Its the manifest destiny. In the 1800s it was our justification to spread religion, capitalism and democracy to the mexicans and the rest of the west. Now it is our justification to spread those things through the world things dont change. As an arrogant nation we force our system on others nothing shocking really

756161[/snapback]

 

:thumbdown

Somebody has to take out evil like Saddam and we did. We are the only country strong enough and we have enough balls to go in and do it. If you don't like it then move to France. I don't care if we have to force democracy- I believe in right and wrong and Saddam was wrong. I was sick of hearing about Saddam killing his own people who only love him because they fear him and raping women. If arrogance means taking out evil then Im all for it. Just about the only state who doesn't agree is all the California quacks.

757782[/snapback]

 

Then why are you not up in arms over things like Rawanda, or a zillion other african nations where things like genocide took place where armies took rule over countries and wiped out millions of people? And we did nothing to help. Iraq is not the only place where injustices occurred if you are going to police some you need to police all over and not just push your agenda on other countries when it conviniences you. Also, are you planning to sign up for the army anytime soon? because it is hella easy to say we should go here, here, over there, under here, and back this way, when it is not you being sent time and again coming back in a body bag. is the world a better place without saddam from our perspective, yeah sure, why not? was it worth it? he is still alive, and will be for a while, meanwhile countless innocent people are dead. the real "enemy" who attacked us on 9/11 are still out there, and not even in iraq. when did we become a country to use first strike against people who did not attack us? maybe we should invade canada next, they have stones and are pretty close, they could do bad things to us oh no. if we went to iraq solely to help out the people and those poor poor citizens, why are we not in cuba, africa, in south america somewhere helping out those people? because that is not why we went to iraq. it is because they are vastly different than us, resemble the enemy and that is reason enough to force our agenda on them.

757829[/snapback]

 

 

exactly.

 

 

thats a cop out, there are numerous regimes all over the world who do just that in terms of the treatment of their people.

 

I think I discussed that on page 1 of this thread.

 

 

there has to be some underlying reason other than saddam was a 'bad man'

 

 

there are 'bad men' all over the world, yet we earmark iraq and saddam as the one to go after.

 

 

try again.

Its the manifest destiny. In the 1800s it was our justification to spread religion, capitalism and democracy to the mexicans and the rest of the west. Now it is our justification to spread those things through the world things dont change. As an arrogant nation we force our system on others nothing shocking really

756161[/snapback]

 

:thumbdown

Somebody has to take out evil like Saddam and we did. We are the only country strong enough and we have enough balls to go in and do it. If you don't like it then move to France. I don't care if we have to force democracy- I believe in right and wrong and Saddam was wrong. I was sick of hearing about Saddam killing his own people who only love him because they fear him and raping women. If arrogance means taking out evil then Im all for it. Just about the only state who doesn't agree is all the California quacks.

757782[/snapback]

 

 

I agree that Saddam needed to be replaced as he is a major destablizing agent in a region where we REALLY don't need that. However you are saying some things that aren't exactly true.

 

Saddam's war machine after the first Gulf War was really in total dissaray and just about any industrial nation could take it out, i.e India, Pakistan, Russia etc. Though I agree with you that we were probably the only country with enough inititative and money to go about and wage a war and a sustained occupation and reconstruction. Hell, give me a Marine sniper scout, a jeep, maybe Jeff Conine,

and 3 tons of explosives and the 3 of us would probably end up crippling Saddam's ability to wage war.

 

As for Saddam killing his own people, yeah, there were plenty of mass incarcerations and executions of political dissisidents like Communits and Islamic Fundamentalists (Hey no wonder we liked him in the 80's!) but I think you are referring to his gassing of Kurdish settlements in the north of Iraq. The Kurds for the most part consider themselves Kurds before Iraqis and don't really care to be lumped together with Iraqi Arabs. Saddam's attacks were directed at the peshmerga(translated from the Kurdish as "those who face death") a Kurdish guerrilla movement that was a serious pain in the ass for Saddam in that region of Iraq. While I'm extremely sympathetic to the Kurds who were gassed I do make the distinction that they were in open rebellion against Saddam and not Saddam's "own people".

 

I'm not saying its wrong to support the war, I certainly do, but get your s*** together. None of that "spreading democracy to Arabs" pansy bs either.

it is because they are vastly different than us, resemble the enemy and that is reason enough to force our agenda on them.

 

That has to be the softest counter arguement I've ever heard about why we went to war.

 

Essentially you are saying this is an ethnocentric thing? I'm sorry, I have no idea how old you are or how educated you are so don't feel forced to back that up.

it is because they are vastly different than us, resemble the enemy and that is reason enough to force our agenda on them.

 

That has to be the softest counter arguement I've ever heard about why we went to war.

 

Essentially you are saying this is an ethnocentric thing? I'm sorry, I have no idea how old you are or how educated you are so don't feel forced to back that up.

757976[/snapback]

Definitley not with those who call the shots. But you have to admit that the mass majority of people in this country dont know that the middle east is a massively diverse area with diverse interests. Most people are raised around the concept of the region/ethnic state, not the nation state. Thats why Europeans are all lumped together. Thats why all people from South American, Central America, and Mexico are all lumped together. For that reason, 9-11 was an attack by a single nation, a nation of Arabs(Persians, Kurds everyone lumped under one term). Add to this that the idea that we were attacked by a nongovernmental organization simply is not understandable, especially since most people's history of war is just WW2 and Vietnam.

 

Thats where a good degree of the desire to go to war among a lot of people in this country came from. 9-11 was an act of war..a attack by Arabs on the US..so what difference does it make if we invade Iraq?

 

Why do you think a majority of Americans still believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11?

 

I think thats what twojuans was making a point of. Wildmarlinman would have supported the war for any reason because revenge was on his mind.

it is because they are vastly different than us, resemble the enemy and that is reason enough to force our agenda on them.

 

That has to be the softest counter arguement I've ever heard about why we went to war.

 

Essentially you are saying this is an ethnocentric thing? I'm sorry, I have no idea how old you are or how educated you are so don't feel forced to back that up.

757976[/snapback]

Definitley not with those who call the shots. But you have to admit that the mass majority of people in this country dont know that the middle east is a massively diverse area with diverse interests. Most people are raised around the concept of the region/ethnic state, not the nation state. Thats why Europeans are all lumped together. Thats why all people from South American, Central America, and Mexico are all lumped together. For that reason, 9-11 was an attack by a single nation, a nation of Arabs(Persians, Kurds everyone lumped under one term). Add to this that the idea that we were attacked by a nongovernmental organization simply is not understandable, especially since most people's history of war is just WW2 and Vietnam.

 

Thats where a good degree of the desire to go to war among a lot of people in this country came from. 9-11 was an act of war..a attack by Arabs on the US..so what difference does it make if we invade Iraq?

 

Why do you think a majority of Americans still believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11?

 

I think thats what twojuans was making a point of. Wildmarlinman would have supported the war for any reason because revenge was on his mind.

757986[/snapback]

 

I certainly agree that a good deal of Americans believe that there was a nexus between Al Queda and Iraq (an absurdity) and that was how the war was sold to the public.

 

However, I do think most Americans understand that an NGO, a terror group not a nation attacked us on 9/11.

 

My contention is that I don't think we attacked Iraq just because they are the same ethnic group as Al Queda terrorists but for much more complex security/economic reasons.

 

The Al Queda/Iraq nexus argument drives me up the walls. (I'm not saying you or anyone on here thinks this, I'm just venting.) The most basic, at-a-glance look at modern Mid-East history shows that Saddam and Al Queda are natural enemies. The idea that educated people and lay people alike buy into this really weirds me out.

one word

 

oil

Power and influence in the area brings oil privileges with it. I think it's a bigger picture than just oil. MarlinNation's right, I think that security was part of it, but there are more dangerous regimes out there who are much more of a [insert your favorite WMD] threat than Iraq. Iraq was probably seen as a way to make a statement. People that had Bush's ear wanted Iraq dealt with a long time ago. I'm talking about the Project For A New American Century guys here. Combine their agenda with the frustration over not being able to find Bin Laden and feeling they needed to kick someone's ass over 9/11, and that spells the end of Saddam. The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 certainly wasn't going to stop them. The Bush team certainly weren't going to remind anyone that Bin Laden and Saddam were natural enemies, because the public's ignorance about such things fit their plans anyway. I have little doubt that intel was "sexed up" on several different fronts.