Some Americans seem to enjoy playing this game called "what country to invade next, cause we're big and powerful". I'm not familiar with this game and I kinda feel disgusted by it. Does the word "peace" mean anything to you? How about invading noone and stop bringing death and chaos to the world?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I think in another 5-10 years a war with Iran is possible
- Thread starter HAOHMARU
- Start date
- Status
I know you didn't say that, I did. I was exaggerating to make a point. You said nothing concrete has been established and my response is that you shouldn't expect it to be.
Yes, we will have to stay there for a while but if it brings freedom to Iraq and the region then it will be worth it.
Japan isn't exactly our enemy these days and look at the devastation we did to that country.
I say it's a wash.
I understand the people of Iraq didn't attack us but we saved them from a life of fear and torture. Things are rough now but as soon as an Iraqi defense force gets up and running many of these security problems will disapear. People are buying independant newspapers and having open debates. This is something unheard of during Saddam's rule. Schools and hospitals are of better quality now. Many good things are happening.
Conversly we didn't drop two nukes on them either.
If Japan can become an alley and friend then surely Iraq can.
I understand the people of Iraq didn't attack us but we saved them from a life of fear and torture. Things are rough now but as soon as an Iraqi defense force gets up and running many of these security problems will disapear. People are buying independant newspapers and having open debates. This is something unheard of during Saddam's rule. Schools and hospitals are of better quality now. Many good things are happening.
Conversly we didn't drop two nukes on them either.
If Japan can become an alley and friend then surely Iraq can.
Two points.
1) The "domino effect" of democracy in the Middle East is more or less what the current American strategy is in the War on Terror. It's not directly comparable to Soviet policy, as the American policy essentially is relying on setting a democratic seed in the Middle East and hoping that it takes root in such a way that other countries eventually move in that direction. The idea is that a democratic, secular nation (or at least, more secular than rule strictly by Islamic Law or Dictatorship) will cease to be a breeding ground for terror, as people gain personal liberties and become in control of their own destiny. The official doctrine is popularly called Preventive or Preemptive War. A copy of the official counter-terrorism strategy can be seen here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/counter_terrorism/counter_terrorism_strategy.pdf
It is my guess that Iraq became the focus for the preemptive war because they both blatantly disregarded UN resolutions (making them a more palatable target) and have a history of a freer and more democratic society as recently as the '70s. It wasn't terribly long ago that Baghdad was an international modern city, where people might actually like to visit.
Iran is another example of a Middle Eastern nation with a liberal history. I think that the hope is that the Iranian people will rise up against the Mullahs, as there are demonstrations and clashes between the government and its citizens continually. It's not on the scale of a full on civil war, but there have been a few uprisings within some portions of Iran within the last year, particularly over the election results in Northern Iran (which were apparently, fixed). The students at their universities continuously protest rule by the Grand Council. Unfortunately, this news is widely unreported in Western News, though occasionally small pieces slip into major newspapers. It's possible that this civil unrest will eventually result in a full scale Iranian uprising, but then again it may not.
1) The "domino effect" of democracy in the Middle East is more or less what the current American strategy is in the War on Terror. It's not directly comparable to Soviet policy, as the American policy essentially is relying on setting a democratic seed in the Middle East and hoping that it takes root in such a way that other countries eventually move in that direction. The idea is that a democratic, secular nation (or at least, more secular than rule strictly by Islamic Law or Dictatorship) will cease to be a breeding ground for terror, as people gain personal liberties and become in control of their own destiny. The official doctrine is popularly called Preventive or Preemptive War. A copy of the official counter-terrorism strategy can be seen here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/counter_terrorism/counter_terrorism_strategy.pdf
It is my guess that Iraq became the focus for the preemptive war because they both blatantly disregarded UN resolutions (making them a more palatable target) and have a history of a freer and more democratic society as recently as the '70s. It wasn't terribly long ago that Baghdad was an international modern city, where people might actually like to visit.
Iran is another example of a Middle Eastern nation with a liberal history. I think that the hope is that the Iranian people will rise up against the Mullahs, as there are demonstrations and clashes between the government and its citizens continually. It's not on the scale of a full on civil war, but there have been a few uprisings within some portions of Iran within the last year, particularly over the election results in Northern Iran (which were apparently, fixed). The students at their universities continuously protest rule by the Grand Council. Unfortunately, this news is widely unreported in Western News, though occasionally small pieces slip into major newspapers. It's possible that this civil unrest will eventually result in a full scale Iranian uprising, but then again it may not.
Disappear might have been the wrong word but it will surely help the security situation. I believe as Iraqi's become freer they will stop tolerating these thugs and really start to go after them. After a while it will become clear that these criminals are trying to tear down their country. It might take some time for them to come to that realization but I believe it will happen.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
If a democracy willfully elects a fundalmentalist Islamic government is it still a democracy?
WWII Germany was a democracy. Democracy doesn't = good. And I think it is more important to US policy makers that a government be friendly to US needs than to be a true democracy.
WWII Germany was a democracy. Democracy doesn't = good. And I think it is more important to US policy makers that a government be friendly to US needs than to be a true democracy.
With every name I'm called I know I'm getting my point across.
We invaded Iraq to rid the earth of Saddam and his regime and setup a stable free country in the heart of the Middle-East.
It was thought he had WMD's and might pass them on to known terrorists.
The fact that we haven't found them doesn't mean the first part of the mission was a failure.
You people get caught up in the WMD aspect and totally ignore the noble effort of freeing an entire people.
Will it be a puppet government after elections are held in January? And truthfully, even if you perceive this as a puppet government it is one thousand times better than Saddam's old regime. Something tells me there's nothing America can do to make you happy Che.
We invaded Iraq to rid the earth of Saddam and his regime and setup a stable free country in the heart of the Middle-East.
It was thought he had WMD's and might pass them on to known terrorists.
The fact that we haven't found them doesn't mean the first part of the mission was a failure.
You people get caught up in the WMD aspect and totally ignore the noble effort of freeing an entire people.
Will it be a puppet government after elections are held in January? And truthfully, even if you perceive this as a puppet government it is one thousand times better than Saddam's old regime. Something tells me there's nothing America can do to make you happy Che.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Cooter said:
How about I'm from the "I don't care about free Iraqis" Party. I don't care if Saddam killed every last Iraqi on the planet. Irrelevant to me. The fact of the matter is that if the people couldn't find it within themselves to rise up and revolt then we aren't doing them any favors by helping them.
To me it has been much more important to focus our resoures in Afghanstan. If we had a single minded determination in Afghanastan we would have a stable Afghanastan today.
Slick_Advanced said:
Exactly.
That was my point in my first post here. If people believe that a western-style democracy can be "installed" in ANY country, and especially a religious one, they're dreaming. It has to come from the people and if the people have different values then that's it-- they have different values. It's not those "evil-dictators" that are responsible for tradition and culture.
Cooter said:
If "freeing an entire people" was the secondary mission of the war in Iraq, then I've just been drafted by the Lakers. The point is invalid simply because Saddam was hardly the worst dictator on the planet, nor was he any substantial threat to the United States. IF we'd let the UN do their job, we would've found that out.
Don't be so gullible, seriously. If this administration had human rights in their sights, Iraq most certainly would NOT have been at the top of their "To Do" list.
Cooter said:
Noble effort...?
Ever heard of Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Why not free those people? Ok I get it. The nobles do not have the capability to free all people and the Iraqis were the lucky ones. So why not at least NOT BE BEST FRIENDS with those evil dictators like the Saudi royal family?
What's funny here is that if the Saudis got to freely elect a president it would probably be bin laden. :lol
xsarien said:
Freeing the Iraqi people was certainly one of the objectives of the Iraq War. Saying that Saddam should be in power because he is not the worst dictator is akin to saying "Cancer kills more people than AIDS, so why try to cure AIDS, it's not as dangerous as cancer." Taken to a logical extreme, this line of reasoning ultimately ends up with not ever dealing with any problem, unless it is the single worst problem. I agree that there are likely worse dictators than Saddam, but that doesn't change the fact he was pretty damn evil.
Funny...that's isn't the reason that was mentioned during the run-up to war. If the reason for going to war was that they were allegedly a threat -- oooooh, WMD! run and hide! -- and the evidence is showing that they were clearly NOT a threat, then it was a pretty goddamn big failure.Cooter said:
Fuck nobility. Americans are dying, and tens of billions of tax dollars are being spent on a fight that we shouldn't have started in the first place. And, oh yeah, if we are so "noble," then why are we ignoring places which are considerably worse? North Korea makes Saddam-era Iraq look like a vacation spot.
How about just admitting that the reason we invaded is that a) neocons control the Bush Administration foreign policy and b) Republicans, especially those with stock in Halliburton et al <COUGHCHENEYCOUGH> stand to get VERY rich?
Chrono said:
Iraq has a long history of being a secular country, where women were educated and able to work, and people were generally pretty free. This was for the most part pretty true even for a while after Saddam assumed power. It really turned for the worse at the start of the Iran-Iraq War.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
We invaded Iraq to rid the earth of Saddam and his regime and setup a stable free country in the heart of the Middle-East.
It was thought he had WMD's and might pass them on to known terrorists.
The fact that we haven't found them doesn't mean the first part of the mission was a failure.
You people get caught up in the WMD aspect and totally ignore the noble effort of freeing an entire people.
we invaded iraq because they where thought to be a clear and present danger. your own vice president said it last night. you want me to find the speech. somebody find the cheney speech and please highlight the part i'm talking about.
second, it wasnt "thought" he had WMD's, they were sure he had them and was producing them again.
third, the USA itself ignored the "noble" effort of freeing the iraqis. seing as they never sent enough troops to stabilize the country in the first place.
It was thought he had WMD's and might pass them on to known terrorists.
The fact that we haven't found them doesn't mean the first part of the mission was a failure.
You people get caught up in the WMD aspect and totally ignore the noble effort of freeing an entire people.
we invaded iraq because they where thought to be a clear and present danger. your own vice president said it last night. you want me to find the speech. somebody find the cheney speech and please highlight the part i'm talking about.
second, it wasnt "thought" he had WMD's, they were sure he had them and was producing them again.
third, the USA itself ignored the "noble" effort of freeing the iraqis. seing as they never sent enough troops to stabilize the country in the first place.
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
Iraq might have been a stable democracy in 20-30 years whether we'd invaded or not - who the hell knows? You're really setting the bar low here.
Slick_Advanced said:
I suggest you read up on your history. Hitler was appointed into a Chancellor position and proceeded to seize power.
http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_hitler.html
Che said:
I see your point, Saddam was definitely a direct result of American foreign policy, as was OBL. I can't deny this. It was done out of political expediency fighting the Cold War. I'm not defending it as "right", but that's how and why it happened. It's easy to look back and say "hey that was dumb, and it was", but it's more difficult to look at the issue from a Cold War perspective. It probably seemed like the right idea at the time, when the world was worried about Nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The fate of the small desert nation probably did not seem as important in that light.
Clearly, the US allies with dictators in the current situation, mainly Pervez Musharraf for the same reason. If we're looking for OBL in the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's hell of a lot easier to do if we don't have to fight the Pakistani army to do it. I don't know that it's the right thing to do, as it's clearly a moral disconnect from official policy, but there are always compromises.
Cooter said:
No, we didn't. Why should your typical American give a fuck about the Iraqi people, especially at the cost of the lives of their own troops and money? I very much doubt its a sacrifice they guenuinely would make, and didn't.
There was no 'first part' of the mission. The former was the only part. Don't try to manipulate history.
That was a convenient alliby, thats all.
We'll see if they are actually held. Don't get ahead of yourself. Hopefully it follows the democratic example of Afghanistan- oh, wait.. nevermind.
KingV said:
Well, Bush I's justification was that leaving him in power might, actually, save more lives that would otherwise be destroyed in the ensuing power vacuum of Saddam being thrown from power. But Dubya didn't listen to daddy. Why? Probably because Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz subscribe to a rather scary world outlook that involves using might instead of example to spread democracy. I'm not advocating never helping any suffering people, what I am advocating is us only using force when absolutely necessary. Ousting Saddam wasn't necessary, had Bush allowed the UN inspection teams to continue their work past March, we would've realized that. There's nothing more shameful than wasting our resources on a country that isn't nearly as dangerous to us as others are.
(And I find your willingness to compare Saddam to a virulent disease...quaint. But if you'd like some bearings, Saddam would be the flu. The Sudan and North Korea could battle it out for the Cancer medal, though.)
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
KingV said:
He was appointed by a duly elected President. As I said it was a democracy.
KingV said:
Yes because the US dropped it like a hot potato once Iraq became the "in" country to invade. Finding Bin Laden IMO is a US mission. Look at the bigger picture for a second. If the US would have going into Afghanistan focused all of our currrent troop strength in Afghanastan spent all the billions of dollars that rebuilding schools and roads and all that other stuff that
1. Could be used in domestic efforts at home
2. Would accelerate the creation of a stable Afghanstan.
This would have been far more effective in showing the world how the US works we would garner more help in the Arab world. The Iraq war at best was misguided and ill-advised at worst criminal.
Nukes are a problem, and the US has every right to say on the International table that this is wrong. Ties to terrorists? Where did this come from? Since when?
Well yes it's a possibility. Let me say this again. Bush fucked up diplomatic relations with that country.
Pop in Kerry, add a formal apology, and the issue is resolved. BAM! Like that. Restore friendly relations to it's Clinton-era times and everything is a-ok.
Slick_Advanced said:
Hitler basically strong armed his way into power, and then killed everyone else at a high level. Germany was a democracy BEFORE Hitler took power, but it certainly wasn't during WWII. You're splitting hairs.
It's a UN mission, the rebuilding of Afghanistan always was a UN mission. I understand it's not going well, but why are you specifically pinning all blame on the US. The blame should be shared equally throughout the UN.
KingV said:
Pardon fucking me. How the hell did it become a UN mission when the reason we attacked them was because they allowed Osama and Al Queada to stay within their borders and thus povided a base of operations for them to plan and impliment 9/11, a direct attack on America. Yet Iraq who has nevr attacked the US and who the US attacked under the pretense of enforcing UN resolutions is a Us problem. A little fucking backwards if you ask me. Shouldn't Afganistan be the US's problem and Iraq the UN.
ShadowRed said:
No need to get all smarmy.
The war in Iraq, and subsequent rebuilding, is a unilateral action involving the USA and its partners in the Coalition. Any successes and failures there are directly attributable to US and Coalition partner actions. They should get all credit for successes and take all blame for mistakes due directly to Coalition actions.
The *rebuilding* in Afghanistan, i.e. putting the country back together, is a UN mission. It was from the start. IIRC, the overthrow of the Taliban was a UN mission as well, but I'm not positive on that point. Yes, it was because of an attack on American soil, but the rebuilding is in the hands of the UN organization. If the rebuilding is screwed up, the UN F'ed it all up. The US forms part of the UN, but cannot take all the blame for failure there.
From your post, you evidently, are very informed on the topic at hand, or are discussing how things "should be". I am discussing how things are, facts. There is no room for nuance in these facts. You may disagree that the USA is invading Iraq to enforce UN sanctions, thinking that it's a stupid thing to do, but it is, nonetheless, the reality of the situation. Ditto with Afghanistan.
KingV said:
My post was simply to point out how assforward the situations are. I was actually under the impression that both Afganastan and Iraq was under the care custody and control of the US and was shocked to learn from your post that only Iraq was "our" problem so to speak. I wasn't actually asking you to explain the situation to me, I was just being rhetorical.
- Status