Iraq - Not about WMDs or Bush's Daddy

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Now Ayad Allawi, former Prime Minister of Iraq, weighs in on how big of a mess his country is. One of the interesting factoids in his piece is that "Iraq is the world’s fourth-most-corrupt country and by far the worst in the Middle East." 4,000 dead soldiers and $Trillions for this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...xsJ_story.html

Oh but we were giving them democracy, was it Will and Ariel Durant that said "those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it". Seems we have forgotten just how we got democracy.

[piece-itpete]

It was much, much better for the Iraqis under Saddam.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It was much, much better for the Iraqis under Saddam.

Pete

Except for the over 100,000 who have died since our invasion and the refugees, you are most correct.

[piece-itpete]

Right. I see on shows like POV how things are improving over there.

Unless keeping women in servitude is a good thing....

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Right. I see on shows like POV how things are improving over there.

Unless keeping women in servitude is a good thing....

Pete

I'm not disputing that things may be better for some now than it was under Saddam (the greatest beneficiaries (besides Iran) were the Kurds and the Swamp Arabs), but I remain unconvinced that it was worth 4,000 dead GI's, ten of thousands more with debilitating injuries and over a $trillion.

Amazingly, the folks still defending the Iraq (mis)adventure are highly critical of the Libyan operation. We helped overthrow Kaddafi without any boots on the ground for less than $1 billion and the Europeans are the ones who are going to do the nation-building from what I've heard.

Seems we could learn something from those Cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France.

[piece-itpete]

Lol! I guess we can call them French Fries again

I believe the Arab Spring would not have happened without Iraq. That is conjecture.

Regardless, whether or not Libya was the right thing to do, it sure doesn't jive with the lefts' professed beliefs and certainly showed Obama's capability to BS

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Regardless, whether or not Libya was the right thing to do, it sure doesn't jive with the lefts' professed beliefs and certainly showed Obama's capability to BS

Isn't France the Leftist boogeyman for the GOP and wasn't it France who drove the train on Libya? After Tunisia and Egypt (and ongoing peaceful reforms by Morocco's King), doesn't the idea of a peaceful, democratic Muslim North Africa sound pretty appealling? It wouldn't be possible with Kaddafi in power.

Obama's Cairo speech had as much to do with the Libya uprising as our invasion of Iraq (namely, very little to nothing). I think a self-immolated vegetable vendor in Tunisia had more to do with it than either of these American efforts. We like to view ourselves as the focal point of all that is good in the world, but it ain't necessarily so.

[piece-itpete]

True, but Needs America To Operate's actions had a lot to do with us, and our Fearless Leader sure did a lot of obvious squirming around to keep Congress from voting on it. Why?

Vendors could've had a high volume hot dog stand but it wouldn't have brought Kaddafi down.

I love the idea of a peaceful democratic Muslim North Africa. Reminds me of a peaceful democratic Muslim Middle East

Hopefully. But both remain to be seen....

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

True, but Needs America To Operate's actions had a lot to do with us, and our Fearless Leader sure did a lot of obvious squirming around to keep Congress from voting on it. Why?

Because the GOP would have voted against it out of fear of its ultimate quick and (relatively) painless success. Coupled with Obama taking out Al Qaeda's #1 and (now) #2 guys, Obama the meek is making the Chicken Hawks of the GOP look even more feckless than they always were. They're gonna have to change their mantel of the GOP from "party of national security" to the party of "you can do it better, but you can't spend more."

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm not disputing that things may be better for some now than it was under Saddam (the greatest beneficiaries (besides Iran) were the Kurds and the Swamp Arabs), but I remain unconvinced that it was worth 4,000 dead GI's, ten of thousands more with debilitating injuries and over a $trillion.

Amazingly, the folks still defending the Iraq (mis)adventure are highly critical of the Libyan operation. We helped overthrow Kaddafi without any boots on the ground for less than $1 billion and the Europeans are the ones who are going to do the nation-building from what I've heard.

Seems we could learn something from those Cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France.

What happened after 911 and what is happening in Libya are two different things, happening at two different periods in time.

Besides, we've just opened the book on Libya.

While I gave Shrub the benefit of doubt on Iraq, I was concerned that remaking the Middle East was an awfully ambitious plan. I figured he knew more than I did.

And while I've been critical of Obama reengaging in "The Graveyard of Empires", along with a "WTF now" on Libya, I suppose I should give him the benefit of doubt as well. I figure he knows more than I do as well.

But after 10 years with no end in sight, and watching what our troops have been put through, I do have a suggestion.

If we're gonna get in a war, let's treat it like a knife fight in a beer joint. Kill the other sumbitch as quick as you can.

Fuck public opinion.

Chas