Too early... I'll come back when this thread is somewhere like.... page 32.
You are making a straw man argument. Nobody is now or was at the time claiming the right to invade anywhere "just because we want to."
Rebecca in Texas, meet John in Seattle!
You two should really meet IN PERSON, you would have so much to talk about.
I really mean that. I am not trying to be flippant.
This could be one of those cases where pure opposites attract :)
Her fire, his calm and rational demeanor.... an interesting mix!
John, she's a very attractive pro-life Republican!!! Well, at least she votes Republican, even if by default.
Progeny? Peacemaker, gladiator! PERFECT Warriors of Christ...
You repeat the amazing claim that we somehow acted "unilaterally."
First of all, that is a falsehood. I know you didn't invent the lie, the anti-Bush fanatics desperately pushed that lie for years. But I am amazed that you bought into it. There were over 2 DOZEN other countries that were in there with us. That precludes it from being unilateral on its face. Period. Unilateral is not defined as "France did not give its permission." As soon as one, single, solitary country joined us, it was not a unilateral action. This is not debatable. And there was more than one other country that sent in troops.
Second of all, it's completely and totally irrelevant. Morality has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the number of people or parties who happen to agree or act on a proposition. The morality or immorality of a war stands on its own merits, not the number of belligerents involved.
The next propaganda point is the claim that the "main argument" was WMD's. The anti-Bush folks always pretended for political purposes that there was only "One True Reason" for the war. It differed from group to group and from time to time. The really rabid folks still tell themselves the absurdity that it was to "steal the oil." The more practical folks changed their claim through time.
The reality is that the Bush Administration consistently gave an entire list of multiple reasons why we were going to war with Iraq. The fact that its opponents only choose to recognize one of them at any given moment does not change that reality.
It is true that the press focused almost exclusively on WMD's. It is true that Bush was pretty inept as a communicator and let the debate be defined by his opponents. It is even true that the main argument to the UN Security Council was WMDs. But the U.S. did not go to war on the basis of a non-existent UN go-ahead. The U.S. went to war for the reasons given to Congress, reasons which were much more extensive than just WMDs.
Moving off the propaganda, you are consistently expressing things that are nothing more than personal opinions as though they were facts.
"Fact is and what your recognizing is its possible the Iraqi people all on their own-would have gotten rid of Saddam themselves"
That is NOT a fact. That is conjecture on your part. The Iraqi people had repeatedly tried and failed to get rid of Saddam themselves. Ask the Kurds. Ask the "Marsh Arabs." There is zero reason to believe that the Iraqi people were going to get the job done all on their own.
What is a fact is that most successful rebellions require outside support. There are of course exceptions. Castro pulled it off. But these are the exceptions, not the rule. The United States is an independent country because of French assistance.
It is also possible that regimes will crumble without a rebellion. We saw this with the Soviet Bloc at the end of the Cold War. But for this to happen, you need a population that is fairly homogenous in its opposition to the regime and a security apparatus that is identifying more with the population than the regime.
This is not the case with Iraq. The entire population was not united in its opposition to Saddam; there were significant parts of the Sunni population that, while it did some suffering under Saddam, feared even worse suffering under the Shiites. We see the fallout of that to this day. And the security apparatus was still very much under Saddam's control.
You complain that I haven't been addressing some points about Syria. There is some justice in that complaint.
To be honest, given the current administration it's all just completely academic, and that's taken some of the interest out of it for me. There is almost no chance that Obama is going to take meaningful action of any kind in Syria.
In theory, we could certainly guarantee that the people who come out on top are going to be good ones. But that would require a level of commitment that I don't see the U.S. population as having. And even if the population were supportive, the Obama administration is not going to act on it.
So I've just kind of pursing the Syrian argument in a rather desultory way.
It is unlikely that whoever takes over in Syria will be worse than Assad. Possible, but not likely. It is likely that their evil will be different than Assad's evil.
Syria is attracting all kinds of outside influence. Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia just to name a few. A certain cynical part of me is rooting all for the Shiite Hezbollah terrorists and various Sunni terrorists to kill each other indefinitely there. But that's not a terribly nice attitude.
Our best interest would be to find a moderate Sunni group to back and make darn sure they won and won big. But I don't see us putting the necessary energy and resources into that. Given that reality, staying completely out of it does have a certain amount of wisdom.
Can you give some more of the reasons why the US went into Iraq? The Weapons of Mass
Destruction seems to be the prevalent one, so I am not too familiar with the others.
I wanted to add that the Soviets behind the Iron Curtain, especially East Germany, had been
privy to Western Culture and ideas for quite some time. I think they got many of their ideas
from television which they were able to pick from antennas. So, they weren't brainwashed like many
who were far within the confines of Communism and could not access Western ideas. And I think
the access to Western culture kept hope alive for those who were privy to it.
I also wanted to say that in the early 1980's I worked for Pepsico. Pepsi was one of the first,
and it may have been the first, companies that began commerce with Russia during those years
of the Cold War. Coke has been introduced into Europe during the World War, so it was a well
known American brand of soda.
Pepsi wanted to have its brand of cola inside the Iron Curtain. But that came with many
problems. One was that, unfortunately, the Russian currency (rubles) was not a hard currency.
It was not traded, and it had no value outside of Russia. So the deal
was worked out to give the Russians, Pepsi concentrate, and in return it would receive a Vodka
called Stolichnaya Vodka. By the way, much of this was done offshore at the time.
Stolichnaya became a big buzz and a hot item. But I remember during those early years, the men
who had to go to Russia were worst for wear after having come back to the US. It was a difficult
country to do business in and conditions were not hospitable for men who were used to Western
food and accommodations. One of the men became very sick. I don't remember if it was from a
bug he picked up, but when I saw him come to work (after a long time trying to recuperate),
he looked like he was on death's door.
Anyway, Stoli is a staple on American liquor shelves and it now comes in many flavors like
You're right. Most people don't realize it, but the Iranians are still pretty upset over the overthrow of
Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 by the CIA and MI6.