What if you supported the war, knowing WMDs were just an excuse?
I'm in a curious position here. I think Bush is a complete fraud for many reasons beyond this WMD thing, but I actually supported the war KNOWING that all the stated reasons were quite iffy.
My reasoning was that the middle east is back-asswards and needs a little old-style nation building to get them on the right track (a la Japan). Iraq presents a unique opportunity and much better positioning for the US to spread democracy than our association with Saudi Arabia.
I thought even a moron like Bush would be able to rebuild Iraq effectively, given the long-long buildup to the war. How was I to know that our intelligence forces weren't able to assess the level of infrastructural deterioration. I mean it's not like they could just walk into a downtown Baghad resturaunt and see that the utilities didn't work. That would require some sort of super-spy.
I've confessed. Did anyone else here have the same reasoning?
My reasoning was that the middle east is back-asswards and needs a little old-style nation building to get them on the right track (a la Japan). Iraq presents a unique opportunity and much better positioning for the US to spread democracy than our association with Saudi Arabia.
I thought even a moron like Bush would be able to rebuild Iraq effectively, given the long-long buildup to the war. How was I to know that our intelligence forces weren't able to assess the level of infrastructural deterioration. I mean it's not like they could just walk into a downtown Baghad resturaunt and see that the utilities didn't work. That would require some sort of super-spy.
I've confessed. Did anyone else here have the same reasoning?
Comments
Too much "war on terror", not enough "rebuilding. People are beginning to doubt the motives of the liberation/occupation.
The again showing my bias, Bush should have never had the ball.
A sad day when your options are Bush or Gore.
It's amazing to me that reasonable people think that the President of the United State's and all his government's intelligence is a lie.
It's amazing to me that reasonable people think that our country can absolutely predict what it's going to take financially to rebuild a country after a war.
Or maybe they aren't reasonable people.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Or maybe they aren't reasonable people.
Or maybe reasonable people know to learn before forming an opinion.
Colin Powell and Rummy thoroughly convinced me that we had justifiable, legal reason to go in and take Saddam and the Ba'athists out. I also supported the war because my best friend, who is like a brother to me, was activated and heading to the gulf to fight this war.
And then, all of a sudden, just before the war started, the core reasons for going to war changed. It went from a legal action to root out WMDs to "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Iraqi freedom? Liberation? What the f*ck! It seemed to me that my own government was slowly tricking me into believing that we were doing something more noble when, in reality, my government was changing "the reason." Why would they do this, I thought? Weren't the violations of the UN resolutions and the WMD evidence enough reason? That's when I started becoming frightened that we were in for a big problem.
Now that the dust has settled, I'm PISSED OFF! There are no WMDs. There was no IMMINENT THREAT! And we're just now trying to figure out how to rebuild this country! Republicans are now trying to sway my opinion with rhetoric like "we took out the biggest weapon of mass destruction...Saddam Hussein." Are you f*cking serious! "Well we've uncovered numerous mass graves!" But, that's not why we went in there! Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea almost certainly have mass graves as well. Are we going to take them out too?
So, yeah, I'M FURIOUS with my government right now. And NO, I'm not sticking my head in the sand! I'm supporting Howard Dean. I've contributed money to Dean already. I've taken on an active roll in my community by attending Dean events. I've actively started email campaigns to friends, family and co-workers to get the word out that there is hope that we can overthrow our government with VOTES!
Under the same premise, I wonder when we're going after Castro, just 90 miles off our coast...or the Saudis, and the list goes on and on......
Originally posted by Northgate
Are you f*cking serious! "Well we've uncovered numerous mass graves!" But, that's not why we went in there! Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea almost certainly have mass graves as well. Are we going to take them out too?
Yeah. And note that the EXACT same people that spewed forth the 'support your president' garbage were the same people that angrily criticized Clinton in the Balkans.
All they have managed to do is piss off a lot of people around the globe while being "smiley-gladhand" about it.
As Mr Hick's said, "Go to sleep America, your Government is in control".
It's time to wake up...don't accept the lies
(I do support & respect the troops who went in
willingly or otherwise)
1.it was too soon after afghanistan
what was the mad rush to open yet another front ?
2.what gives us the god given right to bomb another nation ?
remember the shoe could easily be on the other foot
it would be much wiser to go in with allies than to go it
alone
3."reserve the right to pre-emptive strikes" ?
does anyone realize how dangerous & stupid that is
china could nuke us & say "hey these guys could be a
threat to us in the future so we took action now"
..very very easy to start a war..very very difficult to end
it or live with the consequences.
nation building is a good idea..except if you dont have
local support then it wont get you anywhere
right now we have no choice to but to win the hearts & minds
of the local iraqi's otherwise we will be looked upon
as a bully thats out of control.
a good start would be not to be so dismissive of the u.n
& to try & treat our allies with respect rather than contempt ...whether they be "old" or not
we as a country need the rest of the world much more than
they need us.the rest of the world survived the roman empire
just fine & it would be stupid of us not to heed historys lesson.
<end of my friday rant
It is the people in power who should be help accountable.
Originally posted by segovius
Whilst I agree with your sentiment I cannot help bit wonder if you know what you're talking about with this 'mass graves' line quoted above.
Please be more specific: whose graves and who put them there and when.
I have been connecting the same dots the Bush administration does. We were not sure how many mass graves Iraq had and how many victims were buried in them until we went in and took over. Therefore we will truly never know how many mass graves there are in Syria, Iran or North Korea (and a litany of other countries in the Middle East and Africa).
Therefore, if Syria, Iran and North Korea are all ruled by ruthless dictators who will do anything to squash dissent, then it is easy to presume that they too have killed tens of thousands of their own people. Just conjecture, I know. But, I believe if we went into any of those countries we'd find equal numbers of egregious human atrocities.
Ultimately, my point is that the Bush administration has been using the rhetoric that if liberals had their way Saddam would still be in power and how could they support such a policy knowing about the mass graves in Iraq. If that is the defining reason to go to war now, then there are several countries with equal numbers of human rights violations. If we're not going after them all, then why just Iraq?
Here's the liar as we speak trying in vain to defend his lies!
http://www.comcast.net/News/DOMESTIC...742fa8d32.html
This means he's still lying.
Anyone at this late date that says it hasn't been proven that he's lying or that we'll still find WOMD is dealing a crock of excrement.
Trying to put a positive spin on something like this is very lame.
Anyone who says the position that Bush lied is un or antiamerican is themselves antiamerican. It serves no useful purpose to have a leader who's willing to go to any length to get what he wants including sacrificing our principles.
That's it in a nutshell.
So this whole notion that WMD is the reason is a media lie.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Nearly six months after the fall of Baghdad, U.S. troops are suffering an average of three to six deaths and 40 wounded every week, the commander of American forces in Iraq said Thursday.
``The enemy has evolved - a little bit more lethal, a little more complex, a little more sophisticated, and in some cases, a little bit more tenacious,'' said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. ``The evolution is about what we expected to see over time.''
American forces are being attacked 15-20 times a day, counting roadside bombs, mostly in Baghdad and the surrounding Sunni stronghold to the west and north of the capital, Sanchez said.
Soldiers whose wounds are not severe are treated in field hospitals in Iraq. Those with more serious wounds are sent to the American military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, after their conditions are stabilized. Some of the most seriously wounded are being sent to the United States. The military would not give a breakdown.
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center has been getting an average of 40 to 44 patients a day from Iraq, about 10 to 12 percent of whom are classified as ``battle injuries,'' said spokeswoman Marie Shaw.
Since the start of the conflict, the hospital has seen 6,684 patients - 5,377 coming after May 1, Shaw said.
U.S. troops are suffering an average of three to six deaths and 40 wounded every week, the commander of American forces in Iraq said Thursday.
Originally posted by Scott
Don't let the media lies get to you. Things in Iraq are not 100th as bad as the media lets on. One reporter who left Baghdad right after the end of major operations went back last week. . . .
One whole reporter, huh?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by segovius
Northgate - I appreciate your point (at least the point I think you're making), God knows I don't have a good word to say about Bush (except perhaps that he perfectly personifies the fin de siecle dumbed down pseudo-society that we unfortunately are forced to inhabit) but your argument seems one step away (or less) than the kind of rational Bush would use himself. And probably will when he comes to go-a-killing again in the very countries you mention.
So let's get a few facts straight:
A 'dictator' is a false term in many ways for the Arab leaders in the classic mode. Sure they don't get voted in but that's a different issue - democracy is not a native conception of the Islamic world. Therefore the use of the term 'dictator' and comparisons with actual western dictators are false. Someone like Hitler siezed power in a democratic system - no ME leader has ever done that because there is no democratic system. It is therefore not the same thing.
One could argue (I suppose) that there should be a democratic system but then one sinks into Bush's quagmire of imposing western values on an eastern culture. It is also arguable that democracy is not an Islamic concept at all and therefore one would be engaging the Muslim faith head-on. In fact this is what Bush has done. It is a mistake. A big one.
Also you should note that the (non-dictatorial) President of Syria is Bashir Asad who has no blood on his hands whatsoever. His father Hafez was responsible for a notorious incident at Hama which did involve mass graves (but after a pitched 6 day full on battle). But again the uS would find it hard at this present time to make capital out of this because the graves were those of terrorists who had staged a coup. And not just any terrorists either but the Muslim Brotherhood who are on Bush's list and who the US army would undoubtedly do the same to if they came up against them in similar circumstances. It's happening in Afghanistan as we speak - are there mass graves there of US victims ? You bet.
Iran: no mass graves. Count on it - large amounts of killing during the Khomeini years (and yes he was a nutter) but they were 'judicial' killings by a court of law. You may not agree (and I don't) but they were the result of some sort of process and not just 'disappeared' Saddam style.
Don't know about NK so I'll shut up about that but my point is this: Saddam was a nutter and there were/are mass graves in Iraq - but don't fall for the 'and that means mass graves in [insert other ME State here' card when Bush plays it. This whole thing is targetting the ME because of the obsessions of some nutters in the US administration. Saddam's 'kinfolk' are more likely to be found in South America or Burma than in the ME.
Great post. You obviously have a lot more information and experience regarding the history of the ME. I learned something today.
Like I said in an earlier post, I supported the war because I believed what was fed to me. I believed Saddam represented an imminent threat. Now the Republicans are spinning the reason for going to war over "mass graves" and human attrocities. I believe we are better off without Saddam. I believe the Iraqi people will eventually be better off, but it will take a lot of time. But, I complete disagree with how we did it and why.
Originally posted by Scott
Don't let the media lies get to you. Things in Iraq are not 100th as bad as the media lets on. One reporter who left Baghdad right after the end of major operations went back last week. He said the city didn't look the same. Baghdad is swamped with traffic jams and most everything is open and packed. QUAGMIRE!
Funny, my best friend, who is like a brother to me, just returned from his term of service in Iraq and his opinion is the exact opposite. Sure, the average Iraqi is happy to have Saddam gone. But, that same Iraqi is also upset about the haphazard, unorganized occupation. Most soldiers feel like they have no directive, no communication, no "real reason" to be there. No one's communicating with them.
The interesting thing he mentioned to me last weekend was that the Iraqi police training is in a state of chaos. He poses this question: How do you expect an 18 year-old soldier who's been trained to fight war to suddenly become a teacher? My friend has been trained at the Sheriff's academy, as a city police officer and as a soldier. But, he's never been trained on how to be a teacher, let alone an effective one. Now the DOD is asking field soldiers to become teachers and it's turning out to be a miserable failure. Just a small example of what's going on in Iraq.