Iraq War Is ‘a Nightmare’ - Page 7 - PhillyBlog

markedixon · #61 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

The larger issue for me is the lack of interest that I see in spreading the freedom which we all enjoy.

What about the older ethic of not going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, Adlerian? You know, the "light on the hill" which is seen by those who care to see it, but not -- to carry the analogy forward -- used to light torches and burn villages?

I'll acknowledge this vision has been largely abandoned -- at least since the Mexican War when we stole the Southwest from Mexico. Certainly since the Spanish-American War, when we stole the Philippines. Possibly since the Revolution, which we fought largely to throw off British interference with our theft of what is now the Midwest from the Indians. Nevertheless, it is an authentically American vision which offers a more encouraging prospect than simply more war, war, war.

seand · #62 (**permalink**) 10-18-2007, 07:21 PM

But the war in Iraq is not and never will be effective at delivering the freedoms we enjoy to others. In Afghanistan we took on an Islamicist regime that provided direct material support for the people that actually attacked us, that were so enmeshed that they basically were the people who actually attacked us. We had broad international support and we have been broadly succesful over time at both introducing meaningful new freedoms and an improved quality of life for most Afganis, particularly in the towns and cities.

In Iraq we invaded on the basis of trumped up intelligence that was rightfully and correctly questioned at every step of the build up with the barest minimum of nominal international support and no plan for how to deal with deep seated animosities amongst the people we were "liberating" once we toppled the ineffectual little dictator that was barely holding his mess of a country together.

The contractors who stood to profit immensely from the project and their closest political friends led the charge with incredulous claims that the whole endevour would be a walk in the park. When it turned out to be a mess likely to simmer for decades upon decades with no lasting result except to seriously damage our credibility virtually everywhere else in the world and to provide the worlds costliest ongoing recruitment video for Al Queda - no sweat off their back - the contractors are still getting paid and actually they are pleased as punch to have their contracts extended for another couple of decades.

The problem with Iraq is not that America has no stomach for pitching in on difficult but strategically sound wars to liberate peoples yearning for freedom. The problem is that most Iraqui's are yearning first and foremost with decades of pent-up resenment to smite their neighbors and the chaos and the rampant kidnapping we have helped to unleash has driven the members of the educated class that might have been part of the process of building a new Iraq out of the country as refugees.

It was idiocy to get involved in the first place. The "Iraqui government" such as it is now is either patronage machines designed to steal as much as possible as quickly as possible from us dumb Americans or the ministries themselves are overrun by ethnic militias using US paid-for weapons and equipment to operate a night time "dirty war" of internal ethnic cleansing. People have less security, less electricity, less basic government services than they did under Saddam after 5 years and the answer to get them to embrace our values is to "terrify" them a little more?

I agree its important for the US to use its influence to spread freedom and the benefits of a democratic society to people who are yearning for greater freedom but simply put Iraq is not Czechoslavakia just before the Velvet Revolution. That was pretty obvious going in.

#63 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedixon

What about the older ethic of not going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, Adlerian? You know, the "light on the hill" which is seen by those who care to see it, but not -- to carry the analogy forward -- used to light torches and burn villages?

I'll acknowledge this vision has been largely abandoned -- at least since the Mexican War when we stole the Southwest from Mexico. Certainly since the Spanish-American War, when we stole the Philippines. Possibly since the Revolution, which we fought largely to throw off British interference with our theft of what is now the Midwest from the Indians. Nevertheless, it is an authentically American vision which offers a more encouraging prospect than simply more war, war, war.

Right, that was a period which brought on the beginning of isolationism, which allowed things to get crazy in Europe, which eventually forced us to get involved. Then, after WWI ended poorly, and Wilson's ideas weren't followed through on, then enough insanity built up which caused WWII, and that was really something.

In the Gulf War we did something smart, which was to have a bombing campaign where almost none of our people got killed. I recall that most people died due to auto accidents. Anyway, we crushed them and scared the crap out of them to the point where they were giving up in mass numbers, and we didn't even slaughter them for their impertinance.

Good show!

Then, moronically, the government decides not to take Saddam out of power. So, to save face, or whatever, he decides to fly in the no fly zone, and brag all during the Clinton era about his WMDs and multitude of secret underground bunkers, which turn out not to be there! But, we thought they were for about ten years and since Saddam hated us for winning he tried to kill Bush and funded terrorism, and so forth. So, again our failure to dominate our enemies caused more waste in the long-run, as we're now in this war.

I partially blame the capitalist mindset of wanting to cut costs in the short-run, but being blind to longrange consequences. That causes more waste and destruction than is countable.

When we lose this war the entire mideast will be empowered and know just how to handle us. Then, when a real win is needed we'll end up getting totally destructive with another general bombing war. The Russians just developed a nuclear strength fuel bomb that doesn't involve radiation, look for that debuting in the teens or twenties.

#64 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

But the war in Iraq is not and never will be effective at delivering the freedoms we enjoy to others. In Afghanistan we took on an Islamicist regime that provided direct material support for the people that actually attacked us, that were so enmeshed that they basically were the people who actually attacked us. We had broad international support and we have been broadly succesful over time at both introducing meaningful new freedoms and an improved quality of life for most Afganis, particularly in the towns and cities.

In Iraq we invaded on the basis of trumped up intelligence that was rightfully and correctly questioned at every step of the build up with the barest minimum of nominal international support and no plan for how to deal with deep seated animosities amongst the people we were "liberating" once we toppled the ineffectual little dictator that was barely holding his mess of a country together.

The contractors who stood to profit immensely from the project and their closest political friends led the charge with incredulous claims that the whole endevour would be a walk in the park. When it turned out to be a mess likely to simmer for decades upon decades with no lasting result except to seriously damage our credibility virtually everywhere else in the world and to provide the worlds costliest ongoing recruitment video for Al Queda - no sweat off their back - the contractors are still getting paid and actually they are pleased as punch to have their contracts extended for another couple of decades.

The problem with Iraq is not that America has no stomach for pitching in on difficult but strategically sound wars to liberate peoples yearning for freedom. The problem is that most Iraqui's are yearning first and foremost with decades of pent-up resenment to smite their neighbors and the chaos and the rampant kidnapping we have helped to unleash has driven the members of the educated class that might have been part of the process of building a new Iraq out of the country as refugees.

It was idiocy to get involved in the first place. The "Iraqui government" such as it is now is either patronage machines designed to steal as much as possible as quickly as possible from us dumb Americans or the ministries themselves are overrun by ethnic militias using US paid-for weapons and equipment to operate a night time "dirty war" of internal ethnic cleansing. People have less security, less electricity, less basic government services than they did under Saddam after 5 years and the answer to get them to embrace our values is to "terrify" them a little more?

I agree its important for the US to use its influence to spread freedom and the benefits of a democratic society to people who are yearning for greater freedom but simply put Iraq is not Czechoslavakia just before the Velvet Revolution. That was pretty obvious going in.

Dumb.

jizay · #65 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

Then, moronically, the government decides not to take Saddam out of power....I partially blame the capitalist mindset

When don't you? Your post was right on target, except that the decision not to finsih the job in Iraq was made by the UN; we merely complied. You can say that our mistake was not breaking with the UN (whose forces were part of the invasion), but then the culprit doesn't look so much like capitalism.

jizay · #66 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedixon

I'll acknowledge this vision has been largely abandoned -- at least since the Mexican War when we stole the Southwest from Mexico. Certainly since the Spanish-American War, when we stole the Philippines. Possibly since the Revolution, which we fought largely to throw off British interference with our theft of what is now the Midwest from the Indians.

I would point to this paragraph as another example of how you hate America, but then 3 libs would tell me I'm a right-wing nutjob who says everyone who doesn't support the Iraq war is unpatriotic.

passyunk square · #67 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 01:46 PM

Or you can listen to Dick Cheney predict exactly what would happen if we invaded Iraq. As he explains succinctly the problem isn't simply a lack of allies, the problem is "what you put in its place" and "sections of the country flying off".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Quote:

Originally Posted by jizay

When don't you? Your post was right on target, except that the decision not to finsih the job in Iraq was made by the UN; we merely complied. You can say that our mistake was not breaking with the UN (whose forces were part of the invasion), but then the culprit doesn't look so much like capitalism.

passyunk square · #68 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

Dumb.

What's dumb is being dogmatic.

markedixon · #69 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jizay

I would point to this paragraph as another example of how you hate America, but then 3 libs would tell me I'm a right-wing nutjob who says everyone who doesn't support the Iraq war is unpatriotic.

Sure, you can "point to it" in a theatrical point-scoring fashion. But can you disprove it?

jizay · #70 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markedixon

Sure, you can "point to it" in a theatrical point-scoring fashion. But can you disprove it?

I don't even understand your question. You don't "prove" or "disprove" someone's embellished version of history. The facts are that wars took place and territories were acquired (the Phillipines was given independence). It is your naive and simplistic slant on the facts that shows your loathing of your country. Everything and everyone in your heritage was oppressive, war-making, and thieving according to you (see your post on Jamestown settlers). You never miss an opportunity to proclaim these views, just as you took many opportunities to call uniformed soldiers in our military terrorists. It's a pretty clear pattern, I'm just not sure why you bother to deny it.