If we had only listened to this guy before invading Iraq. His prediction nailed it.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Don't you think this incompetence is at least borderline criminal?

Why can't we hold anyone accountable for this without being accused of hating the troops and being terrorist appeasers?

This is in the nature of government services, including military ones: no one is responsible and thus no one is accountable.

[Debaser]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s-the-buck.jpg

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by Corganist

In 2003, the negatives to invasion still existed, and I imagine Cheney was well aware of it. But the negatives to leaving Saddam in power were reevaluated through the post-9/11 prism and deemed to be much greater than they were in 91.

as you're well aware, that didn't make him/them right, and it doesn't make it worthwhile for you to dance around the edge of defending their stupidity.

Originally Posted by Corganist

Because there are better ways to deal with terrorists than appeasing them.

like playing right into the stereotypes about us that they use to win over hearts and minds in the middle east?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Don't you think this incompetence is at least borderline criminal?

In and of itself? No. I don't see how fucking up, even if it's fucking up badly, raises any presumption of a crime.

Why can't we hold anyone accountable for this without being accused of hating the troops and being terrorist appeasers?

Because while we dwell on accountability (mostly for purely political reasons), the job isn't getting done. One day it'll be worth it to look back and point fingers and all that...but doing that now just takes focus away from fixing the mess we've stepped in.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Mariner

as you're well aware, that didn't make him/them right, and it doesn't make it worthwhile for you to dance around the edge of defending their stupidity.

Sure it does. I don't think I said their perception of the situation was correct. But having a mistaken perception and (poorly) acting on it is not the same thing as indefensible stupidity.

like playing right into the stereotypes about us that they use to win over hearts and minds in the middle east?

Of course not. But there's got to be some middle ground between that and "Let's look at every thing Osama ever said he disliked about us and not do it anymore."

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by Corganist

But having a mistaken perception and (poorly) acting on it is not the same thing as indefensible stupidity.

we will have to agree to disagree there, especially when the course of global politics; a tremendous amount of fiscal, natural, and human resources; and tens if not hundreds of thousands of human lives are at stake.

Of course not. But there's got to be some middle ground between that and "Let's look at every thing Osama ever said he disliked about us and not do it anymore."

that middle ground certainly exists. unfortunately we have treaded nowhere near there, if that's indeed the correct area of the aforementioned spectrum of possible action.

[TicalFSU]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Because there are better ways to deal with terrorists than appeasing them.

Nice, my ideas would appease terrorists. Never heard that one.

The idea is to identify causes and address them, not exasperate the problem. Literally handing over weapons is basically what you are implying. If your strategy is to reduce terrorism, which is a f*cking tactic, you have to reduce the desire and possibility to employ it.

We have created more terrorists and terrorist organizations than "al *&#da" could imagine in Iraq. The Iraqi people want help (not necessarily from us) not more of the same (quagmire in their backyard). No means No god damn it. Gaza has been ablaze for months now. We are not decreasing ill sentiment towards our causes and soldiers in harms way

What has the government really done to reduce possibility of attack to the homeland? The ports and borders remain virtually unprotected. Airline travel is more a danger than before 9/11. I recommend reading "Unsafe at any Altitude" by Joseph Trento.

Keep in mind, Bush and Dick picked this war. They decided where and when the first shot would be fired. According to this video they knew exactly what they were getting into; then they constructed the OSP (Office of Special Planning) specifically to sell (forge, lie, blackmail) this mess to us. Its sick if not criminal.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I would bet that having a quagmire in Iraq pleases many terrorists.

Liberals too! (according to corganist)

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by To Starla

Liberals too! (according to corganist)

I've never said any such thing.

[sleeper]

corganist, i think there are two issues here:

one is, as madman said (when indeed did he become so sane?), a question of tactics. the broader political and strategic context may have changed (ehhh..) but the difficult realities of iraq that he described -- which, as he said, were a strong incentive away from occupation -- still existed in 2003 as they did in 1994. this is relevant because he is probably the foremost sponsor of the war in the bush administration and he seems to have paid scant attention to his own evident understanding of iraq in the actual invasion. this strikes at, as debaser is saying, the general incompetence of the administration.

two is that much of the (publicly stated) arguments for disposing him existed in both 2003 and 1994. why was the war even waged? because saddam was a threat? he was less of one in 2003 than in 1994, having borne years of inspections and sanctions. for humanitarian reasons? the arguments brought up with this usually hit on things like the "gassing of his own people," which happened in the 80's.

or was it to reshape the middle east in view of the new terrorist threat? laudable goal in theory, but how invading iraq would at all support that end is, to this day, beyond comprehension. in many ways, this is exactly what shouldnt have be done -- and, depressingly, this was actually precisely the thing that al qaeda wanted to be done. according to their own long term strategy, they wanted to use an attack on the US to draw them into a "bleeding war" in the middle east (phase 2 or something). that would rally the troops, so to speak, and from there they would overthrow domestic governments, and so on.

[sleeper]

im also really annoyed by your surreptitious whitewashing of a lot of things in this thread: this picture of the administration being kind of hapless suckers of poor intelligence or having -- ooops! hahah -- operated on mistaken assumptions is overly benign. ive made this point a million times it seems, but this collective amnesia of the reality of the prewar period -- which was incredibly divided and loaded with all kinds of dire debate -- is suspicious to say the least. there were no shortage of voices screaming stuff that is today accepted wisdom -- ie, they couldve and shouldve known what was going to happen was very likely going to happen, theyre victims of fucking nothing. this was a war of choice from beginning to end, this was a war that was pushed through with shameful politics, and this war that was not merely executed incompetently (although it was surely that), but, as debaser said, done with almost criminal negligence. "irresponsible" is a better word than "incompetent" i think, because theres something much more ugly than just stupidity here. maybe youre kind of ashamed of your support for the war (up until like, what, last month?), but just please dont whitewash dude

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by sleeper

corganist, i think there are two issues here:

one is, as madman said (when indeed did he become so sane?), a question of tactics. the broader political and strategic context may have changed (ehhh..) but the difficult realities of iraq that he described -- which, as he said, were a strong incentive away from occupation -- still existed in 2003 as they did in 1994. this is relevant because he is probably the foremost sponsor of the war in the bush administration and he seems to have paid scant attention to his own evident understanding of iraq in the actual invasion. this strikes at, as debaser is saying, the general incompetence of the administration.

I don't see it that way exactly. I agree it goes to the incompetence of the administration, but I don't agree that its because they ignored problems they obviously foresaw. The problem is that they foresaw these problems and still couldn't figure out a way to mitigate them. It seems to me that the sentiment is "They saw the drawbacks in 1991. They were still there in 2003. Thus, they should have avoided the invasion altogether." Whereas what I'm saying is that they should have had a lot better plan for dealing with those drawbacks.

or was it to reshape the middle east in view of the new terrorist threat? laudable goal in theory, but how invading iraq would at all support that end is, to this day, beyond comprehension.

I think this is where I get on a different page than everyone else. I think the invasion of Iraq was supposed to be some sort of first step in reshaping the middle east into something a little more friendly to western ideals. It never has been something I've thought was the best choice of all available, but it's never struck me as this incomprehensible, nonsensical thing that you're making it out to be. 9/11 happens. The US realizes it needs to cause sweeping change in the hearts and minds of the middle east in order to undermine terrorism. They decide to spread democracy, and chose to start with a country that A) had a regime that was openly hostile to us, B) flaunted the UN, C) supposedly stockpiled WMDs, D) was militarily weakened, E) had a populace who at one time seemed quite friendly to the US and seemed very open to the idea of regime change (before we hung them out to dry)....and so on.

Given all that, I don't see what's so hard to comprehend about why Iraq was chosen as the starting place/model for this democracy spreading experiment. At the most basic level, it did make some sense to think that overthrowing the regime and installing a free government would be easier there than it would be anywhere else. Where it starts to get incomprehensible is where they failed to consider anything but the rosiest of scenarios once the plan got put into action, no doubt. But as far as pie-in-the-sky best case scenarios go, the "Overthrow Saddam. The Iraqis love us for it. Install democracy. Iraq blossoms and becomes a beacon of light and freedom to the Muslim world" thing never seemed impossibly unrealistic to me. The questions only started to come in when you think about how they intended to reach those lofty goals with the piss-poor planning and execution they put into it.

this was a war of choice from beginning to end, this was a war that was pushed through with shameful politics, and this war that was not merely executed incompetently (although it was surely that), but, as debaser said, done with almost criminal negligence. "irresponsible" is a better word than "incompetent" i think, because theres something much more ugly than just stupidity here. maybe youre kind of ashamed of your support for the war (up until like, what, last month?), but just please dont whitewash dude

I'm not whitewashing...I'm just countering you guys' overly negative take (blackwashing?) on the whole situation. There always seems to be some pathological desire on your part to make the mistakes of this war into something sinister, as though a monumental fuckup in foreign policy can't happen if everyone acts in good faith. In a way, that's a very optimistic view. If only bad things happened because bad men allow them to. But we know better than that, don't we?

I know you think these guys' incompetence led to a terrible, terrible mess. I get that. But that doesn't mean you can pretend there was something more sinister there just so that you can hate them for it.

[Debaser]

Cheney also changed his mind about Iran, too.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/...ney-snatchers/

Cheney from 1998— when Iran’s nuclear ambitions were already well known, and two years after the Khobar Towers bombing in which Iran was believed to be complicit:

[O]ur sanctions policy oftentimes generates unanticipated consequences. It puts us in a position where a part of our government is pursuing objectives that are at odds with other objectives that the United States has with respect to a particular region.

An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources. Iran is not punished by this decision. There are numerous oil and gas development companies from other countries that are now aggressively pursuing opportunities to develop those resources. That development will proceed, but it will happen without American participation. The most striking result of the government’s use of unilateral sanctions in the region is that only American companies are prohibited from operating there.

Another good example of how our sanctions policy oftentimes gets in the way of our other interests occurred in the fall of 1997 when Saddam Hussein was resisting U.N. weapons inspections. I happened to be in the Gulf region during that period of time. Administration officials in the area were trying to get Arab members of the coalition that executed operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory. They wanted that capability in the event it was necessary to take military action against Iraq in order to get them to honor the UN resolutions. Our friends in the region cited a number of reasons for not complying with our request. They were concerned with the fragile nature of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which was stalled. But they also had fundamental concerns about our policy toward Iran. We had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise, and that they should not do.

So, what effect does this have on our standing in the region? I take note of the fact that all of the Arab countries we approached, with the single exception of Kuwait, rejected our request to base forces on their soil in the event military action was required against Iraq. As if that weren’t enough, most of them boycotted the economic conference that the United States supported in connection with the peace process that was hosted in Qatar during that period of time. Then, having rejected participation in that conference, they all went to Tehran and attended the Islamic summit hosted by the Iranians. The nation that’s isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgment of U.S. policy in the area.

========================

wow. its amazing how sane he is here.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I think this is where I get on a different page than everyone else. I think the invasion of Iraq was supposed to be some sort of first step in reshaping the middle east into something a little more friendly to western ideals. It never has been something I've thought was the best choice of all available, but it's never struck me as this incomprehensible, nonsensical thing that you're making it out to be. 9/11 happens. The US realizes it needs to cause sweeping change in the hearts and minds of the middle east in order to undermine terrorism.

Yeah, sweeping change would have been a good thing. Let's start with what the CIA and the Pentagon and the Whitehouse knew: that pretty much the whole of the Middle East hates America because they have been meddling in their politics since the end of World War Two: they overthrew a democratic government in Iran in the 50's, they have prevented settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict, they station troops in holy lands, they back Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war and so on. Actually, the American record in Iraq is just grotesque: they supply Hussein with weapons and actively support him in crushing rebellions against his regime. When he invades Kuwait and the Americans react he offers to completely withdraw his forces, but these offers are ignored and the United States attacks. Lots of one sided fighting and Saddam is defeated, but they still allow him to crush a rebellion against him in the south. Lets also not forget that during the most lethal gas and chemical attacks against the Kurds Bush Snr was still supporting Saddam. So yeah, there is a lot of hate for America in Iraq.

So what can we conclude from all this? That there is good reason for hating America, and perhaps it is America that is responsible for terrorism in the region? Well, the CIA certainly thinks that, they actually coined a term for the hate that was mustered from U.S action: blowback.

So if the aim of the United States really was to win "hearts and minds" as you so delusionally put it, then yes, invading Iraq would have been just about the most insanely stupid thing that could have happened. Changing a region that hates you by invading it is something just so incomprehensibly stupid, that that cannot possibly be the reason for invasion. S

They decide to spread democracy

Delusion at its finest

and chose to start with a country that A) had a regime that was openly hostile to us,

Actually, you pretty much had Iraq in your hands. Remember, you were allies with them for the longest time. Saddam never wanted to do anything to piss you off, which explains why he was so keen to settle with you before the first Gulf War.

B) flaunted the UN,

You aren't seriously using this argument are you? If every country that flaunted the U.N was invaded the U.S would be invaded constantly. Remember it was the U.N who told you not to invade Iraq right?

C) supposedly stockpiled WMDs

Jesus Christ I really hope this point is a joke. I mean, if you want to debate this one further we can, but I'm afraid facts are kind of against you.

D) was militarily weakened

This illustrates a few things. Iraq was harmless and that America only invades countries that can't fight back. Anyway, I thought you pro War types thought Iraq was a threat? This is only serving to undermine that argument.

E) had a populace who at one time seemed quite friendly to the US and seemed very open to the idea of regime change (before we hung them out to dry)....and so on.

Yes, this may have been the case, but then you let Saddam crush any attempts to overthrow his regime, which would have succeeded if America had let them.

So really, the painfully obvious wins again. There was no intention of spreading democracy and peace and all the other half baked trash that people pump out in support of this war. Stopping terrorism wasn't the agenda either it seems.

I guess that leaves oil.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

So what can we conclude from all this? That there is good reason for hating America, and perhaps it is America that is responsible for terrorism in the region? Well, the CIA certainly thinks that, they actually coined a term for the hate that was mustered from U.S action: blowback.

So if the aim of the United States really was to win "hearts and minds" as you so delusionally put it, then yes, invading Iraq would have been just about the most insanely stupid thing that could have happened. Changing a region that hates you by invading it is something just so incomprehensibly stupid, that that cannot possibly be the reason for invasion.

I disagree. If you're going to say that the US has done all these terrible things in the region and it blew back on them, fine. Its really not in debate. But my take on things is that the administration realized the blunders and blowback of the past and just took the wrong lesson out of all it. Instead of realizing that it might be better to ease up on our middle eastern presence when they realized our mistakes were starting to bite us on the homeland, they decided to ramp things up in order to correct those mistakes (eg, where they had failed to support the uprisings against Saddam before, now they would). Of course it was wrong-headed, but IMO their hearts were in the right place. To me, their stupidity was quite comprehensible.

Delusion at its finest

Why? It might have been an overly lofty goal (to say the least), but I don't see how you can just wave your hand and say the administration wasn't serious about it.

Actually, you pretty much had Iraq in your hands. Remember, you were allies with them for the longest time. Saddam never wanted to do anything to piss you off, which explains why he was so keen to settle with you before the first Gulf War.

He tried to blow up Bush the elder back in 1993. Clinton had to bomb him back in 1998. The US's official policy towards Iraq was regime change. Saddam certainly wasn't doing everything he could to stay on our good side. I don't think you can say with a straight face their regime wasn't hostile.

You aren't seriously using this argument are you? If every country that flaunted the U.N was invaded the U.S would be invaded constantly. Remember it was the U.N who told you not to invade Iraq right?

Its just one reason of many. If it were the only reason, it'd be weak. But as a piece of the puzzle it worked.

Jesus Christ I really hope this point is a joke. I mean, if you want to debate this one further we can, but I'm afraid facts are kind of against you.

Um, its a fact that Iraq was thought to be stockpiling WMDs. Turns out they weren't in actuality, but nobody knew that back then. Keep in mind, I'm just laying out the reasons as they existed back in 2003 without the benefit of hindsight.

This illustrates a few things. Iraq was harmless and that America only invades countries that can't fight back. Anyway, I thought you pro War types thought Iraq was a threat? This is only serving to undermine that argument.

They were considered a threat because of their supposed WMDs, not their military strength. Regardless, it makes sense to me that if you're going to pick a country in which you're gonna overthrow the current regime to install a democracy in, picking one that you're not going to get into a protracted ground war with might be a good idea.

Yes, this may have been the case, but then you let Saddam crush any attempts to overthrow his regime, which would have succeeded if America had let them.

That's true, and that's always been where I think the administration made its biggest miscalculation. They assumed that because those uprisings had happened before, the Iraqi people would be happy to see us once we finally decided to get off our ass and help them out years later. Again, I don't think that was a totally incomprehensible thing for the administration to think. It made sense on a basic level...the only problem was that they totally underestimated the bad feelings that hanging those people out to dry the first time caused.

So really, the painfully obvious wins again. There was no intention of spreading democracy and peace and all the other half baked trash that people pump out in support of this war. Stopping terrorism wasn't the agenda either it seems.

Again, I don't see how that's painfully obvious at all. Its certainly fair to say that the way they decided to go about things was terribly misguided, but I don't think that means you can say that their approach to things was so far out to lunch that their stated goals had to be disingenuous.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Corganist

but IMO their hearts were in the right place. To me, their stupidity was quite comprehensible.

Oil

Why? It might have been an overly lofty goal (to say the least), but I don't see how you can just wave your hand and say the administration wasn't serious about it.

Oil has nothing to do with democracy. If they were concerned at all about democracy then they would put some pressure on Saudi Arabia to end their Islamic monarchy. But because America has no intention of spreading democracy, and they already have access to Saudi oil, they don’t.

He tried to blow up Bush the elder back in 1993. Clinton had to bomb him back in 1998. The US's official policy towards Iraq was regime change. Saddam certainly wasn't doing everything he could to stay on our good side. I don't think you can say with a straight face their regime wasn't hostile.

He did not try to blow Bush up in 1993. The Kuwaiti's claimed they uncovered a plot by some Iraqi's trying to assassinate Bush, but there was nothing in it. There was nothing Iraq could do against the United States. If by hostel you mean they didn't like the United States then sure, but they posed absolutely no threat. Since World War Two the U.S has only attacked weak countries, and Iraq is one of them.

Its just one reason of many. If it were the only reason, it'd be weak. But as a piece of the puzzle it worked.

No. It doesn't. The U.N was opposed to the invasion.

Um, its a fact that Iraq was thought to be stockpiling WMDs. Turns out they weren't in actuality, but nobody knew that back then. Keep in mind, I'm just laying out the reasons as they existed back in 2003 without the benefit of hindsight.

It was obvious they had none. All the reports from the weapons inspectors said they had none. The CIA knew, and if you listen to the testimony of ex CIA members in charge of investigating WMD's you will find out the CIA knew there were no weapons. When Colin Powell delivered his speech to the U.N he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. It was all an elaborate hoax and that is obvious. There is no way the Bush administration could have not known he had none. The WMD argument was a straight out lie and not a misunderstanding.

They were considered a threat because of their supposed WMDs, not their military strength. Regardless, it makes sense to me that if you're going to pick a country in which you're gonna overthrow the current regime to install a democracy in, picking one that you're not going to get into a protracted ground war with might be a good idea.

Yes, if you want to wage an illegal war of conquest you pick weak countries, I agree. Only thing is I don't think those kinds of wars are justified. And as I said before, it was quite clear to your leadership before the invasion that Iraq posed no threat. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts the CIA was flooded with.

That's true, and that's always been where I think the administration made its biggest miscalculation. They assumed that because those uprisings had happened before, the Iraqi people would be happy to see us once we finally decided to get off our ass and help them out years later. Again, I don't think that was a totally incomprehensible thing for the administration to think. It made sense on a basic level...the only problem was that they totally underestimated the bad feelings that hanging those people out to dry the first time caused.

The planners didn't actually give a fuck about the Iraqi people unless it had something to do with them getting in the way of their oil. This, again, is obvious. The reason they let Saddam crush the uprisings is because they were afraid a government may emerge that they couldn't control. To say the U.S has a moral agenda in the invasion is outrageous. No action the U.S government has ever taken (and this applies to most governments) has been a 'moral' action.

Again, I don't see how that's painfully obvious at all. Its certainly fair to say that the way they decided to go about things was terribly misguided, but I don't think that means you can say that their approach to things was so far out to lunch that their stated goals had to be disingenuous.

To say their goals are not disingenuous is deluded. It was obvious that to invade Iraq would be to plunge the country into turmoil and to increase terrorism. Democracy and peace were never factors. Cornering the worlds major source of natural energy was. That is obvious to most people. Cheney's company is making huge profit along with many others, and that was always the intention. With that supply of energy the United States has pretty much secured its dominance internationally, and that was always the intention. I do not know how it can be interpreted any other way.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

.

Whatever. If you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "LALALALA...OIL OIL OIL...LALALA" as though that's an argument, its obvious we're just going to be talking past each other. I stand by the notion that you can't just wave your hand and say there was no way the Bush administration had any good faith whatsoever in their motivations for the invasion. It just doesn't pass the smell test. You telling me that your cynical view of their intentions is "obvious" does nothing to change that.

Hell, I'm not even saying you might not be 100% correct. You very well may be. But that's not obvious right now. Far from it. I think there are other viable explanations that give good faith reasons for this fuckup that make at least as much sense as whatever oil grab conspiracy theory anyone can offer. You don't have to buy into the idea these guys acted in good faith if you don't think the evidence supports it, but I think people should at the least recognize that its not unrealistic.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Whatever. If you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "LALALALA...OIL OIL OIL...LALALA" as though that's an argument, its obvious we're just going to be talking past each other. I stand by the notion that you can't just wave your hand and say there was no way the Bush administration had any good faith whatsoever in their motivations for the invasion. It just doesn't pass the smell test. You telling me that your cynical view of their intentions is "obvious" does nothing to change that.

Give one single example where any American administration has invaded a country on purely moral grounds. If you seriously believe they went into the Middle East to spread democracy, then it is you with your fingers in your ears. To say the invasion of the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world was not an invasion to secure those resources, then I am sorry but that is utterly deluded. Perhaps yes, there is a .1% chance they were the good guys, but I do not believe that your leaders are so utterly stupid as to ignore every piece of evidence the CIA was practically waving in their faces. That is not realistic at all.

Hell, I'm not even saying you might not be 100% correct. You very well may be. But that's not obvious right now. Far from it. I think there are other viable explanations that give good faith reasons for this fuckup that make at least as much sense as whatever oil grab conspiracy theory anyone can offer. You don't have to buy into the idea these guys acted in good faith if you don't think the evidence supports it, but I think people should at the least recognize that its not unrealistic.

Again, to say there could be moral reasons for this invasion is to ignore 200 years of history. Not once has an ethical invasion of a country ever occurred. And if the United States did have intentions of building democracy then they could have started really easily with Saudi Arabia. Except they don't because America has never cared about democracy at all. In fact, they have actively worked against it from Italy and Greece in 1945 (actually, the first National Security Council was held to discuss the possibility of sending troops to Italy to stop the elections) to Palestine, where they ignored they undermined the results of a free and fair election. To say that the people in power in your country are out to serve the interests of the wider world is impossible to prove because it just is not compatible with the kind of power the United States is run by.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

Give one single example where any American administration has invaded a country on purely moral grounds. If you seriously believe they went into the Middle East to spread democracy, then it is you with your fingers in your ears.

Who says they did it on purely moral grounds? I'm not saying they invaded Iraq because they thought it was an altruistic gesture. They weren't out to create democracies because they thought "Hey, this democracy thing is pretty good. Other parts of the world should check this out!" At the bottom of it all is the self-serving desire to keep middle-eastern people from coming to America and flying planes into buildings, nothing more.

To say the invasion of the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world was not an invasion to secure those resources, then I am sorry but that is utterly deluded.

If oil is the only driving consideration here, then why even invade? You claim the Bush administration has Saudi oil tied up where they want it by cozying up to the Saudi royal family. Why could they not have not just cozied up to Saddam and reaped similar benefits instead of overthrowing him? Its like you said, its not like buddying up with Saddam was beneath this bunch. I think there was more to it than you're willing to admit.

Perhaps yes, there is a .1% chance they were the good guys, but I do not believe that your leaders are so utterly stupid as to ignore every piece of evidence the CIA was practically waving in their faces. That is not realistic at all.

I think its considerably more realistic than the idea that they decided to charge forth into a manufactured war for personal gain when they knew that the aftermath of the invasion was going to be an unmitigated mess and that the WMD excuse was complete BS, both of which would open them to intense public scrutiny. Why would they expose themselves like that? If you were going to manipulate a war for personal gain, would you not make sure that the reasons you generate for it wouldn't fall apart right in front of the world's eyes and leave you holding the bag? If these guys were really as up to no good as you claim, there's no way they'd knowingly make such huge gaping mistakes knowing full well that it'd cause people to take a closer look at what they had done.

And if the United States did have intentions of building democracy then they could have started really easily with Saudi Arabia.

I doubt that. Sure, Saudi Arabia is far from a model government...further from it than Iraq was even. But as far as I know there's no real indication that a significant portion of the populace there really desires a change the way there was in Iraq. The democratization of Saudi Arabia was meant to be more subtle and hands off I believe, where the Saudi people would see how happy the Iraqis were with their new post-Saddam government and would want to emulate it. Again, a lofty goal at best.

Except they don't because America has never cared about democracy at all. In fact, they have actively worked against it from Italy and Greece in 1945 (actually, the first National Security Council was held to discuss the possibility of sending troops to Italy to stop the elections) to Palestine, where they ignored they undermined the results of a free and fair election. To say that the people in power in your country are out to serve the interests of the wider world is impossible to prove because it just is not compatible with the kind of power the United States is run by.

I don't deny that the US isn't out for democracy as a good in and of itself. Obviously the US is interested in spreading one particular type of democracy (ie. the western-friendly, non-Islamist kind). Like I said, its not altruism at play here. The US is only out to "help" oppressed peoples to the extent its own self-interest is served. But all the same, that's still a bit easier to swallow than an elaborate oil grab.

[DeviousJ]

Hi Corganist