So democracy rules in Iraq - a good job done.....

[Sparks]

Steve, Nuke,

Go ahead and dismiss it as "tired and simplistic", take the piss.

But please tell me where in the past we have invaded a foreign country simply to install a democracy ? And please don't wheel out the "We saved France in the war blah blah ....." that was fighting an agressor who had clear aims. We have however taken military action many times to try to secure strategic assets - after the first world war the UK invaded Russia with the specific aim of securing the oil fields from the revolution. Look at the actions around the Ploesti oil fields in WW2.

The evidence is simply not there that the democratic crusade is the driver. What about Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, and all the others ?? Cuba is on your doorstep ........

I'm not the simplistic one relying on the Cause of The Spread of Democracy.  Look at the connections, the history of the last 40 years in the Middle East, the money involved, the effect of oil price and supply on your economy, the key figures of power and influence.

I'm not saying the invasion was wrong but we should be honest why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done. Trying to work behind this veil of political correctness is costing lives.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Sparks
"...we should be honest why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done."

Oh?

[Sparks]

Gixer - interesting article.   Also interesting to place it in the context of the unrest starting in Eygpt where the government has banned certain candidates due to them campaigning on a religious basis.  In an interview I saw on CNN an Eygptian minister said that there should be a separation of religion and politics - an intersting stand to take in an Islamic country if the article is to be belived and one which acoordingly could escalate the unrest.

[Steve]

But please tell me where in the past we have invaded a foreign country simply to install a democracy ?

so when faced w/ a problem you will NEVER try something that hasn't been done before.  No new idea is a good idea?

I'm not the simplistic one relying on the Cause of The Spread of Democracy.

No you're the one w/ the one faceted "it's all about oil" whine.
I think it's foolish for you to consider this what "it's all about"

Do you need a list of contries/entities that stated Iraq possessed WMD's?  Were all these countries, including the UN, together in some kind of vast conspiracy to induce the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses?  Or is it convenient, as it is for  leftist whackos, for you to ignore so many countries/entities claims?

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Sparks

I'm not the simplistic one relying on the Cause of The Spread of Democracy.  Look at the connections, the history of the last 40 years in the Middle East, the money involved, the effect of oil price and supply on your economy, the key figures of power and influence.

They can look much closer to home then that. There's quite a long list of countries that have been interfered with so to speak since then end of WW2 all in the name of democracy and freedom. Iraq is just the latest FU.


...-Gixer

[NUKE]

Sparks, I don't believe we invaded Iraq to install a democracy or for the oil.

I feel that there were many, many factors that all added up to almost no choice other than to invade.

First, we didn't simply invade a soveriegn country. Iraq was under a cease-fire agreement from the 1st gulf war. They were in breach of that agreement. Now, technically the agreement was with the UN, but we all know who does the fighting and who carries the load....and it isn't the UN.

911 plays a huge factor in the decision, and not because anyone thought Iraq had ties to 911, but rather the atmosphere in the US following 911 made it almost impossible for GWB to ignore the possible threat Iraq posed.

Up until the war beganm even the UN, France, Germany, Russia and others believed that Iraq had WMD unacounted for.

Coupled with Saddam's refusal to ever fully cooperate or account for tons of missing WMD, which to this day are not accounted for, and also the fact that the US had a huge force on the ground just to force Saddam to allow inspections again were big factors.

The US spent lots of time and money over 14 years trying to get Saddam in compliance. GWB placed a large force on the ground, and still Saddam was trying to play games.  

GDW had to make a decision based on what was known at the time. We could not afford to continue to play Saddam's game of cat and mouse. GWB did not have the benifit of 20/20 hindsight. GWB and the US congress were faced VERY difficult decision. The decision they made was the correct one IMO, knowing what they knew and taking into account the aftermath of 911....... no excuses for making a weak decision.

The worst case scenario could well  have been to do nothing and just hope nothing came of the threats. Unfortunately, that kind of scenario was not an option. We erred in our favor and it turns out Iraq had no WMD, but that doesn't mean we did not prevent some future WMD aquisitions.

Once the invasion was approved, installing a democracy and stabilizing Iraq was and is a priority. It's only logical to do this after so much effort, money and blood was paid to get this job done.

It was not about the oil, the WMD, the people or democracy. It was ensuring we erred in OUR favor concerning an unknown threat, in my opinion.

I think Iraq will come through and be a testimate for freedom in the Middle East. That is my honest belief.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Steve
so when faced w/ a problem you will NEVER try something that hasn't been done before.  No new idea is a good idea?

Can you possibly sound any more like a 5 year-old?

Originally posted by Steve
Were all these countries, including the UN, together in some kind of vast conspiracy to induce the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses?

No Steve, these countries were all trying to play nice in order to get a shot at some prime Arizona real estate and 24/7 Phil. Jealousy makes people crazy ya know.

[Sparks]

I see it this way Nash - if we accept the reason to invade Iraq was to secure strategic assets of oil and location for the future then we can accept that all we need is a pro western regime in place and stability.  Be honest - we have never cared about the Iraqi people.  To the average person in the street in New York or London the fate of the average Iraqi rates lower than the decision what to have for lunch. If we really cared about foreign peoples we would be acting around the world.

So the key is the regime and this is where it went pear shaped.  The planners assumed that a western style democracy could be created based on the views of the tiny minority western educated Iraqis. The fact of the matter is the majority population of poorly educated Iraqis have religion as their guide to life and Islam does not easily align with western democracy - they don't want it.  So what do you do ?? You have to put in place a regime which you may not find very atractive to your views on human rights and freedom but which is friendly to you and creates stability - finding those people is the dificult bit.

We seem to have no problems with this arrangement in Saudia Arabia.

For me the real key is to get away from our dependance on Middle East Oil.  We have a relationship like an addict with their dealer - we don't like them but we need them.  We need to cure the addiction or accept the consequences.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Steve
so when faced w/ a problem you will NEVER try something that hasn't been done before.  No new idea is a good idea?

 

No you're the one w/ the one faceted "it's all about oil" whine.
I think it's foolish for you to consider this what "it's all about"

Do you need a list of contries/entities that stated Iraq possessed WMD's?  Were all these countries, including the UN, together in some kind of vast conspiracy to induce the US to invade Iraq under false pretenses?  Or is it convenient, as it is for  leftist whackos, for you to ignore so many countries/entities claims?

Do you care at all for the 10s of 1000s of iraqis that are dead and 100 000s of thousands injured and the 1000s or US service men and woman that have died in this invasion you love so much?

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Sparks
I see it this way Nash - if we accept the reason to invade Iraq was to secure strategic assets of oil and location for the future then we can accept that all we need is a pro western regime in place and stability.  Be honest - we have never cared about the Iraqi people.  To the average person in the street in New York or London the fate of the average Iraqi rates lower than the decision what to have for lunch. If we really cared about foreign peoples we would be acting around the world.

So the key is the regime and this is where it went pear shaped.  The planners assumed that a western style democracy could be created based on the views of the tiny minority western educated Iraqis. The fact of the matter is the majority population of poorly educated Iraqis have religion as their guide to life and Islam does not easily align with western democracy - they don't want it.  So what do you do ?? You have to put in place a regime which you may not find very atractive to your views on human rights and freedom but which is friendly to you and creates stability - finding those people is the dificult bit.

We seem to have no problems with this arrangement in Saudia Arabia.

For me the real key is to get away from our dependance on Middle East Oil.  We have a relationship like an addict with their dealer - we don't like them but we need them.  We need to cure the addiction or accept the consequences.

First mistake.
What makes you think that the US or Britian prefer democracies in their oil supplying states. Present examples.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by NUKE
Once the invasion was approved, installing a democracy and stabilizing Iraq was and is a priority. It's only logical to do this after so much effort, money and blood was paid to get this job done.

Think is Nuke the invasion was never "approved" other then by Bush himself. That's why so many people around the world took exception to that action.


...-Gixer

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Pongo
First mistake.
What makes you think that the US or Britian prefer democracies in their oil supplying states. Present examples.

That's a great point. I was going to mention something similar.

For instance, Saddam ran Iraq for how long? We never invaded him or any other oil producing nation until Iraq invaded Kuwait.

I'm pretty sick of the simpleminded view that the Iraq war was about oil. Nothing that I have ever seen can justify that view.

Just look at all the Iraqi oil we got after the first gulf war.

The fact is that Saddam played his cards and lost. All he had to do is cooperate fully and adhere to the cease-fire agreements. It was Saddam's war to prevent, and he decided to push it.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Sparks
I see it this way Nash - if we accept the reason to invade Iraq was to secure strategic assets of oil and location for the future then we can accept that all we need is a pro western regime in place and stability.  Be honest - we have never cared about the Iraqi people.  To the average person in the street in New York or London the fate of the average Iraqi rates lower than the decision what to have for lunch. If we really cared about foreign peoples we would be acting around the world.

So the key is the regime and this is where it went pear shaped.  The planners assumed that a western style democracy could be created based on the views of the tiny minority western educated Iraqis. The fact of the matter is the majority population of poorly educated Iraqis have religion as their guide to life and Islam does not easily align with western democracy - they don't want it.  So what do you do ?? You have to put in place a regime which you may not find very atractive to your views on human rights and freedom but which is friendly to you and creates stability - finding those people is the dificult bit.

We seem to have no problems with this arrangement in Saudia Arabia.

For me the real key is to get away from our dependance on Middle East Oil.  We have a relationship like an addict with their dealer - we don't like them but we need them.  We need to cure the addiction or accept the consequences.

Okay what you're saying is "Lets face it folks, we needed the oil, and we went for it."

I find this to be, oh, about a million times more plausible than trying to convince a chicken farmer in Kentucky that his life was on the line if Iraq didn't get biotch-slapped right quick.

Everyone knows that nobody's life was in peril on acount of Iraq.

It's a joke.

So why didn't the admin say "Lets face it folks, we need the oil, and we're going for it?"

Unh-uh. Even THEY wouldn't say something like that. It's basically criminal.

Yes, it might be what's happening, but "[being] honest [about]why we did it and then we may have more courage to do what has to be done" is what? Okay?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Gixer
Think is Nuke the invasion was never "approved" other then by Bush himself. That's why so many people around the world took exception to that action.


...-Gixer

I understand that Gixer. But Iraq could be considered a threat to the US itself at the time, and thus justified.

Like I said, we erred in our favor and GWB really didn't have a choice to wait and see how things might have been.

Turns out we were wrong, but at least we erred in our favor, and for that I'm not sorry. As a side benifit, maybe Iraq and the Middle East will be better off in the long term.

It's not a disaster in my opinion.

[Torque]

honesty is the new sin...