Ok, Roachboy: How about you give me the more complex 'factual' history about the runup to the war in Iraq?
I wasn't trying to be thorough or entirely rigorous. I am currently engaged in a debate with Willravel about the war in Iraq and am attempting to provide a counterpoint to his views. Let me know where I went wrong as well as how I did so. So far, you have told me I am wrong without providing any 'right' explanation.
And no, I am not refering to a collective will of the people, at least not in the marxist sense.
I do not think that the average person sits down and puzzles the Iraq war. However, I do think that the average person is easily influenced by news about bodies and stories concerning the war. I also think that bad news almost always trumps good news, regardless of the context. The result is that with any endeavor (not just Iraq), even possible future wars, the American public will tend to support the action initially and then as the footage of dead bodies starts to stream across our TV's, people stop supporting that action. It is a broad generalization and by no means applies to everybody, but it holds true for enough people that professional politicians will take advantage of it and thus it will eventualy influence military strategy. Also, military planners recognize our fickelness and plan accordingly...short, quick actions, though as we see things don't pan out that way.
Quote:
|
in this case, it seems like you have an ideological expression of the authoritarian dreamworld of a hyper-conservative faction within the military apparatus.
|
What does this even mean? I admit I have had a few beers and am a bit worn out, but I can't for the life of me make sense of this sentance. I have an ideological expression? authoritarian dreamworld?
Personally speaking, my politics are far from republican and I am certainly not authoritarian. I have also never said whether or not I personally supported the war. Some things are nobodies business and some opinions would be inappropriate for me to express (either way) considering my current employment.
This isn't a bigggest word contest. I am not an uneducated individual, but I am not interested in having to break out the thesaurus in order to have a debate.
My intent was never to justify the actions leading to war in Iraq (not saying I was against the war either). Rather, I was trying to pick apart what I felt were the flawed suppositions of Willravel and others on this sight. I think he was making flawed assertions and I was trying to address those, not make overarching statements about the entire situation. Likewise, he has been trying to do the same, near as I can tell.
You think my suppositions are wholy fictional? then detail how and maybe I will learn something.
If my arguments are empirically false then they are false, regardless of the point of view. But again, you have accused me without providing any alternative explanation.
I think my opinions are colored more by my being an inherently violent person. I am not inclined to sit around and talk to someone who is wronging me.
Willravel:
The CIA never trained Bin Laden, though I believe he did profit indirectly from efforts to fund and equip mujahadeen.
Iraq still had a large standing army, one of the largest in the middle east. It was largely ineffective against US technology, but it could still have put a hurting on it's neighbors should it have so chose.
I can't believe you used a star wars quote. That should be a corollary to Godwins law.
I sincerely doubt that there was a big conspiracy about WMD in Iraq. It would have been far easier for us to simply plant something and then 'find' it. Instead, we keep looking and eventually admitted failure. The military, our intelligence agencies, congress, and the president all believed WMD was a real problem. Whether it should have been used to justify a war is still a seperate issue.
Out of curiosity, did the UN ever sanction us for the war in Iraq? Because they sure sanctioned Iraq, several times. If what we did was really so bad where are the sanctions against our country?
As for your analogy, I got confused by powerclowns. But I am more than happy to readdress yours. If you have someone who is victimizing someone else and there is no other reasonable way to stop it, then you should be able to do whatever needs to be done in order to end it. Laws are imperfect. Something can be illegal and perfectly justified. For instance, it is illegal to give someone your prescription medicine. But if your best friend (who uses the same medicine as you) has a severe asthma attack and forgot his inhaler, you are doing the right (though illegal) thing by allowing him to use yours.
Sure, our government is flawed, cumbersom, and at times corrupt. But the UN takes it to a whole different level, and we are often the target of that corruption. So no, I don't think it is the pot calling the kettle black. Unlike the UN, we are not wholely ineffective.
Quote:
|
Ask your general if he or she thinks we can actually win the war over there. Does he or she think that, realisticaly, we can bring peace to Iraq, end the civil war, and leave them in a peaceful democracy? I don't like to put words in people's mouths, but I can bet that the answer is no. Iraq lacks the resolve to be a democracy because we fought for their independance instead of allowing their hunger lead to rebelion and eventually independance from the corrupt state. America would have fought the British with or without the aid of the French. Would Iraq have fought Saddam with or without the US?
|
We don't have to leave them in a democracy, just an elected representative government of some kind. They tried several times to rebel it always ended badly. Even though we may have been willing to fight our own revolution without French help, it would have failed. Just like every attempt by the Shia or Kurds to oust Saddam.
The idea that Iraq will instantly adopt a model, peaceful democratic government and everyone will get along is laughable and I don't believe it is our intention. However, they can make real progress, obtain a stable representative government, and rebuild the country (they have access to immense oil wealth so they have the resources).
Again with Bush, he served in the military when he could have avoided service through any number of means (including graduate school) or chosen a less risky path. Even though he never did deploy, he very easily could have. I am not claiming him to be a war hero, but he did serve, and you shouldn't trash that.
I absolutely guarantee that no US soldier is asked to torture, rape, or kill in cold blood. I can tell you for a fact that every single one of the soldiers I work with thinks the soldiers who were recently convicted of raping (and killing?) an Iraqi girl should be executed.
And yes, I do think that Saddam's dissappearances are at least that number. A lot of the Iraqi's that have died since our invasion deserved it...they took up arms against us and shouldn't be counted tragedies.
No, I am not a recruiter.