"The policies of my opponent [Kerry] are dangerous for world peace," [George W.] Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
1) 'Terrorism' as professed by Al-Queda didn't exist. ETA and the IRA for example, had limited concrete aims. Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
2) Agreed.
3) Mostly agreed. Like you, I supported it because of the mess we made first time round, and also that no one deserves to live under the likes of Saddam Hussein. Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs (and for example, in Tommy Frank's autobiography, he recalls that the leaders of Jordan and Egypt told him before the way that Saddam had WMDs), then I wasn't surprised by the WMD aspect being used. It wasn't the strongest - the humanitarian case for removal of Hussein was much, much stronger.
4) The UN sidelined itself by being singularly usefull and completely gutless in refusing to enforce its own resolutions regarding Iraq. Of course, now we know that it was partially because France et al were so in bed with Saddam that they didn't want to see their biggest customers ousted, partially because the UN itself is completely corrupt (see for example the UN oil-for-food SCAM, or the appointment of such luminaries as Libya and Syria to Human Rights Comissions) and partially because of a disgusting adherence to Kissenger-style realpolitik. As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
"the humanitarian case for removal of Hussein was much, much stronger."
Yes, if the argument worked for Kosovo it was equally valid for Iraq. However by making the argument about WMD's the politicians are suffering because they have been proved wrong.
As far as the UN is concerned I agree it needs some serious reform. However I still think it could of worked (it did for the first Gulf war) but it was never given the chance. It depends what spin you attribute to the French position. You can't trash the system in the *middle* of a crisis. Maybe something sensible will happen once the dust has settled.
"As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq."
I agree, however the argument GW seems to want to make is that the world is safer after Gulf War II than before. Just looking at the casualties caused by terrorist bombs post-Invasion would seem to indicate otherwise. And thats before you count a 1/3rd of all kills by US forces which are civilians. Of course the fighting is all over in the Middle East at the moment which may be the point - its not on US soil.
A free and democratic Iraq will be a help to helping quell extremist Islam in the Middle East. However the policies GW adopted haven't made it more likely.
1) Agreed. WMDs were a side-show, as Tony Blair has found out to his cost. At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed". You may or may not agree with the reasons for doing so, but that he had to be removed was a moral imperative. That is why folks who describe the liberation as "immoral" really rile me. The consequences of not liberating Iraq was to leave Saddam in charge. And this is "moral"? (not directed at you of course, but a general question).
2) I doubt it. What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established. Any brutal regime, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and so on are shown the door. The idea of a security council is a good idea. BUt I think the seats need to be revamped. US, Russia, UK, Germany, India, Brazil perhaps?
3) Rather cynical viewpoint, but one I think that has a degree of truth.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation. Though there's a case of ifs-and-ands and pots-and-pans there. But the liberation of Iraq was the least he (i.e. GWB) could have done after the disgusting betrayal of the Iraqis by his father.
At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed".
Rubbish. George W. Bush and crowd lied up and down about the WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq - when they weren't lying up and down about a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In contrast, Tony Blair desperately tried to put forward a humanitarian motive for invading Iraq.
What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established.
Wouldn't work if the US were running it: the US has a poor track record for supporting democracies, and many of its loyal and rewarded allies aren't democracies. Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was a US ally, as opposed to Iran: and Iran was and is nearer democracy than Iraq.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation.
And instead, they were replaced by Donald Rumsfeld's torture chambers...
Well, there's at least one murder charge pending, and a several more under investigation. Then there's the unknown number who got "disappeared" to Guantanamo et al.
Throw in somewhere north of 13k civilian casualties so far, presently increasing at something like 400-500 a month, and things really don't look peachy.
Pointing to the other guy and saying "he was worse" doesn't make us the good guys.
yonmei's comment stands, they lost a regime which tortures people, and got... a regime which tortures people. Ok, the flag changed. Rumsfeld says it was a few bad apples, while burying official reports which trace it back to the Pentagon, and GWB says Rumsfeld is doing a grand job and everything's wonderful. We should all be happy and grateful and praise Bush to the ends of the earth.
How long was Saddam Hussein in power? And how long has it been since the invasion (I refuse to call it "liberation") started? I'd be seriously worried if the USA/UK forces had caught up already.
1) 'Terrorism' as professed by Al-Queda didn't exist.
Your argument was that the world changed on 11th September 2001. You're seriously trying to argue that al-Qaeda didn't exist till then? Do you begin to understand why I'm saying you're American-centric? Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
Actually, what they've explicitly said they want is US troops out of Saudi Arabia - this was the original function of Al-Queda - though they're not averse to toppling secular Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein. So far Bush's actions have gone along very nicely with al-Qaeda's explicitly stated goals.
2. Agreed.
The attack on Afganistan was a bloodthirsty and largely pointless (in anti-terrorist terms) response to September 11. The section dealing with it in Fahrenheit 911 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/313252.html) is the weakest and least truthful part of his film.
3... Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs
Actually, the "liberation" of Iraq hasn't happened yet, and may never: it's currently being ruled by a puppet propped up by the US military - the parts that aren't fully insurgent.
As for the WMD, the consensus by most intelligence agencies prior to political tweaking of their reports appears to have been - No evidence for nuclear weapons: insufficient evidence for other WMD or any immediate threat justifying invasion. Scott Ritter was right all along.
4 - mostly nonsense. The evidence of the French being "in bed" with Saddam Hussein more than the Americans (Halliburton was dealing with Iraq all through the 1990s and the 2000s) is nil. The Oil for Food shocker was not that some money was being skimmed off as bribes, but that it was deliberately set up to provide less than the Iraqis needed. As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
...so you concede the point that claiming "9-11 changed everything" is American-centric nonsense? Thank you.
1) Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
...and has existed since 1990, so again - what's your obsession with "11/9/2001 changed everything"?
No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
...or so it's claimed. That al-Qaida training camps existed in Afghanistan is true: that the best way of getting them was to bomb Afghanistan is false: the claimed "terrorist infrastruture" had damn-all evidence, and still doesn't.
Iraq has been liberated from Saddam.
Iraq has been invaded, conquered, and occupied by the US military, plus a handful of others. Calling that "liberation" is as false as calling the handing-back of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti Royal Family "liberation".
No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them
And the UN inspection teams went in: their inspection was stopped by the US invasion: when American inspection teams were finally allowed to finish, it was established that there were virtually no WMD in IRaq, and certainly none justifying invasion. It is also established that neither Bush nor Blair possessed the kind of definite evidence of threatening WMD that would have justified immediate invasion.
As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
Was he? He's been far more right than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - and it begins to look like the US Occupation can't hold Baghdad.
9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
See? American-centric viewpoint, which, as I originally said, looks very absurd to people living outside the US.
1) Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
Yes. You funded (possibly still do?) the IRA for years. I'm going to make assumptions and say that perhaps you think it was okay to fund the IRA because they aren't Al-Queda's sort of terrorism?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:32 (UTC)1) 'Terrorism' as professed by Al-Queda didn't exist. ETA and the IRA for example, had limited concrete aims. Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
2) Agreed.
3) Mostly agreed. Like you, I supported it because of the mess we made first time round, and also that no one deserves to live under the likes of Saddam Hussein. Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs (and for example, in Tommy Frank's autobiography, he recalls that the leaders of Jordan and Egypt told him before the way that Saddam had WMDs), then I wasn't surprised by the WMD aspect being used. It wasn't the strongest - the humanitarian case for removal of Hussein was much, much stronger.
4) The UN sidelined itself by being singularly usefull and completely gutless in refusing to enforce its own resolutions regarding Iraq. Of course, now we know that it was partially because France et al were so in bed with Saddam that they didn't want to see their biggest customers ousted, partially because the UN itself is completely corrupt (see for example the UN oil-for-food SCAM, or the appointment of such luminaries as Libya and Syria to Human Rights Comissions) and partially because of a disgusting adherence to Kissenger-style realpolitik. As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 05:56 (UTC)Yes, if the argument worked for Kosovo it was equally valid for Iraq. However by making the argument about WMD's the politicians are suffering because they have been proved wrong.
As far as the UN is concerned I agree it needs some serious reform. However I still think it could of worked (it did for the first Gulf war) but it was never given the chance. It depends what spin you attribute to the French position. You can't trash the system in the *middle* of a crisis. Maybe something sensible will happen once the dust has settled.
"As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq."
I agree, however the argument GW seems to want to make is that the world is safer after Gulf War II than before. Just looking at the casualties caused by terrorist bombs post-Invasion would seem to indicate otherwise. And thats before you count a 1/3rd of all kills by US forces which are civilians. Of course the fighting is all over in the Middle East at the moment which may be the point - its not on US soil.
A free and democratic Iraq will be a help to helping quell extremist Islam in the Middle East. However the policies GW adopted haven't made it more likely.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:08 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:39 (UTC)Again, answers corresponding to your paragraphs:
1) Agreed. WMDs were a side-show, as Tony Blair has found out to his cost. At least GWB et al had the sense to say out front "we want this man removed". You may or may not agree with the reasons for doing so, but that he had to be removed was a moral imperative. That is why folks who describe the liberation as "immoral" really rile me. The consequences of not liberating Iraq was to leave Saddam in charge. And this is "moral"? (not directed at you of course, but a general question).
2) I doubt it. What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established. Any brutal regime, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and so on are shown the door. The idea of a security council is a good idea. BUt I think the seats need to be revamped. US, Russia, UK, Germany, India, Brazil perhaps?
3) Rather cynical viewpoint, but one I think that has a degree of truth.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation. Though there's a case of ifs-and-ands and pots-and-pans there. But the liberation of Iraq was the least he (i.e. GWB) could have done after the disgusting betrayal of the Iraqis by his father.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 11:02 (UTC)Rubbish. George W. Bush and crowd lied up and down about the WMD as an excuse for invading Iraq - when they weren't lying up and down about a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In contrast, Tony Blair desperately tried to put forward a humanitarian motive for invading Iraq.
What I think needs to happen is that the UN be scrapped and a new organisation, like a "club for democracies" be established.
Wouldn't work if the US were running it: the US has a poor track record for supporting democracies, and many of its loyal and rewarded allies aren't democracies. Saddam Hussein in the 1980s was a US ally, as opposed to Iran: and Iran was and is nearer democracy than Iraq.
4) If President Gore or Kerry (no, I'm sorry, they simply do not sound right - they do not sound presidential at all), had been in charge, Saddam's torture chambers would still probably have been in operation.
And instead, they were replaced by Donald Rumsfeld's torture chambers...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 12:05 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 14:45 (UTC)Throw in somewhere north of 13k civilian casualties so far, presently increasing at something like 400-500 a month, and things really don't look peachy.
Pointing to the other guy and saying "he was worse" doesn't make us the good guys.
Forgive my lack of enthusiasm.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 17:55 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 13:57 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:07 (UTC)Your argument was that the world changed on 11th September 2001. You're seriously trying to argue that al-Qaeda didn't exist till then? Do you begin to understand why I'm saying you're American-centric?
Al-Queda on the other hand, want a global caliphate where religions other than Wahabbist Islam do not exist, and they are prepared to slaughter millions to do so.
Actually, what they've explicitly said they want is US troops out of Saudi Arabia - this was the original function of Al-Queda - though they're not averse to toppling secular Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein. So far Bush's actions have gone along very nicely with al-Qaeda's explicitly stated goals.
2. Agreed.
The attack on Afganistan was a bloodthirsty and largely pointless (in anti-terrorist terms) response to September 11. The section dealing with it in Fahrenheit 911 (http://www.livejournal.com/users/yonmei/313252.html) is the weakest and least truthful part of his film.
3... Hindsight is perfect as regards to WMDs, but given that the root concensus of any intelligence agency worth its salt on the planet before the liberation was that he did indeed have WMDs
Actually, the "liberation" of Iraq hasn't happened yet, and may never: it's currently being ruled by a puppet propped up by the US military - the parts that aren't fully insurgent.
As for the WMD, the consensus by most intelligence agencies prior to political tweaking of their reports appears to have been - No evidence for nuclear weapons: insufficient evidence for other WMD or any immediate threat justifying invasion. Scott Ritter was right all along.
4 - mostly nonsense. The evidence of the French being "in bed" with Saddam Hussein more than the Americans (Halliburton was dealing with Iraq all through the 1990s and the 2000s) is nil. The Oil for Food shocker was not that some money was being skimmed off as bribes, but that it was deliberately set up to provide less than the Iraqis needed.
As for the world not being safer, it was not safe before Iraq. Remember that the Bali and Madrid Bombs were being plotted *before* 9-11.
...so you concede the point that claiming "9-11 changed everything" is American-centric nonsense? Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:21 (UTC)2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 10:44 (UTC)...and has existed since 1990, so again - what's your obsession with "11/9/2001 changed everything"?
No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
...or so it's claimed. That al-Qaida training camps existed in Afghanistan is true: that the best way of getting them was to bomb Afghanistan is false: the claimed "terrorist infrastruture" had damn-all evidence, and still doesn't.
Iraq has been liberated from Saddam.
Iraq has been invaded, conquered, and occupied by the US military, plus a handful of others. Calling that "liberation" is as false as calling the handing-back of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti Royal Family "liberation".
No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them
And the UN inspection teams went in: their inspection was stopped by the US invasion: when American inspection teams were finally allowed to finish, it was established that there were virtually no WMD in IRaq, and certainly none justifying invasion. It is also established that neither Bush nor Blair possessed the kind of definite evidence of threatening WMD that would have justified immediate invasion.
As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
Was he? He's been far more right than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - and it begins to look like the US Occupation can't hold Baghdad.
9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
See? American-centric viewpoint, which, as I originally said, looks very absurd to people living outside the US.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 18:00 (UTC)Yes. You funded (possibly still do?) the IRA for years. I'm going to make assumptions and say that perhaps you think it was okay to fund the IRA because they aren't Al-Queda's sort of terrorism?