'Why We Did It' The Iraq War

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Pukka Sahib

The only thing to be learnt from history is that nobody learns from history."
- William Golding, Close Quarters (1987)
. . .

It would take a very great philosopher to know all the causes of the Iraq war, suffice it to say that President George W. Bush accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction - some of which were sold to Iraq by George H.W. Bush when he was President - that Saddam Hussein denied having and the United Nations weapons inspectors could not find, but that President Bush insisted Iraq had, or was in the process of acquiring for imminent use against the United States; and that when this was shown to be based on false intelligence, the invasion and occupation was then justified as a war against terrorism, to liberate Iraq from a oppressive regime, and spread democracy throughout the Middle East; for which thousands of American soldiers were killed and wounded, and untold numbers of Iraqi citizens lost their lives, were maimed, imprisoned, tortured, humiliated, and made to be enemies of the United States and its allies, and fermenting civil war.

Now that we are out of it, we can look back upon the whole scene with historic smugness. What are the lessons learned? What, in the final analysis, was accomplished? Did we win the war? Or was it a phony victory to be whitewashed by politicians? "Peace with honor" was the best face that Kissinger and Nixon could put on our inglorious exit from the Vietnam quagmire. In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli maintained that a state that is hard won in war is easily ruled as the enemy has been destroyed; whereas a state that easily won is not easily held because the enemy still remains all about the occupier. Machaivelli, Il Principe (1532). Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz - the architects of the war in Iraq - both profess to have studied Machiavelli. Apparently, they didn’t learn their lessons well; and President Bush would have done well to have had better advisors.

While I admire the sensitivity and tone and learned eloquence on display here, I fear you nonetheless sort of lost me at the first sentence. The why of the thing doesn't seem to me to present philosophical conundrums, and truly had nothing whatsoever to do with WMD. Some neocons heard we'd become the world's hyperpower, and thought if we just made an example of someone, everyone would start doing what we told them to.

It was one of the worst ideas since Athens invaded Sicily.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Incredible.

Now you're trying to equate your lack of Military Service with Obama's.

Taking the old false equivalency notion that you are so famous for to a whole new level.

First of all you hate Obama, so it's pretty fucking hilarious that you are trying to say that if it was good enough for Obama it's good enough for you.

Number two, I'm giving Obama a pass on Military service because as the first black president of a country crawling with right wing racist gun nuts Obama has placed his life on the line to serve his country just as much as any veteran has.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...ent-In-History



Now, what have you done to put your life on the line for your country Mr. Preppy White Boy?

In 2008 a friend said, "I don't see how you could vote for that pussy ass liberal."

My reply?

"Pussy? The simple fact that he ran for the presidency in this country shows he has balls the size of Jupiter."

There was no response.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Incredible.

Now you're trying to equate your lack of Military Service with Obama's.

Taking the old false equivalency notion that you are so famous for to a whole new level.

First of all you hate Obama, so it's pretty fucking hilarious that you are trying to say that if it was good enough for Obama it's good enough for you.

Number two, I'm giving Obama a pass on Military service because as the first black president of a country crawling with right wing racist gun nuts Obama has placed his life on the line to serve his country just as much as any veteran has.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...ent-In-History



Now, what have you done to put your life on the line for your country Mr. Preppy White Boy?

If I recall correctly, approximately one percent of citizens undertake military service. Your theory seems to be that those who have not undertaken such service have no standing to argue about the wisdom of military action. That would logically exclude 99% of the citizenry form, not only advocating military action, but also from actively opposing it. Or is this position you have taken merely personal?

Regards,

D-Ray

[mpholland]

I wanted to preserve my family tradition of military service. After scoring in the top 1% in the state of WA on my ASVAB I went to join up. This was the mid 80's when they weren't just taking anyone. Two things kept me out; trespassing and fishing without a license. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and unable to have any voice in military action.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I wanted to preserve my family tradition of military service. After scoring in the top 1% in the state of WA on my ASVAB I went to join up. This was the mid 80's when they weren't just taking anyone. Two things kept me out; trespassing and fishing without a license. I guess that makes me unpatriotic and unable to have any voice in military action.

"Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.

Top 1%? If you wanted in, actual leadership would have found a way.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

"Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron.

Top 1%? If they wanted you in, actual leadership would have found a way.

fixed it for you

[mpholland]

Had I known at almost 20 what I now know at almost 50 I would have probably pursued it to a greater extent. At that young, naive age I really didn't know what to do and as a result, never made it past a couple recruiting offices.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

fixed it for you

Hence the illogical thing: what organization would NOT want those scores?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Hence the illogical thing: what organization would NOT want those scores?

A famous old saying: there's the right way, and there's the wrong way, and there's the Army way. That means there's no making sense of some things.

But I can speculate that there may have been an attitude about that 'too-smart' enlisted guys were trouble.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

If I recall correctly, approximately one percent of citizens undertake military service.

I don't think it's that low, but the percentage of vets certainly isn't what it was when I was growing up in the 1950's. Then almost every adult male you met was a vet.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Or is this position you have taken merely personal?

Regards,

D-Ray

Pete got on my wrong side by being an apologist for the Iraq War, so yeah, I have been extra hard on him for his lack of service himself.

He didn't help himself any with his excuse that he tried to join but they wouldn't let him do what he wanted to do, be a Helicopter Pilot. That's not was service to your country is. You serve where you are needed.