?

How generous of you to decide to spend these lives for freedom.

20 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 1:47:27pm

re: #19 Sergey Romanov

How generous of you to decide to spend these lives for freedom.

I prefer to think that the responsibility for their deaths are on the people who opposed freedom.

21 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 1:50:31pm

re: #9 Buck

You can see self interest, but the anti-war isolationist message you espouse here was very popular before the US joined the Allies in WW2.
I espouse vigorous defense of our interests, like we did in WWII.
Staying out of the fight doesn’t always mean you save blood or treasure.
Unresponsive.
No one can do everything, however the failure to act in Zimbabwe, the Sudan and Rwanda would be the fault of the United Nations.
Why them and not us? Why is Iraq different? How do you decide which countries are our responsibility and which are the UN’s?

I am really trying to better understand your thought process. Do you really think we went to war with Japan to bring them freedom? Because if that is your historical perspective, then yes, it is very unlikely that you and I will agree on this.

But at least we ought to be able to get to an agreed set of facts. And “Americans died to free the Japanese” is a little tough to swallow.

And as applied to Iraq, I am trying to get to a reason or set of reasons for that war that aren’t obviously disingenuous. Sadly, you have not aided my quest.

22 SpaceJesus  Dec 13, 2010 1:50:51pm

*nukes Russia in 1980*

“now you commie russkies that are still alive are all free now, enjoy yourselves, you’re welcome”

23 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 1:52:20pm

re: #14 APox

You’re arguing with someone that can twist rational thought to its breaking point. I wouldn’t get frustrated.

Somehow a suicide vest in a different country is now a WMD that may have been funded by another country, which is reasoning enough for 7 years of war and 2 trillion dollars.

And Iraq being the same as Japan in respect to “WWII” isolationism. Man. The twisting hurts.

Thank you very much for giving your opinion that suicide bombings are no big deal.

However I was making the larger point that we now know Saddam Hussein was a sugar daddy to global terrorists. Saddam threatened Israel with Scuds, paid money to support suicide bombers, and we know protected and trained terrorists.

If that was not enough, then I would have added what Condoleezza Rice listed, but I didn’t think it was necessary. I had assumed you watched the video.

24 APox  Dec 13, 2010 1:54:28pm

re: #23 Buck

Thank you very much for giving your opinion that suicide bombings are no big deal.

However I was making the larger point that we now know Saddam Hussein was a sugar daddy to global terrorists. Saddam threatened Israel with Scuds, paid money to support suicide bombers, and we know protected and trained terrorists.

If that was not enough, then I would have added what Condoleezza Rice listed, but I didn’t think it was necessary. I had assumed you watched the video.

You’re putting words in my mouth, I am saying that suicide bombings are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That doesn’t mean I condone sucide attacks.

It has been clearly stated that Sadaam and Al Qaeda were not bed partners.

You’re a fucking idiot.

25 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD  Dec 13, 2010 1:55:44pm

*spit*

26 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 1:58:05pm

re: #21 garhighway

Americans died, and the Japanese were given freedom from oppression.

After the surrender of the Emperor the US stayed to nation build. Wrote a constitution, and did the thinks that made sure democracy was in place. Why?

Before WW2 Japan was a clear and present danger to the USA and to the broader sense of freedom in that part of the world. As was Iraq.

27 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 1:59:36pm

re: #23 Buck

Thank you very much for giving your opinion that suicide bombings are no big deal.
Who said THAT?
However I was making the larger point that we now know Saddam Hussein was a sugar daddy to global terrorists. Saddam threatened Israel with Scuds, paid money to support suicide bombers, and we know protected and trained terrorists.

If that was not enough, then I would have added what Condoleezza Rice listed, but I didn’t think it was necessary. I had assumed you watched the video.

So if a country supports terrorism, we should impose regime change on them by force? Do you get how long a list of countries THAT describes? Again, why Iraq and not any of the others? I have yet to hear, from you, Condi, GWB or anyone else, a rationale for that war that makes sense when applied to other like situations elsewhere in the world.

28 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 2:06:27pm

re: #24 APox

You’re putting words in my mouth, I am saying that suicide bombings are not WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. That doesn’t mean I condone sucide attacks.

It has been clearly stated that Sadaam and Al Qaeda were not bed partners.

You’re a fucking idiot.

You called it a suicide vest, as if that is all it was… a piece of clothing off the rack… not a real threat to any one. I didn’t say you condoned suicide attacks, but that you minimized them. “A suicide vest in another country”. Was that all Saddam was doing? Supporting vests?

Now, where did I say Sadaam and Al Qaeda were bed partners? Although I don’t think there had to be a written agreement, and public contact signing.

I think I said support for a Global Terrorist network.

29 recusancy  Dec 13, 2010 2:06:45pm

There were no WMD. Saddam was more of a threat when Rummy and St Ronny were buddies with him. Saddam was a check on Iran.

One of the dumbest things we’ve done as a nation was invading Iraq. Bin Laden couldn’t have planned it better himself.

30 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 2:07:55pm

re: #27 garhighway

I have yet to hear, from you, Condi, GWB or anyone else, a rationale for that war that makes sense when applied to other like situations elsewhere in the world.

Of course you mean a rationale that you accept.

31 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 2:08:56pm

re: #29 recusancy

There were no WMD. Saddam was more of a threat when Rummy and St Ronny were buddies with him. Saddam was a check on Iran.

One of the dumbest things we’ve done as a nation was invading Iraq. Bin Laden couldn’t have planned it better himself.

Condoleezza Rice would disagree with you.

32 recusancy  Dec 13, 2010 2:09:31pm

re: #28 Buck

You called it a suicide vest, as if that is all it was… a piece of clothing off the rack… not a real threat to any one. I didn’t say you condoned suicide attacks, but that you minimized them. “A suicide vest in another country”. Was that all Saddam was doing? Supporting vests?

Now, where did I say Sadaam and Al Qaeda were bed partners? Although I don’t think there had to be a written agreement, and public contact signing.

I think I said support for a Global Terrorist network.

Saddam was a shia. Al Quaeda are sunni. They don’t get a long. At all. The 9/11 commission even found no evidence of support.

33 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 2:10:05pm

re: #26 Buck

Americans died, and the Japanese were given freedom from oppression.No, America was attacked by Japan, and we kicked their asses in return. I cannot believe you don’t get that.

After the surrender of the Emperor the US stayed to nation build. Wrote a constitution, and did the thinks that made sure democracy was in place. Why?
So we wouldn’t have to go back there 20 years later and do it again. It’s called “self-interest”.
Before WW2 Japan was a clear and present danger to the USA and to the broader sense of freedom in that part of the world. As was Iraq.
As to Japan, true, but we waited until they attacked us to go beyond sanctions. As to Iraq, false. They were NEVER a danger to the US. That is a fable.

There is a difference between wanting engagement with the world (which I want) and us wanting to impose our values by force on other sovereign nations. Getting into the business of picking and choosing which regimes are legitimate and which we ought to overthrow is incredibly risky. It is the very definition of a slippery slope. It requires incredible amounts of blood and treasure and ought to require a domestic political consensus.

But forget about all of that. Instead, let me ask you a simpler question: who’s next? I assume that there are other states whose internal political regimes do not meet your standards. Which one of them would you invade and overthrow next, and why?

34 recusancy  Dec 13, 2010 2:10:52pm

re: #31 Buck

Condoleezza Rice would disagree with you.

I’m aware. It sucks when your legacy goes in the toilet because you hitched your wagon to a wrong headed policy.

35 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 2:11:11pm

re: #30 Buck

Of course you mean a rationale that you accept.

No, I mean that is internally consistent. See my #33.

36 Buck  Dec 13, 2010 2:16:13pm
So we wouldn’t have to go back there 20 years later and do it again.

I like that. Sounds like something I would have said.

Gotta go home. I think everything I need to say is in my posts. You can certainly disagree with me. But now I think we are going in circles.

Its been fun, see you in the funny papers!

37 APox  Dec 13, 2010 2:17:12pm

re: #28 Buck

You called it a suicide vest, as if that is all it was… a piece of clothing off the rack… not a real threat to any one. I didn’t say you condoned suicide attacks, but that you minimized them. “A suicide vest in another country”. Was that all Saddam was doing? Supporting vests?

Now, where did I say Sadaam and Al Qaeda were bed partners? Although I don’t think there had to be a written agreement, and public contact signing.

I think I said support for a Global Terrorist network.

1) You are throwing out so much bullshit in this thread, that it’s almost impossible to talk about every topic. It’s pretty cute.

2) We do not “liberate” countries into freedom without some actual tangible objective. Ever. We nuked Japan beceause (debatable) it saved American lives in the Pacific trying to get to the heart of Japan. We fought Japan because they invaded Pearl Harbor. Not because they needed to be freed.

3) We were interested in Germany after WWII because Russia was our foe following the war, and we were worried about the spreading of Communism. We “freed” those people because of a need to push back Russia.

4) I’m not fucking minimizing terrorist attacks, and it’s offensive that you are equating my comments to that. I’m saying that a suicide attack in a country other than our own, that you have yet to show any ties to, is not enough reasoning for us to go into Iraq, spend 2 trillion dollars and thousands of American lives. We have gained nothing from doing so.

If you can recall history, which I doubt you can, because you apparently twist every world event into freedom building…

Iran and Iraq were enemies, they killed each other in the millions. Removing Sadaam created instability, and put in leaders who are now talking with Iran, accepting money from Iran and creating a strategic opportunity for them.

There were no WMDs found in Iraq — ever. We changed our reasoning for the war multiple times, and none of them really add up to our overall expense in the war.

38 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 2:18:47pm

re: #36 Buck

I like that. Sounds like something I would have said.

Gotta go home. I think everything I need to say is in my posts. You can certainly disagree with me. But now I think we are going in circles.

Its been fun, see you in the funny papers!

Next time, take a whack at my question: what country is next on your list for us to liberate by force? Iraq can’t be the only one to meet your test.

See ya.

39 recusancy  Dec 13, 2010 2:22:04pm

re: #38 garhighway

Next time, take a whack at my question: what country is next on your list for us to liberate by force? Iraq can’t be the only one to meet your test.

See ya.

I’d be willing to bet it’s Iran.

40 APox  Dec 13, 2010 2:24:16pm

re: #39 recusancy

I’d be willing to bet it’s Iran.

Iran would actually have a pretty solid reasoning for action down the road. Debatable still. But a hell of a lot more clear than fucking Iraq. Jesus.

41 garhighway  Dec 13, 2010 2:27:22pm

re: #39 recusancy

I’d be willing to bet it’s Iran.


Yeah. Only one new keystroke to learn.

42 recusancy  Dec 13, 2010 2:29:20pm

re: #41 garhighway

Yeah. Only one new keystroke to learn.

The 101st Keyboard Brigade is at the ready!

43 Lidane  Dec 13, 2010 3:38:13pm

re: #37 APox

There were no WMDs found in Iraq — ever. We changed our reasoning for the war multiple times, and none of them really add up to our overall expense in the war.

Yeah, this. Iraq’s been a clusterfuck since day one, and one that we have never, ever been able to justify.

I’m not sorry that Saddam is dead, but what we’ve gained in Iraq versus what we lost has never balanced out.

44 Skandal  Dec 13, 2010 3:45:13pm

re: #32 recusancy

Saddam was a shia. Al Quaeda are sunni. They don’t get a long. At all.

Unless, of course, they have a mutual enemy. Iran is Shia and Hamas is Suni. Iran funds, trains and arms Hamas.

45 Romantic Heretic  Dec 13, 2010 4:08:28pm

Jesus H. Christ! One minute in and she’s re-writing history. “No inspections for years.” There had been inspections for years. They found nothing!

When Hans Blix was put in charge he expected to find WMD of some type. By the time he quit he was talking about “Faith based intelligence.”

Condi, just be honest. The whole purpose of the war in Iraq was to tell the rest of the world that the U.S. was in charge and this is what happens to people and countries who piss the U.S. off.

46 jc717  Dec 13, 2010 5:19:49pm

re: #32 recusancy

Saddam was a shia. Al Quaeda are sunni. They don’t get a long. At all. The 9/11 commission even found no evidence of support.

Actually, Saddam was a Sunni. Iran is mostly Shia.
Saddam wasn’t an extremist Sunni like Al Qaeda or the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. He even had a christian in his cabinet. Al Qaeda hated Saddam.

47 CarleeCork  Dec 13, 2010 5:21:40pm

The majority of the terrorists on 9/11 were from what country???

48 Lidane  Dec 13, 2010 5:28:06pm

re: #47 CarleeCork

Saudi Arabia, who have us firmly and completely by the short hairs.

49 Flavia  Dec 13, 2010 9:17:17pm

re: #2 Buck

Saddam WAS certainly supporting the Palestinian Terror infrastructure. I hope we can agree on that.

NO ONE would stand up for Israel if he helped the PA (or one of its proxies) use WMD against Israel.

If you say that the USA would have… then you must ask what they would have done. Go to war? Then you have the justification you need. Saddam threatened Israel with Scuds, paid money to support suicide bombers, and we know protected and trained terrorists.

In a country the size of Israel, that is a WMD.

Are you saying we should have gone to war in Iraq to protect Israel?

Of course, before you even answer, I must point out: Israel dealt w/them more effectively than anyone else has, ever. One word for you: Osirak.

50 Killgore Trout  Dec 13, 2010 9:26:09pm

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my reason for posting this. What’s really happening is beyond talking points and revisionist history.For the most part your political adversaries are not monsters. They are real people doing the best they can.

51 three chord monty  Dec 13, 2010 10:22:37pm

I’ve followed Christopher Hitchens’ writings on this for awhile. He’s been pretty consistent, and has mentioned the David Kay report (which I believe was published in the NY Times) on many occasions. That put Saddam’s officials in Damascus negotiating with North Korea to purchase WMDs not long before the invasion.

This is of course not the same as the WMDs already being there, and I would think it impossible to argue that the war was handled well. But…has this ever been debunked?

52 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Dec 13, 2010 11:24:44pm

Part of the problem is that the stories that various administrations tell to sell the war are not the real reasons.

The first gulf war, in retrospect, was a war over oil and its goal was the prevention of these resources falling under the control of the Iraqi dictator with imperial ambitions. It was sold to the public as a war for Kuwaiti liberation (i.e. “This aggression will not stand”). At the time the Iraqi army was the 4th biggest in the world and a serious regional threat and there were days before and during the war when Saudi Arabia feared invasion. In comparison to his son, Bush Sr. received accolades because he crushed Iraq in a short war with the cover of international support.

I see the second gulf war differently. We’re talking about a different world where the American leadership decided it could not afford to be surprised again after the 9/11 trauma. At the time, our friend Chirac was doing his very best to end the sanctions and containment policy that kept Saddam in the box. It’s obvious that the sons would eventually take over and continue causing problems, and if you think they would sit tight while Iran goes nuclear, you’d be fooling yourself.

Overall, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge one way or the other. It’s going to be a job for future historians.

53 laZardo  Dec 14, 2010 3:06:19am

re: #50 Killgore Trout

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my reason for posting this. What’s really happening is beyond talking points and revisionist history.For the most part your political adversaries are not monsters. They are real people doing the best they can.

For their own interests, anyway…

54 garhighway  Dec 14, 2010 6:04:00am

re: #52 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey

Part of the problem is that the stories that various administrations tell to sell the war are not the real reasons.

The first gulf war, in retrospect, was a war over oil and its goal was the prevention of these resources falling under the control of the Iraqi dictator with imperial ambitions. It was sold to the public as a war for Kuwaiti liberation (i.e. “This aggression will not stand”). At the time the Iraqi army was the 4th biggest in the world and a serious regional threat and there were days before and during the war when Saudi Arabia feared invasion. In comparison to his son, Bush Sr. received accolades because he crushed Iraq in a short war with the cover of international support.

I see the second gulf war differently. We’re talking about a different world where the American leadership decided it could not afford to be surprised again after the 9/11 trauma. At the time, our friend Chirac was doing his very best to end the sanctions and containment policy that kept Saddam in the box. It’s obvious that the sons would eventually take over and continue causing problems, and if you think they would sit tight while Iran goes nuclear, you’d be fooling yourself.

Overall, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge one way or the other. It’s going to be a job for future historians.

I’ll leave your comments about Iraq War I for another time.

In IW II, you are wrong. This wasn’t pre-emptive self-defense, as Iraq was no threat to the US. Not only didn’t they have WMDs, and with a crippled economy no realistic way of getting them, but they had nothing in the way of a delivery system that could handle the 6000 miles between them and us.

But thank you for raising yet another false reason for that war. I enjoy hearing the shifting rationales:

It was about 9/11! No, wait, it was about WMDs! No, it was about Israel! No, it was about freedom!

When someone gives you serially wrong and different answers to the same question, you have to begin to wonder, don’t you? That’s not the exercise of hindsight, these are arguments that were made at the time.

A final thought: I am sure that Condi is a nice person and a smart lady. But she was singularly unsuited to the task. Her whole career was built on the analysis of big state Cold War relationships. That political universe no longer existed by the time she became GWB’s National Security Advisor. Instead, we were in a world of asymmetrical warfare and non-state actors. She was in over her head and it showed. I don’t blame her for trying to rehabilitate her reputation, and I applaud the tactical choice of Katie Couric as her foil. She knows a soft touch when she sees one. But in this video, she only “schools” the already convinced.

55 Wozza Matter?  Dec 14, 2010 6:13:03am

re: #17 Barrett Brown

I’ll just leave this here.

[Link: thinkprogress.org…]

biggest - foregone- conclusion - evah!

56 Romantic Heretic  Dec 14, 2010 6:51:21am

In a minor coincidence I’m reading this book at the moment. It deals with 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and the possible consequences of that invasion.

From it I learned the drive to invade Iraq pretty much started long before Bush got into office with the Project For a New American Century, who intended to “seize the unipolar moment into the foreseeable future.” They were planning to install an American hegemony over the world. Among its members were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

It noted that in Paul O’Neill’s book, The Price of Loyalty revealed, the first item on the agenda of the first meeting of Bush’s National Security Council was the invasion of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was meant to be the first action of a new Pax Americana and nothing else.

57 garhighway  Dec 14, 2010 9:54:13am

re: #56 Romantic Heretic

In a minor coincidence I’m reading this book at the moment. It deals with 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and the possible consequences of that invasion.

From it I learned the drive to invade Iraq pretty much started long before Bush got into office with the Project For a New American Century, who intended to “seize the unipolar moment into the foreseeable future.” They were planning to install an American hegemony over the world. Among its members were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

It noted that in Paul O’Neill’s book, The Price of Loyalty revealed, the first item on the agenda of the first meeting of Bush’s National Security Council was the invasion of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was meant to be the first action of a new Pax Americana and nothing else.

Headed up by Bill Kristol. No wonder things went so badly.

58 Buck  Dec 14, 2010 11:32:48am

George W Bush got into his time machine and whispered his lies into these peoples ears so that a few years later when he was president he would be able to justify the war in Iraq:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” —President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” —Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” —Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

59 ZeroGain  Dec 14, 2010 11:35:11am

Ahh… the death of rationalism… if it ever existed. Pardon me a moment while I breath in the fumes of Debate’s decaying corpse.

60 Buck  Dec 14, 2010 11:47:43am

re: #49 Flavia

Are you saying we should have gone to war in Iraq to protect Israel?

I would like that comment to sit there for all too see. This is where we are now.
,
,
,


No, of course not…. we should go to war to protect Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea…. BUT NO not Israel. That would be wrong.

However there was a wide belief that Saddam had WMD. His inner circle believed it. He probably believed it. Democrats believed it BEFORE GWB was President, and they believed it after the election in 2000.

Now I could cut and paste the transcript of the video above, but I shouldn’t have to. It is explained very well by someone who was there.

61 garhighway  Dec 14, 2010 3:38:15pm

re: #60 Buck

I would like that comment to sit there for all too see. This is where we are now.
,
,
,

No, of course not… we should go to war to protect Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea… BUT NO not Israel. That would be wrong.

However there was a wide belief that Saddam had WMD. His inner circle believed it. He probably believed it. Democrats believed it BEFORE GWB was President, and they believed it after the election in 2000.

Now I could cut and paste the transcript of the video above, but I shouldn’t have to. It is explained very well by someone who was there.

Containment worked on the Soviet Union, a nation with thousands of WMDs and delivery systems that could put them anywhere on Earth in 30 minutes.

But we were unable to contemplate whether containment would work with Iraq. Why is that?

62 Buck  Dec 14, 2010 6:05:14pm

re: #61 garhighway

Containment worked on the Soviet Union, a nation with thousands of WMDs and delivery systems that could put them anywhere on Earth in 30 minutes.

But we were unable to contemplate whether containment would work with Iraq. Why is that?

I think your example is not at all relevant, BUT if you will let me, I will try and focus you.

IF the Soviet Union had placed some of those WMDs and delivery systems within, say, 90 miles of Florida…. would you think the President would still be talking containment? Or would a President be right to go to war to stop that from happening?

You see Saddam, it was believed, had the ability to reconstitute a WMD program, and affix the weapon to a missile that could reach US allies.

Bottom line, Bush and MANY OTHERS believed that Saddam had the ability to get a WMD programs up very quickly. It is nice that you and so many other pinheads can play the hindsight game, but in early 2003 the President didn’t have that luxury. The Bush lied meme is, IMO, childish and without merit.

63 garhighway  Dec 15, 2010 12:27:37pm

re: #62 Buck

I think your example is not at all relevant, BUT if you will let me, I will try and focus you.

IF the Soviet Union had placed some of those WMDs and delivery systems within, say, 90 miles of Florida… would you think the President would still be talking containment? Or would a President be right to go to war to stop that from happening?

And when the Soviets had the ability to put a cruise-missile equipped submarine off our shores, we did what, exactly? After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets developed reliable ICBM technology that put their missiles 30 minutes from any spot on Earth. What did we do about that?

You see Saddam, it was believed, had the ability to reconstitute a WMD program, and affix the weapon to a missile that could reach US allies.

Couldn’t the Soviets “reach US allies”? Again, what did we do about that?

Bottom line, Bush and MANY OTHERS believed that Saddam had the ability to get a WMD programs up very quickly. It is nice that you and so many other pinheads can play the hindsight game, but in early 2003 the President didn’t have that luxury. The Bush lied meme is, IMO, childish and without merit.

If putting words in my mouth (I’ve not said “Bush lied”. I think it is damn near impossible to know what he, Cheney and Rumsfeld really thought, and I don’t think we will ever know.) and calling me names is the way you need to go with this, go ahead. From where I sit, that isn’t a sign of a strong argument.

I have yet to see a convincing argument for why containment wouldn’t have worked here. As I say again, Saddam was a state actor. Iraq could be held accountable for its actions. (It sends a nuke-tipped Scud to Israel, it loses Baghdad. It knew that.) Containment works well for state actors. (It worked for 50 years with the Soviets, and it works to this day with the Chinese.) Where the world has gotten more difficult is with the rise of non-state actors (not Condi Rice’s area of expertise), but this isn’t one of those problems.

And I note you have studiously avoided commenting on the shifting rationales for the invasion.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 298 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2