Iraq War Theories...

[tkhayes 134]

also see my original post about 'threats to our national security regarding Iraq. The threats were made up.

that was my point - we were lied to. Saddam Hussein is no more a threat to US national security than Milosevic was/is. Or for that matter no more a threat than the leaders of Syria - but we do not invade Syria.

I would take North Korea to be a bigger threat if you believe that WMD's are a problem - why are we no invading there?
(again cause they got no oil)
TK

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"WMD's, terrorist connections, etc. were NOT really the reason the Bush Administration wanted to go to war in Iraq, what do you think WAS?"

I think the whole thing was one of two options.
The whole thing was personal between Bush (both of them) and Saddam.
Or...
Iran successfully manipulated the USA against its old enemy Iraq, and got one over on the USA/UK (the same pair that installed the Shah in the '50s) at the same time.

Either option is pretty scary, and it may turn out that its a combination of several factors, but thats my current take on things.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nigel99 144]

There is no simple answer. I have wondered for a long time about it.

However I am currently reading a book that explains the background and makes alot of sense. I will try and post a summary when I am finished reading but it takes the historical differences and logic back to the 2nd world war as a starting point.

"Allies at War"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0071441204/qid=1089039581/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-3135618-9415003

The book appears to be neutral in its bias and not pro or anti-war so far.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[billvon 2,407]

>I would take North Korea to be a bigger threat if you believe that
> WMD's are a problem - why are we no invading there?

Because they probably actually have them, for one thing.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>I would take North Korea to be a bigger threat if you believe that
> WMD's are a problem - why are we no invading there?

Because they probably actually have them, for one thing.

The ex Congressman/lobbyist I spoke to at the meeting of the Lincoln Club (who explained the "clean up the block" matter) answered my question about No. Ko. When I asked about the threat from No. Ko. and their terrorism and WMD's, he gave three reasons for not going after it:

1) There's nothing there. North Korea does not have the resources to affect our interests positively, i.e. oil of Iraq and stabilization of the middle east.

2) They are contained. The other countries around No Ko have generally been behaving themselves.

3) We can't beat them with conventional warfare. If try tried to move in on No Ko, they'd launch their million man army right down the peninsula and take South Korea. We'd be powerless to stop them without resorting to our WMDs.

In other words, the Iraqi situation was not about principle - it was about pragmatism.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,407]

>In other words, the Iraqi situation was not about principle - it was about pragmatism.

Agreed there. And I believe that if they had nukes they'd use them. Even an air detonation over the ocean would destroy 75% of our satellites; why wouldn't they take such an action if they knew they would be defeated anyway?

Iraq was an easy target. No nuclear weapons, no serious defenses, no million many army, no neighbors to piss off. It also fit into our desires a la PNAC, and the country was still fearful from 9/11. Everything came together perfectly for a war like this one.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

>I would take North Korea to be a bigger threat if you believe that
> WMD's are a problem - why are we no invading there?

Because they probably actually have them, for one thing.

A year and a half ago all the liberal pansies were saying that we should go after N. Korea instead of Iraq. Well, where are they now? The U.S. is still at war with N. Korea. The Korean War ended in a truce, but the two sides have yet to sign a peace treaty.
Korea is no Iraq! War would be long, bloody and probably involve a nuclear exchange with China. The Clinton administration betrayed our country by all of its backroom deals. I believe that war with China is inevitable and the sooner we realize that the better.
Diplomacy and strength is the only way to prevent this approaching holacaust. When it comes to N. Korea and The Peoples Republic of China we all need to be Americans; not the vaccillating, divided country we were during Iraq.


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

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Castro is a threat to our national security? Why?

Castro is a threat because he once proved he'd help another superpower defeat the US. What makes you think he wouldn't do it again? Go read any of Castro's fantasyland rhetoric over the last four decades, then let me know why we should have diplomatic relations with the guy. But when he passes away, I believe our relationship with Cuba will change drastically in one way or another.

Quote

Sorry about the 'racist' language' but it is hard to display sarcasm in print. My experiences here in Zephyrhills, especially recently, lead me to believe that much of the USA is still very much racist and people still hold the beliefs that blacks are inferior, depsite what the law might say.

There is still racism in the USA, but I believe it is diminishing ever so slowly. Maybe in 50 years it'll become a thing of the past. That's what I hope for.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I would take North Korea to be a bigger threat if you believe that WMD's are a problem - why are we no invading there?
(again cause they got no oil)

And again, why hasn't the US invaded Venezuela? Do you have any idea how weak and vulnerable they are? Do you understand how much oil they have?

. . =(_8^(1)

[tkhayes 134]

the ORIGINAL question was about invading Iraq and why? Diversed into N Korea, Venezula, Cuba, etc.

No one has come up with reasons to invade them, plenty of why not to,

My point exactly - Iraq is no different, we have/had no reason to be there,

The threat is LESS than N. Korea, we apparently do NOT invade just for oil (Venzuela) and we do not invade just do dispose of dictators (Cuba).

Part of the trouble with America - it never seems to admit when it is wrong. Might go a long way to say - hey, we invaded and there are no WMD's, now let's clean this up, do some rebuilding and get out. - you do not even need to apologize, just act.

Instead now were are fighting "terrorists and insurgents" in a country that never had any to begin with and we treat them like they are the enemy. Maybe they just want their freakin' country back - you would do the same if some superpower invaded the USA just for resources, oil, or for no good reason.

Would you consider YOURSELF a terrorist if you were hiding in the Tennessee hills picking off Russian invaders as they drove by?

Time to leave Iraq - if we NEVER went there, the world would be the same as it was 3 years ago - only 10,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive, and so would 850 US soldiers. And I would not be looking at a 200B debt for a war either - money we could be putting into finding Osama (or perhaps food, medicne and education in our own country)
TK

PS - what happened to finding him anyway?

[billvon 2,407]

>A year and a half ago all the liberal pansies were saying that we
>should go after N. Korea instead of Iraq. Well, where are they now?

I didn't hear anyone say that. I did hear a lot of people saying that North Korea was a bigger threat than Iraq, so it was silly to say that we were going after Iraq to protect ourselves while ignoring a much bigger threat. Let's hope that mistake was not a huge one.

>Korea is no Iraq! War would be long, bloody and probably involve a
> nuclear exchange with China.

Agreed. Iraq was much easier to invade.

>The Clinton administration betrayed our country by all of its
> backroom deals.

Deals the Bush administration is now repeating:

-------------------------------------
Michael A. Lev
Chicago Tribune
Jun. 24, 2004 12:00 AM

BEIJING - Seeking to persuade North Korea to abandon its threat to produce nuclear weapons, the Bush administration Wednesday for the first time handed the North a detailed proposal promising an aid package and a guarantee not to attack in exchange for a commitment to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
---------------------------------------

But I don't think that's a betrayal any more than the Clinton-era fuel pledges were a betrayal. They may be our enemy, but sometimes it pays to offer your enemy a better solution than war.

>I believe that war with China is inevitable and the sooner we
>realize that the better.

I think it's likely but not inevitable. Everyone thought that war with the USSR was inevitable, but we were smart enough to avoid it. I am hoping we can be as smart with China, although to do so we have to abandon the "destroy all those who might someday threaten us" policy.

>Diplomacy and strength is the only way to prevent this approaching
> holacaust. When it comes to N. Korea and The Peoples Republic of
> China we all need to be Americans; not the vaccillating, divided
> country we were during Iraq.

Agreed there 100%. We have to make it clear that China has a way forward that involves peace and another that involves war, and then do everything we can to make sure that China (and the US) chooses the roads towards peace.

[lawrocket 3]

The only reason war with China would be inevitable is to continue the current "Pearl Harbor" theory of pre-emptive attack against those who may be threats.

Unfortunately, we cannot afford a war with China, and they cannot afford a war with us. This is not militarily speaking, but economically. Add to that the fact that we'd have to take over the Panama Canal.

China is actually, in my opinion, the best go-between to have in this No Ko situation. They've got a lot to gain or lose with it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Luv2Fall 0]

Agreed.

[mardigrasbob 0]

I agree entirely, except that; who would have predicted that the USSR would collapse.
I hope you are right. I tend to be more pessimistic. I would have attacked USSR in '48 and China in '52. I hope I am wrong about China but who knows. One thing for sure; something very similar to the popular uprising in USSR will have to occur in China.




---------

[crozby 0]

What has China done that makes you so wary of it?

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

What has China done that makes you so wary of it?

1. Maoist/communist
2. Nuclear weapons
3. 1.2 billion people
4. Korea (Yalu River)54,246 Americans service men and women lost their lives during the Korean War
5. Vietnam 58,178 Americans service men and women lost their lives during theVietnam War
6. Taiwan
7. American sales of nuclear and rocket technology during the 1990s



---------

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

What has China done that makes you so wary of it?

1. Maoist/communist
2. Nuclear weapons
3. 1.2 billion people
4. Korea (Yalu River)54,246 Americans service men and women lost their lives during the Korean War
5. Vietnam 58,178 Americans service men and women lost their lives during theVietnam War
6. Taiwan
7. American sales of nuclear and rocket technology during the 1990s



---------

You can add:

- Fastest growing economy in the World (for years now). Second biggest user of oil now and probably the biggest polluter.
- Largest Army in the world
- Aggressive foreign policy

Strategically China is the most important Nation to watch. Clinton knew, GWB is to busy being a crusader in the Middle East....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[crozby 0]

You put communist at the top of your list. What exactly is wrong or scarey about a nation that is communist?

[nigel99 144]

or 1.2 billion people?

Does that mean the US has the right to "reduce" their population through a war and thereby eliminate that "threat"?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

You put communist at the top of your list. What exactly is wrong or scarey about a nation that is communist?

It means no free elections and no free press to hold the government acountable. This makes it more dangerous.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Botellines 0]

The US have free election and free press (allegedly) and some poeple consider the "freely elected president" the biggest threat to peace.

You should worry about China but not because comunism or 1.2 billion citizens. You should worry because after what the US has done in Irak and the precedent it has set, should the US do any attempt to preemptively "fix" the situation, China will use their nukes. And if you use your nukes first, the international community will be pissed big time.

[tonyhays 86]

I can't imagine a scenario where the U.S. will drop the "bomb" first. We have too many other weapons in the arsenal that we can use.

Quote

the international community will be pissed big time

As opposed to now???

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[crozby 0]

Quote

It means no free elections and no free press to hold the government acountable. This makes it more dangerous.

Dangerous to whome? Free elections and press didn't prevent Enron et al from screwing its employees and shareholders. Nor did it prevent Tony Blair from suspending a pledged ban on tobacco advertising following a 1 million pound donation from the owner of Formula One racing - a sport reliant on that advertising. Nor did it prevent the USA from invading Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts in the face of overwhelming opposition from the rest of the world. People in capitalist societies are constantly fucked over by governments and big business.

There are millions of people on this planet who are as happy living under a communist regime as others are living under a capitalist system. The Democratic way isn't the only way or the best way, it is just another imperfect system that works most of the time for most of the people under it.

China is far more interested in making stuff and selling it to the rest of the world than in converting anyone to communism. It is already becoming more 'westernised' and allowing increased foreign investment.

The only recent 'conflict' with China was when they caught a US spyplane that then collided with and downed one of their fighters back in 2001. Other than that, what threat have they posed to any western nation?

I wish more Americans would go to places like China on holiday - they are different and fascinating countried and not at all as scarey as people have been manipulated into believing by all the cold war propaganda bullshit.

[Botellines 0]

The international community is mildly pissed at the moment.
Bush had the support of the two biggest European buffons (Blair and Aznar, and not neccesarily in that order). I would think that next time something like that happens The US will not count with the muppets support. And The international comunity will be greatly pissed

edited for clarity

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

Quote

It means no free elections and no free press to hold the government acountable. This makes it more dangerous.

Dangerous to whome? Free elections and press didn't prevent Enron et al from screwing its employees and shareholders. Nor did it prevent Tony Blair from suspending a pledged ban on tobacco advertising following a 1 million pound donation from the owner of Formula One racing - a sport reliant on that advertising. Nor did it prevent the USA from invading Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts in the face of overwhelming opposition from the rest of the world. People in capitalist societies are constantly fucked over by governments and big business.

There are millions of people on this planet who are as happy living under a communist regime as others are living under a capitalist system. The Democratic way isn't the only way or the best way, it is just another imperfect system that works most of the time for most of the people under it.

China is far more interested in making stuff and selling it to the rest of the world than in converting anyone to communism. It is already becoming more 'westernised' and allowing increased foreign investment.

The only recent 'conflict' with China was when they caught a US spyplane that then collided with and downed one of their fighters back in 2001. Other than that, what threat have they posed to any western nation?

I wish more Americans would go to places like China on holiday - they are different and fascinating countried and not at all as scarey as people have been manipulated into believing by all the cold war propaganda bullshit.

I disagree with everything you say, and would fight to the death to preserve your right to say it!



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