RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


ok, then, questions for the folks who supported the Iraq war(43 posts)

ok, then, questions for the folks who supported the Iraq wargtx
Aug 20, 2003 8:16 AM
Does any of the stuff going on now surprise you? Are you still glad we're in this mess? How do we get out of it? And/or, how do we get out and leave the Iraqi people better off than they were before?
re: ok, then, questions for the folks who supported the Iraq warTJeanloz
Aug 20, 2003 8:56 AM
1. No, it does not surprise me.

2. Yes, I'm glad that we are in this mess.

3. We get out of it by staying there until the country has a democratically elected government that doesn't need our support.

4. We stay there until the Iraqi's are in good shape. Anybody who thought this was going to take 3 months was not paying attention.
#4 would include GW BuSh I think nmPdxMark
Aug 20, 2003 8:58 AM
I think not,TJeanloz
Aug 20, 2003 9:04 AM
The President repeatedly said that it would not be fast and easy. The armchair generals and media speculated that it would be.

Everything I heard from the President and Secretary of Defense indicated that it would be at a minimum a multi-year commitment; and it's been less than 6 months since the war began.
Then why didn't he prepare for a multi-year commitment?czardonic
Aug 20, 2003 9:41 AM
Why doesn't he have the money, the planning or the man-power? Again: liar, or inept?
Then why didn't he prepare for a multi-year commitment?TJeanloz
Aug 20, 2003 9:51 AM
1. He has the money. When you are the President of the United States, you have all the money you want.

2. The planning. I don't know what the plan was or is, but I'm pretty sure that there is one.

3. The manpower. I am sure that he has enough people to get the job done.

I don't see how not having any of these would make him a liar. It might make him inept, but I think it's far too early to judge that one. Anybody who believes that Iraq could truely be resolved before Saddam Hussein was killed or captured is ignoring reality.
I'm sure Bush would appreciate your faith-based endorsement. nmczardonic
Aug 20, 2003 9:56 AM
i guess that means bush.rufus
Aug 20, 2003 10:04 AM
when baghdad fell, he was on tv several times saying it didn't matter whether saddam was dead or alive, that iraq was now free, and able to rebuild with a democratic government.

yeah, he had a plan. a plan for the military action only. whenever he was asked what were his long term plans for rebuilding iraq after the war, and what it would cost, it was always demurred and brushed aside. "don't worry, we've got it all under control."
perhaps you're giving Saddam too much creditgtx
Aug 20, 2003 10:07 AM
and underestimating anti-US, anti-Western sentiment
Perhaps you're overestimating anti-US, anti-Western sentimentTJeanloz
Aug 20, 2003 10:13 AM
It's too bad we can't get reliable polling numbers, but I tend to believe that the media is blowing the anti-US sentiment out of proportion.

Does anybody really believe that a MAJORITY of Iraqis would like the US to pull its troops out tommorrow. Certainly, there are a few, but I think the majority probably recognize that they're better off with the troops around now than they would be in the chaos of anarchy. But you look at something like the sabatoge of water mains in Baghdad - and you have to wonder if ordinary Iraqis support things like that. I find it hard to believe that they blame things like that on the US troops.
"If i was an Iraqi"jrm
Aug 20, 2003 1:50 PM
I'd say this place sucks, im going to amerika.
2 things.dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 5:01 AM
1- it only takes a small minority to wreak havoc. 10% would be over 2 million people. 1% would still be more than our entire force.

2- historically, the only thing that unifies people in the middle east is an outside imperial power.
1 thingTJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 5:19 AM
"historically, the only thing that unifies people in the middle east is an outside imperial power"

I would say that religion unifies people rather strongly in the Middle East. There are more theocracies there than in any other region.
nopedr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 9:46 AM
there is plenty of conflict within Islam. Shiite/suni ring a bell?

I simply meant that all the religious/ national/ ethnic/ tribal etc conflicts are put on hold.... temporarily.
You're right,TJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 10:41 AM
The Palestinians have totally stopped attacking Israelies, and the rest of the ME has completely ignored their cause, so they can all focus on getting the imperialist Americans out of Iraq.

I would say that the Shiite / Sunni conflict further proves my point that the region is galvanized over religion before all else. We ignorant Americans simply lump the two groups together as if they were one and the same religion.

I'd like to see the anti-imperialist argument as valid, but it really isn't. Would there be such anti-American fervor if the US troops were Shiite Muslims?
Palestine? Why not bring...dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 12:11 PM
... Egypt into it too, and throw in Iran and a few other countries as well! Changing contexts, tsk tsk.

But even given your sophist like rhetorical move, YES attention is being focused on the Americans. Doesn't the administration say that people are FLOCKING to Iraq to commit terrorist acts? You believe the administration don't you?

Don't many in the middle east see America as a Zionist bedfellow? Wouldn't that mean that attacking Israel is an attack on the USA?

As for the anti-imperialist tendency, recall that Osama bin Laden (who hated Saddam and wanted him out) said that good muslims should cooperate with the regime *until the imperialist american devils were defeated.*

Would there be anti american fervor if we were a muslim nation? Hypotheticals are meaningless. Given the history of crusades (and Bush's fundy bent) we will be seen as xian invaders no matter what our motives.
I was going to bring in Iran,TJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 12:19 PM
I believe this is a discussion of the Middle East, of which Iran, Egypt and Palestine are all parts. I was not aware that we were speaking strictly to Iraq - please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I believe that people are flocking to Iraq. I believe their basis is religious, rather than political. Is the hate for Americans because they are American, or because they are non-muslim? I would contend the latter. The argument from the muslim side, at least from where I sit, is a "Holy War" argument, is it not?

I might be completely missing something, but it seems to me that the appeals are going out to "Muslims" - not to "Arabs".
There is a definite religious element.dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 12:49 PM
There is also a secular element. And various factions of religion that are mostly at each other's throats are fighting in common cause.

You said religion unites. I don't deny that to a degree. You also recognize that there is conflict WITHIN the islamic world (suni/shiite). That religious conflict is overlaid on older historical ethnic conflicts. And villages hate neighboring villages for events that happened hundreds of years in the past.

The invader takes priority. Families have bitter fights, but put that aside when an outsider causes trouble. If we pull out tomorrow, the old conflict are back on. If we set up a government and pull out 5 years from now, the old conflicts are back on... after the "imperialist puppets" are killed that is.

btw,

"I believe this is a discussion of the Middle East..."

The thread topic you responded to was on Iraq. While I am all for context, to address the entire middle east might be a bit much. So when you brought in Palestine I thought it best to steer back to the original topic. Feel free to wander wherever you want though.
Not to be in a pissing contest,TJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 12:58 PM
But you steered us to the entire Middle East:

"2. historically, the only thing that unifies people in the middle east is an outside imperial power"

I don't think this topic could get adequate treatment viewing just Iraq - there isn't enough history there to have reasonable basis.
There's a fine line between providing context and switching.dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 2:00 PM
Yeah, ok. I did mention that. Mea culpa for the language that led to the context switch.

The context of the region is important for understanding what is going on within Iraq. This was my intent with the phrase.

But to then bring up a specific conflict outside of Iraq (Israel/Palestine) is switching contexts. Iraq and Israel are in the middle east, but Israel is outside of Iraq. Thus your stating that "The Palestinians have totally stopped attacking Israelies..." is switching contexts.

Anyway, we need only wait a year or so to get an idea of who is right on this, and 5 years to find out for sure :)
1 thingCaptain Morgan
Aug 21, 2003 5:21 AM
Their unity is solidified by their hatred of non-Muslims.

If an outside imperial power is the source of unity, explain such terrorism hotbeds as Yemen and Indonesia.
read history.dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 10:02 AM
Really, read some history of the region. Just the past 200 years should do.

Their hatred of non-muslims? Do you have any idea how diverse the population of the middle east is? Do you know how many moderates there are there that complain about the USA because the USA is not following its own principles? (so they say). Do you have any idea how many Persians have been educated in the USA and love the people and the country?

Invaders, even well intentioned ones, tend to create unified opposition. Strange bedfellows and all that.

"If an outside imperial power is the source of unity, explain such terrorism hotbeds as Yemen and Indonesia."

Are there outside imperial powers there? If not, then your question is not relevant.
read history.Captain Morgan
Aug 21, 2003 11:22 AM
Oh yeah. They are unified.

For example, take Yemen: 99% Muslim, 1% other

1962 - coup
1962-1970 - civil war
rebellion - 1963
civil war - 1986 and 1994

If it weren't for us imperialist pigs, that country would have better than $820 annual GDP per capita that they have now.
from the cia factbook:dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 11:59 AM
" The British, who had set up a protectorate area around the southern port of Aden in the 19th century, withdrew in 1967 from what became South Yemen. Three years later, the southern government adopted a Marxist orientation. The massive exodus of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis from the south to the north contributed to two decades of hostility between the states."

When the brits pulled out, the yemeni turned on each other. Seems to back up my premise, no?
^ American chauvinism x 2.czardonic
Aug 21, 2003 9:11 AM
I guess if Muslims are killing Westerners, it must be because of their hateful religious fanaticism. No way they could have a legitimate beef with us.
Anti-Western sentimentCaptain Morgan
Aug 20, 2003 12:01 PM
The sentiment is not anti-U.S. or anti-Western. It is anti-non-Muslim.
Then why didn't he prepare for a multi-year commitment?dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 5:10 AM
1. I have all the money I want too. Heck, my credit is wonderful! It's the paying it back that is the problem.

2. The plan was to "decapitate" the government, eliminating the bathists at the top, and replacing them with the good folk who wanted us there. "The people will welcome us!" Then services would simply go on as in the past while we slowly improved them. Planning based on best case scenarios is usually a bad idea.

Is there a new plan? Probably. Is it a good one? Given the issues this adminstration has with groupthink, the odds of it being a good one are not as high as I would like.

I tend to agree with you that it is far too early to tell. 5 year will tell the tale. However, I think this expedition will create more terrorism in the world, destabilize the middle east, and be costly in more than monetary terms.

We might also look to Afganistan to see how the adminstration fares with nation building a bit further out in time. THAT does not make me hopeful in the least.

I would like to be wrong on this. I would REALLY like to be wrong.
I don't think you would,TJeanloz
Aug 21, 2003 5:36 AM
I don't want to argue about your feelings, but all of your posts indicate that you really would like to be right, and thus discredit all the administration hawks. Are you sure that you want to be wrong, and give credence to the preemptive strike policy?
why?dr hoo
Aug 21, 2003 9:55 AM
Simple. If I am wrong, it will mean less death and violence, and potentially democratic spread through the region. I'd be happy with that outcome. Happier than if terrorism expands and death reigns.

My posts are not about my WANTING to be right, but rather how I see the situation. Do I like to be right? Sure. Have I been wrong in the past? You bet.

However, I would STILL have a problem with the preemptive strike policy. The reason being that other countries will be able to use the same logic to do all sorts of things that will be BAD, and how will the usa argue against them? What happens when India decides to preemptively strike Pakistan to prevent the potential threat they pose? Bad policy.

If 5 years from now Iraq is a democracy free from violence, then the outcome of a poorly thought out policy will have been a pragmatic success.

I just won't lay money on it happening.
What makes you think he didn't?Captain Morgan
Aug 20, 2003 11:58 AM
1) I have not heard any reports that there is a lack of money for projects.

2) The plan before the war was to drive Saddam from power, have a temporary U.S. administration, and rebuild the democratic process in Iraq. What part are you missing?

3) There are 23.6 million Iraqis, which seems like plenty of manpower to rebuild the country.
Lame.czardonic
Aug 20, 2003 12:31 PM
1) I guess you've taken a vow of media silence. The costs for the war and rebuilding were not budgeted for. And since we are already running a deficit without accounting for those costs (which the Administration won't do because the insist there's no way to make even an educated guess as to what they will be), I'm curious to know what makes you think there is no lack of money.

2) That's like saying Bush's domestic plan is to win the war on terrorism and improve the economy. The devil is in the details, and the proof is in the pudding.

3) Plenty of manpower to run us out of town on a rail too. That's 23.6 million chickens that haven't hatched.
Lame.Captain Morgan
Aug 20, 2003 4:26 PM
1) Since there is a deficit, I guess we should also take money away from welfare and social security, eh?

2) Yeah, and Clinton's "plan" was to come up with a health care plan within 100 days, which never happened in his eight years in office. At least Bush his following his generalized "plan."

3) My assumption that 23.6 million people want to rebuild their own country is just as logical as your assumption that 23.6 million people want to attack us. I guess I'm not as cynical.
Lamer still.czardonic
Aug 20, 2003 4:37 PM
1) What do welfare and social security have to do with wether or not Bush had a plan to finance the war and reconstruction of Iraq? Seems like you don't have the goods to back up your assertions, or to refute mine.

2) How does your gratuitous, non sequitur reference to Clinton vindicate Bush's failures? (Maybe the 100,000th time will be the charm?)

3) Hope for the best, prepare for the worst -- just one more thing that Bush has done really half-a$$ed.
Lamer still.Captain Morgan
Aug 21, 2003 5:12 AM
1. Your argument doesn't hold water. Your original post says that there are no funds to support the rebuilding, then you talked about the deficit. There is a distinct difference between an expenditure and the financing of that expenditure. I have no idea if your argument is that there is not enough money flowing to Iraq, or if you are arguing about the deficit.

2. My point served two purposes (however subtle). First, I acknowledge it was a shot at Clinton. However, I also wanted to point out that you are expecting Bush to be held to a higher level of disclosure. For instance, when Clinton decided to bomb Iraq, did he detail what the intended consequences were? I am sorry if Bush did not call you and run the plan by you for your input. I guess since he didn't, it is a fair assumption that he must not have had any plan.

3. I was not referring to Bush's optimism as much as your pessimism.
Seriouslyczardonic
Aug 21, 2003 9:05 AM
1. I didn't say that money couldn't be scraped together. I said, "(t)he costs for the war and rebuilding were not budgeted for". Do you dispute this?

2. I am not holding Bush to a higher level of disclosure (perish the thought!). Did I ever say that Clinton should get a pass for not having some kind of feasible plan for health care? No. Moreover, he had a plan and it got shot down. That is a completely different situation.

3. Is this about Bush, Clinton or myself? I don't see how my pessimism is relevant. Anyway, there is pessimism, and there is a frank appraisal of a bad situation.
how are those elections gonna work...gtx
Aug 20, 2003 9:32 AM
when Shiite Muslims make up 60 percent of Iraq's population?
I don't know, can you say Electoral College, or gerrymandering?TJeanloz
Aug 20, 2003 9:54 AM
That's exactly the reason the Electoral College is in place in the U.S. - to prevent a single regional group from holding too much power based solely on population. I'm sure we could get the Texas legislaters to gerrymander something to ensure only Kurds could be elected, even in overwhelmingly Shiite areas.
re: ok, then, questions for the folks who supported the Iraq warAlpedhuez55
Aug 20, 2003 10:09 AM
Ditto on 1-3.

on 4, I think with the exception of the Bath Party, the people in Iraq are better off already. Also a lot of the people causing the problems in Iraq are foreign nationals and al quieda who have come into Iraq to try to cause problems. I heard a news report about something like 2000 Saudis who have gone into Iraq to try to disrupt US efforts. Dont think all the people are Iraqi's who are being oppressed. These are motly terrorists causing the problems.

Mike Y.
Agree with TJeanloz 100% nmContinental
Aug 20, 2003 10:39 AM
What has it been? 4-5 months?Sintesi
Aug 21, 2003 4:38 AM
A little impatient aren't you. Come back in three years then we can talk about failure or success.
Tell that to the Iraqis. Maybe they'll hold their fire. (nm)czardonic
Aug 21, 2003 9:06 AM
??? (nm)Sintesi
Aug 21, 2003 2:31 PM
? re ??? (nm)czardonic
Aug 21, 2003 2:53 PM