Still think the war was wrong?

[kidinthecorner]

Disclaimer: This is not my post, nor the person's from the board I got it from. He found it on some different forum, as I believe that semi-coherent sentance at the end says. I just want to see your comments on what whoever this is has to say. so here we go.

----------------------

Just another way to look at this issue.

After 1990 the world changed because:
- The demise of the USSR removed protection from crackpot dictators (not because the USSR had protected all of them, but because during the cold war third world countries could always play off the two superpower against eachother). With the demise of the cold war, realpolitik became a less overriding concern, and pressure was put on various dictators to shape up their act.
- Due to globalization, the increasing integration of the world due to advances in transportation (cheap flights etc) and ICT (Internet etc), led to an increasing interaction and closeness of previously remote peoples and cultures. A natural barrier to positive and negative interactions was thus removed.

Until 2001, this had relatively limited consequences, and nations acted much like before. With the 9/11 attacks, a realization that globalization meant that conflicts were no longer isolated and would increasingly spill over changed the strategic perception of the USA. As a result, the USA decided that:
1) Terrorism must be fought, including its state supporters.
2) The causes of terrorism must be eliminated.

As one of the most important causes of terrorism is dissatisfaction with autocratic regimes and the political and economic stagnation they cause, 2) interestingly implied that the US would no longer condone the repression by the ME regimes just to keep the oil flowing, as in the past, and as still advocated by old Europe. The diehard left will deny this vehemently (how can US conservatives ever be a force for good), and will interestingly oppose this democratization for ideological and political reasons.

The last point I would like to make is that the current US strategy in the ME is intended to minimize the number of casualties in the long term. By taking away the root causes of terrorism - by toppling or reforming the autocratic regimes - not only will the security of the US and the whole world be improved, but also the amount of carnage by the terrorists will be minimized.

Now I believe that you think this strategy will not work, but I would say already we are seeing some encouraging results. But this is not something that will be resolved this month or next, it will take time and hard work. Bush and his team has warned us of that from immediately after 9/11.

Yet another post on the warships1 politics of war thread I found.

------

Thoughts?

[lollirot]

Originally posted by kidinthecorner
By taking away the root causes of terrorism - by toppling or reforming the autocratic regimes - not only will the security of the US and the whole world be improved, but also the amount of carnage by the terrorists will be minimized. [/B]


There is so much wrong with that sentence. If anything, the USA fucking with the Middle East breeds more terrorism. Yeah, some of the Iraqi's were happy with what we did. A lot weren't. It's behavior like this (the first Gulf war) that fed into the hatred of the United States. In removing world "evil", we probably got Osama a whole sack of new recruits.

[Ronin]

The "war on terror" is breeding more and more terrorists.

It's one of those moves (like supporting the Afghan guerillas) that will come back to haunt us all.

Which Saddam is more dangerous, the leader or the martyr?

Now that he's deposed, I think he's even more dangerous.

Personal opinion of course

[.&$]

Originally posted by Ronin


Which Saddam is more dangerous, the leader or the martyr?


Personal opinion of course

its silly to even ask that question. saddam ruled with an iron fist. the people obeyed him, not out of love but out of fear. ive heard people who suffered under him talk and it breaks your heart to hear the shit these people had to put up with in their country(makes the celebrities bitching about "blacklisting" in hollywood seem downright moronic) Besides a handful of complete devouts, the majority of people in Iraq are glad hes gone and not coming back.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by .&$
its silly to even ask that question. saddam ruled with an iron fist. the people obeyed him, not out of love but out of fear. ive heard people who suffered under him talk and it breaks your heart to hear the shit these people had to put up with in their country(makes the celebrities bitching about "blacklisting" in hollywood seem downright moronic) Besides a handful of complete devouts, the majority of people in Iraq are glad hes gone and not coming back.

Deposing Saddam and placing more American troops on Arab soil could very possibly result in more vicious terrorist attacks against your country, so I don't really think it's a silly question. Unless you can see into the future Marty McFly.

[.&$]

Originally posted by Ronin
Deposing Saddam and placing more American troops on Arab soil could very possibly result in more vicious terrorist attacks against your country, so I don't really think it's a silly question. Unless you can see into the future Marty McFly.

hey i see you doing nothing but saying that bad days lay ahead, Doc Brown:D

[BanMe]

Our track record isn't pretty. If the past is any indication, we'll probably install a leader who is just as brutal as Hussein, with one key difference:he's "civilized"(i.e. he allows western companies to do business in Iraq).

[Ronin]

Originally posted by .&$
hey i see you doing nothing but saying that bad days lay ahead, Doc Brown:D

Hahaha

nice

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
Even if you believe that the fight on terrrorism breeds more terrorism, we still have to do something about it. You can sit on your thumb and expect them to start liking you.

But you can give it some more thought before you go in with guns blazing

[Tom Foolery]

Originally posted by Ronin
But you can give it some more thought before you go in with guns blazing

When has Bush ever given anything much thought? :confused:

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Ronin
But you can give it some more thought before you go in with guns blazing We waited for 12 years! How long do you want? Something needed to be done.

As for the War on Terrorism breeding more terrorists, that may be somewhat true. However, we're still in a better situation that if there are still multiple nations that sanction and support terror (Afghanistan).

[yeat182]

Originally posted by lollirot
There is so much wrong with that sentence. If anything, the USA fucking with the Middle East breeds more terrorism. Yeah, some of the Iraqi's were happy with what we did. A lot weren't. It's behavior like this (the first Gulf war) that fed into the hatred of the United States. In removing world "evil", we probably got Osama a whole sack of new recruits.

the majority of Iraqi's want the US there, i believe it was 65 or 67% wanted the US military there as of last week....

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
The "war on terror" is breeding more and more terrorists.

It's one of those moves (like supporting the Afghan guerillas) that will come back to haunt us all.

Which Saddam is more dangerous, the leader or the martyr?

Now that he's deposed, I think he's even more dangerous.

Personal opinion of course


doing nothing would not create less terrorism...

if anything, the number of terrorist is probably the same, yes you may have a whole crop of new ones, but there are an awful lot of dead ones to even it out.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
We waited for 12 years! How long do you want? Something needed to be done.

As for the War on Terrorism breeding more terrorists, that may be somewhat true. However, we're still in a better situation that if there are still multiple nations that sanction and support terror (Afghanistan).

12 years to think of a solution

and what do you come up with?

"Send in the troops"

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Ronin
12 years to think of a solution

and what do you come up with?

"Send in the troops" Got any other brilliant ideas? Inspectors didn't work. Sanctions didn't work. What other alternatives to you suggest?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
12 years to think of a solution

and what do you come up with?

"Send in the troops"

12 years and the only alternative was to give them more time...

[evil zach]

Originally posted by WithStamin
We waited for 12 years! How long do you want? Something needed to be done.

As for the War on Terrorism breeding more terrorists, that may be somewhat true. However, we're still in a better situation that if there are still multiple nations that sanction and support terror (Afghanistan).
yet for many yars befor that, saddam was in favor with the US government. Yes, Even in 1988 when he gassed the kurds. And its not as if he became a brutal dictator overnight.


And as for Afghanistan, it will be interesting to see what happence when the US leaves.

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
yet for many yars befor that, saddam was in favor with the US government. Yes, Even in 1988 when he gassed the kurds. And its not as if he became a brutal dictator overnight.
"My enemy's enemy is my friend". We were more worried about Iran at the time, and with good reason. We had to stop the fundamentalist Islamic governments from spreading, and, unfortunately, Saddam was the best tool for that.
Originally posted by evil zach
And as for Afghanistan, it will be interesting to see what happence when the US leaves. Hopefully we can transform it into a moderate representative democracy. We know that these can happen in the Muslim world (see: Turkey).

[evil zach]

right, Turkey, the global model for demcoracy:rolleyes:

[WithStamin]

I didn't say Turkey was perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the rest of the Middle East.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
right, Turkey, the global model for demcoracy:rolleyes:

at least they are a secular muslim state

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
"My enemy's enemy is my friend". We were more worried about Iran at the time, and with good reason. We had to stop the fundamentalist Islamic governments from spreading, and, unfortunately, Saddam was the best tool for that.
Hopefully we can transform it into a moderate representative democracy. We know that these can happen in the Muslim world (see: Turkey).

Yup, it's a good thing Iran doesn't have a fundamentalism Islamic government now.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Got any other brilliant ideas? Inspectors didn't work. Sanctions didn't work. What other alternatives to you suggest?

"Let's see. We tried starving the poor and sick in the country, but for some reason that didn't bring an end to Hussein. We sent in weapons inspectors and found mixed results...well, now that those two options have been exhausted, there's no other POSSIBLE route. Warm up the apaches boys, time to spread the love of democracy by killing innocents"

I'm not a fucking politician, but there are options besides war.

It's not like Saddam was wagging the nuclear finger at the US. You weren't in immediate danger.

[evil zach]

Originally posted by yeat182
at least they are a secular muslim state
so was Iraq

[ms y o o n]

the way i see things...is that things happen for a reason
and if we look back and say.. bla bla they shouldn't have gone to war
then most of us wouldn't be here

[yeat182]

Originally posted by evil zach
so was Iraq

true...but turkey was/is a democracy

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Ronin
"Let's see. We tried starving the poor and sick in the country, but for some reason that didn't bring an end to Hussein. We sent in weapons inspectors and found mixed results...well, now that those two options have been exhausted, there's no other POSSIBLE route. Warm up the apaches boys, time to spread the love of democracy by killing innocents"

I'm not a fucking politician, but there are options besides war.

It's not like Saddam was wagging the nuclear finger at the US. You weren't in immediate danger. :rolleyes:

You continually poke fun at Bush's decision, but you fail to bring forward any alternatives. What are these "options"?

[greymatter]

The Iraqi war was a catch 22 situation, if they did and if they didnt there still would have been a lot of innocent people being killed. Because we have gone to war this means that iraqi's will be killed and our troops will be killed. If we didnt go to war then saddam would keep on killing innocent people. And if he did have chemical weapons then he would have used them long before now

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by WithStamin
:rolleyes:

You continually poke fun at Bush's decision, but you fail to bring forward any alternatives. What are these "options"?

you should have also commented on how his first arguement wasn't our fault........but i guess you missed that one...........

[MestNFG]

For what it's worth, as I was leaving the station to go on patrol, i saw something on CNN with breaking news that WMD's have been found.

This was around 3pm CST and they showd a large pit, like they were dug up. I also heard something that an Iraqi scientist told them where they were.

Just what i picked up as I went out the door. Anyone with more info can share.