The price of "collateral damage"

[quote=“bob_honest”]Bush said one thing after 911 which is a bit forgotten now and then. Namely that we (all on the globe) cannot tolerate governements anymore, which give their infrastructure to terrorists, namely to build WMDs for them. Logical point I guess.
Iraq war I first opposed for tactical reasons, but now nagging about it is useless and I would like it very much, if democracy can be established there. I did not believe it is possible for all the resulting chaos, but now I just hope for the best.[/quote]

Democracy cannot be installed like an appliance. The people must want it badly enough to fight for it and be willing to pay the ultimate price as they depose dictators.

America must allow countries to develop as it did by gaining independence on its own. America is actually slowing down the process of democritization in two ways. Firstly, by fighting other peoples fights for them. Secondly, by accepting too many refugees and immigrants from oppressed countries. In so doing, America strips the revolution in those countries of its leaders. The reason why dictators like Mugabe are still in power, is that there is no real resistance left. The people who could make a difference are in countries like the US, Canada and the UK waching movies and eating pizza. There is no fuse in that bomb.

Countries can call themselves whatever they wish. The US and its citizens have chosen to call it America. Big deal. America is also two continents. Big deal. The real question is whether anyone is confused by referring to citizens of the US as Americans. I don’t think so. Case closed.

[quote=“bob_honest”]Bush said one thing after 911 which is a bit forgotten now and then. Namely that we (all on the globe) cannot tolerate governements anymore, which give their infrastructure to terrorists, namely to build WMDs for them. quote]

Several posters in this tread have linked the war in Iraq with 9-11, the attack on the World Trade Center. Even those who are obviously against the War in Iraq have failed to challenge this connection.

It is true that many Americans

No one has said that Saddam was directly reponsible for 911. What the connection involves is instability and terrorism. Saddam fostered instability and supported terrorism. He was removed before he could become a threat. Most Americans understand that. The polls are often unclear or deliberately play up this confusion. Most Americans understood that Saddam was a threat and that the threat could be similar to that of 911. If there is confusion that he was behind 911, that is really irrelevant to the main fact which is that Saddam posed a “similar” type threat or would have in perhaps a few more years.

[quote]It is true that many Americans

Time to buy some more Iraqi dinars Fred?

I never said Saddam was involved in 911 or even actively supported ElQaida. He was too scared to do it, but was on standby when the situation may change. I opposed the attack on Iraq though (tactical reasons). This is another subject and I think we discussed it by length and length :s

EDIT: others believe he did, but it is not important anymore as the attack is past now.

Time to buy Iraqi dinars? Yes, I would say so. Also time to give the boot to Schroeder once and for all. The man has no shame. Have you seen how he is demanding the US pull all nuclear weapons out of Germany to save his ass in Nord Rhein Westphalen? Shameless. Will it backfire on him this time or will our “educated” and “worldly” and “sophisticated” Germans once again allow Schroeder and Fischer to play them like a cheap fiddle. I thought only Americans were dumb enough to allow themselves to be so manipulated? haha

Ok, Fred. It is true that there were a few al Qaeda agents in Iraq, But, how many connections does al Qaeda have in Saudi Arabia? I notice we didn’t invade the Saudis.

During the Clinton administration Sadam DID have Weapons of mass destruction, he destroyed them just like he told the U.N. The Bush administration argued that the U.N. inspection program was not working. Since we didn

I type and read fast… sorry.

Only one thing to add. We knew that Saddam frequently lied about not having wmds over the course of the Clinton administration and then whoops more were discovered. Does his track record count for nothing? And who among us KNEW that Saddam did not have wmds before the Gulf II War? Anyone? I would like to know who.

Our reluctant allies have always been reluctant. Give me an example of one of those allies that has ever committed itself to a cause commeasurate with its economic prowess?

I also find it interesting that Robin Cook (former UK Foreign minister) demanded that UK invade Kosovo because of Milosevic’s track record rather than direct proof of atrocities against Kosovars. So, we HAD direct proof of Saddam’s atrocities, so what’s the difference in being for or against the invasion.

The UN did not support either the Bosnia or the Kosovo actions so why were they taken without the blessing of the UN and why was that okay? The only difference in the equation was that Germany and France supported action in the former two but not the latter one.

Given that we now know how deeply involved French, German, Russian and UN interests were with the Saddam regime, why are you not looking at this as a matter of corruption in these countries accounting for the US failure to get UN approval? And why if it was not given in Kosovo and Bosnia were actions still okay? Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said of the US and UK action that sometimes member states had to enforce UN resolutions. Why okay for Kosovo but not Iraq? Hmmm?

Can you see why people like me are deeply suspicious of international law and international organizations like the UN when such actions take place. Bush is accused of every underhanded motive without proof but we have direct proof of complicity and corruption for all four of these actors and no one on the left has reconsidered their views of the justness of this war? What about the successful elections?

I truly believe that while we are behind schedule, we will be down to the envisioned 50K troops in Iraq by mid-2006 and those will stay and stay and stay just like our troops did in Korea, Germany and Japan and that will be bad how exactly?

Hmm, maybe it is time to buy more dinars. :slight_smile: They sit at about 1/6 of one cent to 1USD now I think.

Imagine if it goes to a dollar?

:smiling_imp: muahahahahah

You make some cogent points Fred. I don

Exactly, that is why we acted in Iraq because the region is vital to our interests. Kosovo and Bosnia are not.

Well you can moon about the UN all you want. I used to work there and let me tell you that I simply refuse to have the US subject its interests to those of a bunch of nondemocratic thugocracies aligned with a loathsomely corrupt France. The UN is an idea. The reality is something far uglier. Trust me on that.

Look at the Human rights commission. Look at the way the UN responded to the tsunami. It is ineffective, worthless and leads idealists like you to have dangerously deluded ideas. We must end our presence and recreate a new organization. To be a member, you would have to be a democracy, meet certain human rights standards and pay based on your economic weight AND contribute peacekeepers and soldiers for missions such as Iraq and Bosnia and Kosovo to the same degree. No more allowing the US to do all the heavy lifting.

I’ve been trying to keep up with your posts in the other threads. There are some amazing intelects in this forum.

Can you give me your reasoning why Iraq is vital to our interests.

The “new organizaiont” you propose sounds to me like an alliance of the democratic societies against the rest of the world. Not satisfied with winning the cold war? Do you want to start another contest for global domination? Your requirement for human rights standards might eliminate many “democracies” from consideration. Arn’t we a little outnumbered?

I happen to believe that democracy and human rights are worth fighting for and that extremism, intolerance, dictatorships, terrorism are worth fighting against. Yes, if it comes down to another case of us against them in this particular situation so be it. I am glad communism lost. It was not just another system to me. It was evil. No one who lived under such a system was unaware of the morally debilitating conditions.

Iraq was very much in our strategic interests because we happen to depend on the region not so much for our own oil but because major economies in the world like Europe, Japan and China do. Disruption would be catastrophic for everyone. Bosnia and Kosovo were embarrassing examples of the flaccid impotence of Europe both as an idea and as a reality. It’s too bad that Europeans did not learn their lessons after this debacle but what do you expect when France, the No. 1 fighting force?! in such a grouping is calling the shots. Qu’est que vous attendez? N’est ce pas?

It seems to me, if we are to maintain world order we have to deal with non-democratic societies, preferable in a peaceful forum like the U.N. That is, unless you are proposing we take the rest of the world by force of arms. Oh my, that is what you are proposing isn

Why is it that every situation has to be treated exactly the same. Just because we invaded Iraq does not mean that we will have to invade every other nation. I do however support invasions of Syria and Iran if necessary.

The UN is a grouping of dictatorships. I find it incredible that anyone would suggesting going to such a group to fight for freedom and democracy. Shut it down.

[quote=“fred smith”]Why is it that every situation has to be treated exactly the same. Just because we invaded Iraq does not mean that we will have to invade every other nation. I do however support invasions of Syria and Iran if necessary.
the UN is a grouping of dictatorships. I find it incredible that anyone would suggesting going to such a group to fight for freedom and democracy. Shut it down.[/quote]

I’m with you on Syria. Not on Iran; too many young educated people there who hate the system as much as I do. Let them work it out. Start by beating the crap out of the stick wielding allahpolice.

Oh, I am also for kicking the corrupted and perverted UN right the hell out of my home state! :fume:

The Mad Hatter often asked the same question.

Why intellectual and moral consistency indeed when the laws of physics and the principles of right and wrong are themselves constantly changing from minute to minute?

It just doesn’t make sense.

The main point I was trying to make is that no president should be allowed two cause such a lot of “colateral damage” without casus belli and just say “Oops, we made a mistake”.

The day George Bush and his family calebrated his reelection, I thought to myself as they were making the “long horn sign”, this kind of levity is obscene. How many American and Iraqi mothers have lost their children because of this war? There is obviously a difference between the children of the upper class Americans and the children of normal folk. Normal lives are expendable like ammunition. Privileged lives are not.