What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

[Stravo]

More like this morning. They just killed a couple of more American soldiers and ambushed a bus of Iraqi soldiers, killing almost all of them.

Maybe the took time off to vote?

I hate to be stick in the mud guy and as cynical as I am I just don't find the death of American troops and a bus load of Iraqis to be very funny.

Now, the recent revelation of the use of Downs syndrome suicide bombers - that image alone makes me laugh.

I wish this mess would just end. I wonder if my parents felt this way watching Vietnam war coverage with death tolls creeping by on the TV every night.

[Crown]

Maybe the took time off to vote?

I hate to be stick in the mud guy and as cynical as I am I just don't find the death of American troops and a bus load of Iraqis to be very funny.

Now, the recent revelation of the use of Downs syndrome suicide bombers - that image alone makes me laugh.

I wish this mess would just end. I wonder if my parents felt this way watching Vietnam war coverage with death tolls creeping by on the TV every night.

No, you're right. I should have quoted Durandal instead. My 'point' was a play on the Bush Admin's childish claim that democracy is going to equal 'freedom' and 'peace and flowers for the USA'.

Seriously, what if these guys went down and voted? Who would they vote for?

[brianeyci]

It is not so clear cut to me.

What if this has been part of Bush's plan all along? He knew that selling the line "bring peace and freedom to the world" wouldn't be as sexy as "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". So he uses the latter, and then switches to the former once the sheep are in line.

I wouldn't be giving much credence to this "Bush is Right" claim, but I watch a show call "Diplomatic Immunity" on TVO (Canadian) and one of the panel members recently changed his tune to "Bush is right". This is no fringe guy we're talking about, this is an informed and educated person who writes for the Toronto Star, normally a centrist/liberal newspaper.

As well, it does it really matter that Bush was wrong before, or that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, in judging his current stance on Iraq? Consider his peace and freedom idea in isolation. Is it a good idea to go around spreading peace and freedom where you can? Not going to NK or other more opressed states is a counter-point, but not a very good one because obviously the US has to do this one country at a time. Also, the disaster of the post-occupation does not counter the overall idea, which is...

Is it right to go around spreading peace and freedom? Bush says yes. I would have said no, but now I'm not so sure.

Brian

[Chmee]

Is it right to go around spreading peace and freedom? Bush says yes. I would have said no, but now I'm not so sure.

Brian

I think it's pure hubris to think that we have anything to tell an Islamic country about how to shape its government and culture. There's no evidence that we're good at it. Let's stop subsidizing military dictators and single-party rulers-for-life, then we can start talking about how important freedom is to us.

The question I would be asking is How many people are you willing to kill, and get killed, in your pursuit of this 'peace and freedom' you speak of? The dead may be liberated in some manner of speaking, but they're not enjoying much freedom. Let people fight for their own freedom from tyranny, let's just not get in the way of that. The Phillipinos threw off their dictator after we stopped propping him up ... the Iranians threw off the Shah ... the Russians threw off the Bolsheviks ... it's not like there are no examples of a tyrannical police state being removed by its own people in the last 25 years, so why do we think we have to IMPOSE the change on nations from outside, at the cost of our own soldiers lives? If they're so hungry for freedom, let them TAKE it like everybody else who removed a dictator.

[Darth Wong]

Is it right to go around spreading peace and freedom? Bush says yes. I would have said no, but now I'm not so sure.

Brian

They didn't go anywhere to spread peace and freedom. That was just their ad hoc rationale after their "we must defend ourselves from the horrible threat of Saddam's 45-minute WMD missiles" rationale fell apart. As I said, making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Once they're in country and it's obvious that they killed tens of thousands of people over a lie, they might as well try to make the best of it.

[brianeyci]

They didn't go anywhere to spread peace and freedom. That was just their ad hoc rationale after their "we must defend ourselves from the horrible threat of Saddam's 45-minute WMD missiles" rationale fell apart. As I said, making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Once they're in country and it's obvious that they killed tens of thousands of people over a lie, they might as well try to make the best of it.

I know this. But what about the current message of the Bush administration? Are you saying they are not really intent on spreading peace and freedom throughout Iraq? I'm sure they want Iraq to be autonomous, so that they can pull out as quickly as possible. The elections proved that a majority of Iraqis are intent on taking destiny in their own hands. In other words,

Is Bush right now?

Brian

[Darth Wong]

They didn't go anywhere to spread peace and freedom. That was just their ad hoc rationale after their "we must defend ourselves from the horrible threat of Saddam's 45-minute WMD missiles" rationale fell apart. As I said, making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Once they're in country and it's obvious that they killed tens of thousands of people over a lie, they might as well try to make the best of it.

I know this. But what about the current message of the Bush administration? Are you saying they are not really intent on spreading peace and freedom throughout Iraq?

Of course they are, because it's the only way they can salvage a positive from their clusterfuck. But I don't believe them for a second when they say they want to spread peace and freedom to the whole world. Especially the "peace" part; their administration has been characterized by constant warfare, punctuated only by bursts of sabre-rattling.

[brianeyci]

To elaborate on what I mean by right... well, we never analyze writer's intent in sci-fi. Even if Bush's intent had been wrong, what about his actions. When I mean "Was Bush right", I mean "Was Bush right in his actions" rather than his intent.

Brian

[Darth Wong]

To elaborate on what I mean by right... well, we never analyze writer's intent in sci-fi. Even if Bush's intent had been wrong, what about his actions. When I mean "Was Bush right", I mean "Was Bush right in his actions" rather than his intent.

Brian

See my earlier analogy of trying to get a homeless man a job after you beat him up and raped him. Is it good to get the guy a job? Yes. Does this mean you're a great guy? No.

[Chmee]

To elaborate on what I mean by right... well, we never analyze writer's intent in sci-fi. Even if Bush's intent had been wrong, what about his actions. When I mean "Was Bush right", I mean "Was Bush right in his actions" rather than his intent.

Brian

That's a much easier one to answer: no. Before Bush: 0 Americans being killed by terrorists in Iraq. After Bush: a thousand dead Americans and counting, and Iraq opened up to foreign terrorists like some kind of Terror-pa-looza.

[Enforcer Talen]

I think we're at 1500

[brianeyci]

I think we're at 1500

What's that supposed to mean? Do you think I'm padding my post count? I couldn't give a flying fuck about my post count.

Brian

[Chmee]

I think we're at 1500

What's that supposed to mean? Do you think I'm padding my post count? I couldn't give a flying fuck about my post count.

Brian

no, that was directed at me, I think, for understating the fatality count at 1,000 when it's closer to 1,500.

[brianeyci]

no, that was directed at me, I think, for understating the fatality count at 1,000 when it's closer to 1,500.

Okay my apologies .

Brian

[Petrosjko]

I'd make a crack about 'doth protesting too much', but you seem touchy today Brian.

[Durandal]

To elaborate on what I mean by right... well, we never analyze writer's intent in sci-fi. Even if Bush's intent had been wrong, what about his actions. When I mean "Was Bush right", I mean "Was Bush right in his actions" rather than his intent.

Brian

That's a much easier one to answer: no. Before Bush: 0 Americans being killed by terrorists in Iraq. After Bush: a thousand dead Americans and counting, and Iraq opened up to foreign terrorists like some kind of Terror-pa-looza.

Not only that, but Bush has succeeded in turning Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground. Not only is this a bad thing because it means more terrorists, but it means that the Iraqi people are now up to their asses in terrorists.

We brought terrorism to Iraq, and the Iraqi people are suffering because of it. Sure, they can vote, but what good is it if an election requires closing down every street in Baghdad and basically declaring martial law?

[Stravo]

We brought terrorism to Iraq, and the Iraqi people are suffering because of it. Sure, they can vote, but what good is it if an election requires closing down every street in Baghdad and basically declaring martial law?

Silly Durandal, didn't you know Iraq was the home base of terrorism? That Al-Qaeda and others trained there so how could we bring terrorism to Iraq? No my friend, we bring freedom and liberty and democracy - But wait - we're not imposing our way of government on them.

[Predator]

I'm sure they want Iraq to be autonomous, so that they can pull out as quickly as possible.

No, they dont want to pull out, at least not completely. For a long time - before they entered the white house - the strategic goal has been the establishment of a permanent military presence in Iraq.

Read "Rebuilding America's Defences", a PNAC document you can find here.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Page 27:

IF you want to see who are members or who have been involved with PNAC, you can read about it here. Highlights include:

Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Richard Perle
Karl Rove
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz

[Darth Wong]

I will personally torture myself by watching "Four Weddings and a Funeral" if the US doesn't leave "enduring bases" in Iraq throughout the rest of the decade as per the PNAC.

[kheegster]

Of course, the posted article neglected the fact that most of Iraq's economic interests were sold off to the highest bidder (most of which coincidentally turned out to be American companies). That's true freedom indeed.....when huge chunks of your economy is in foreign hands.

In any case, most people (especially in the 3rd world) would diagree with the statement 'Give me liberty or give me death'. Most people would prefer to live a comfortable life under an authoritarian government than life as paupers under a free country.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, the posted article neglected the fact that most of Iraq's economic interests were sold off to the highest bidder (most of which coincidentally turned out to be American companies). That's true freedom indeed.....when huge chunks of your economy is in foreign hands.

That reminds me of the fact that in the post-WW2 period, nothing has drawn a more consistently hostile response from Washington DC than foreign countries nationalizing the parts of their economy that are owned by US interests.

So, what if Iraq's democratic government someday declares that it's going to nationalize all of the assets that are currently owned by American companies? Will America bow to the "will of the people"?

[The Kernel]

Of course, the posted article neglected the fact that most of Iraq's economic interests were sold off to the highest bidder (most of which coincidentally turned out to be American companies). That's true freedom indeed.....when huge chunks of your economy is in foreign hands.

That reminds me of the fact that in the post-WW2 period, nothing has drawn a more consistently hostile response from Washington DC than foreign countries nationalizing the parts of their economy that are owned by US interests.

So, what if Iraq's democratic government someday declares that it's going to nationalize all of the assets that are currently owned by American companies? Will America bow to the "will of the people"?

This is one of the reasons that the Iraq efforts are ultimately doomed to failure. The Iraqi economy is largely driven by its oil industry, without which it would be a third world country. Because of the breakdown of such an industry (low employment, high profits) it screams out for a form of socialist subsidized industry model, or else you end up with a country like Saudi Arabia with 25% unemployement and all of the money being horded by the ruling class.

Naturally the US doesn't understand these principles, and will be pushing a pure capitalist model in Iraq. Because of this, and because we want a piece of the pie, Iraq is well on its way to establishing an oil oligarchy which will leave the people far worse off then they were under Saddam (especially pre-Gulf War I)

[Chmee]

Of course, the posted article neglected the fact that most of Iraq's economic interests were sold off to the highest bidder (most of which coincidentally turned out to be American companies). That's true freedom indeed.....when huge chunks of your economy is in foreign hands.

That reminds me of the fact that in the post-WW2 period, nothing has drawn a more consistently hostile response from Washington DC than foreign countries nationalizing the parts of their economy that are owned by US interests.

So, what if Iraq's democratic government someday declares that it's going to nationalize all of the assets that are currently owned by American companies? Will America bow to the "will of the people"?

This is one of the reasons that the Iraq efforts are ultimately doomed to failure. The Iraqi economy is largely driven by its oil industry, without which it would be a third world country. Because of the breakdown of such an industry (low employment, high profits) it screams out for a form of socialist subsidized industry model, or else you end up with a country like Saudi Arabia with 25% unemployement and all of the money being horded by the ruling class.

Naturally the US doesn't understand these principles, and will be pushing a pure capitalist model in Iraq. Because of this, and because we want a piece of the pie, Iraq is well on its way to establishing an oil oligarchy which will leave the people far worse off then they were under Saddam (especially pre-Gulf War I)

And since that oligarchy will face a well-trained, well-financed and politically motivated insurgency, we will have succeeded in creating not a new Japan or Germany .... but a new Colombia.

[SirNitram]

I'm sure they want Iraq to be autonomous, so that they can pull out as quickly as possible.

No, they dont want to pull out, at least not completely. For a long time - before they entered the white house - the strategic goal has been the establishment of a permanent military presence in Iraq.

Read "Rebuilding America's Defences", a PNAC document you can find here.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Page 27:

IF you want to see who are members or who have been involved with PNAC, you can read about it here. Highlights include:

Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Richard Perle
Karl Rove
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz

An interesting article. Particularly when you look at the crap they spew about their mission.

A 'core mission' for the military is 'Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'. I don't know about you, but unless forced, it's general best to avoid multiple large engagements. To declare you will do this as a core function is mildly worrying.

The projects they endorse and condemn worry me a bit. While they are for the badly needed F-22, they were in favor of the questionable Commanche, and the.. As I hear it from my Marine friends... Lethal Osprey. On the other hand, they want to deep-six the CVX and Crusader. While I'm unsure of the CVX's necessity, it strikes me as somewhat stupid to skimp on artillery peices.

I'm amused by the idea that they think they can control cyberspace. Oh. And we're supposed to get the US Space Forces, to control space.

Most amusing, though, was the use of the phrase Pax Americana. No doubt trying to imagine that the US is enforcing something akin to the great Pax Romana or perhaps the less successful Pax Britannia, one should ignore the many local conflicts, blossoming terrorism, and dictators. We have a Peace!

[Chmee]

I'm sure they want Iraq to be autonomous, so that they can pull out as quickly as possible.

No, they dont want to pull out, at least not completely. For a long time - before they entered the white house - the strategic goal has been the establishment of a permanent military presence in Iraq.

Read "Rebuilding America's Defences", a PNAC document you can find here.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Page 27:

IF you want to see who are members or who have been involved with PNAC, you can read about it here. Highlights include:

Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Richard Perle
Karl Rove
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz

An interesting article. Particularly when you look at the crap they spew about their mission.

A 'core mission' for the military is 'Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'. I don't know about you, but unless forced, it's general best to avoid multiple large engagements. To declare you will do this as a core function is mildly worrying.

The projects they endorse and condemn worry me a bit. While they are for the badly needed F-22, they were in favor of the questionable Commanche, and the.. As I hear it from my Marine friends... Lethal Osprey. On the other hand, they want to deep-six the CVX and Crusader. While I'm unsure of the CVX's necessity, it strikes me as somewhat stupid to skimp on artillery peices.

I'm amused by the idea that they think they can control cyberspace. Oh. And we're supposed to get the US Space Forces, to control space.

Most amusing, though, was the use of the phrase Pax Americana. No doubt trying to imagine that the US is enforcing something akin to the great Pax Romana or perhaps the less successful Pax Britannia, one should ignore the many local conflicts, blossoming terrorism, and dictators. We have a Peace!

Those clowns don't want a military to protect America or Americans ... they want a rapid-response force to protect the foreign investments of the top 2% of American shareholders. And we're supposed to cheerily send our sons & daughters out to die for these assholes' halfbaked geopolitical theory?

Not in my lifetime.