Originally posted by dylThat's all reasonable. My point is that rescuing the Iraqis from themselves is not US business. If the US had business there, we should have taken care of it and crisply moved out.
That's an enormous assumption.
If the U.S. had taken that approach, it seems pretty certain the void would have been filled by someone not dissimilar - in fact, probably worse. There would have been no democratic groups being formed or asking for support. So the U.S. would have grabbed a vicious dictator of a crippled country at a huge cost of Iraqi lives, an ...[text shortened]...
And that is assuming the evidence for WMD was the slightest bit compelling from the start.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI went off point a little. I must enjoy the sound of my own keyboard.
That's all reasonable. My point is that rescuing the Iraqis from themselves is not US business. If the US had business there, we should have taken care of it and crisply moved out.
If the situation for ordinary Iraqis is considerable worse after Saddam is kidnapped (in our hypothetic scenario), then doesn't the U.S. have a responsibility to at least leave things at the level at which they found it? I think they do. And I think this could have been achievable.
However, the U.S. didn't simply wish to leave the people of Iraq with some form of stable government and bugger off. They wanted a Little America amongst all the bad Middle Eastern nations. Stability, I believe, was possible. A U.S. friendly democratic system was not (at least, not in any time frame that would be feasible).
I must stress again that I deny our right to invade entirely.
Originally posted by dylIf the situation for ordinary Iraqis is considerable worse after Saddam is kidnapped (in our hypothetic scenario), then doesn't the U.S. have a responsibility to at least leave things at the level at which they found it?
I went off point a little. I must enjoy the sound of my own keyboard.
If the situation for ordinary Iraqis is considerable worse after Saddam is kidnapped (in our hypothetic scenario), then doesn't the U.S. have a responsibility to at least leave things at the level at which they found it? I think they do. And I think this could have been achievable.
How ...[text shortened]... rame that would be feasible).
I must stress again that I deny our right to invade entirely.
We would have a responsibility to help a democratic group take power, if it asked us to. That's all. I suppose that's kind of what we're doing, but we're doing it in a disrespectful way by giving "aid" by letting Americans get the jobs to rebuild Iraq. We should be letting Iraqis do it.
However, the U.S. didn't simply wish to leave the people of Iraq with some form of stable government and bugger off. They wanted a Little America amongst all the bad Middle Eastern nations.
Please elaborate.
I must stress again that I deny our right to invade entirely.
I will not argue with you on this point.
Stability, I believe, was possible. A U.S. friendly democratic system was not (at least, not in any time frame that would be feasible).
Then what was the US supposed to do? I don't think it's reasonable for the US to put a non-democratic government in power anywhere, and it defeats the purpose of going in to leave if post invasion Iraq is going to be hostile to the US.
Originally posted by gollumprawnThe problem with your "fact" is that it is taken completely out of context and leaves a host of questions unanswered. Are we talking about the cost of the war up until now? Are we talking about the estimated cost? What kind of time period do you expect to be feeding these Africans? 5 years? 10 years? Indefinitely? This is what happens when statistics are posted with no sources to back them up; no one can take them seriously.
if i am wrong, you should be able to prove it, by doing your own digging. don't expect me to be your slave.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe would have a responsibility to help a democratic group take power, if it asked us to. That's all. I suppose that's kind of what we're doing, but we're doing it in a disrespectful way by giving "aid" by letting Americans get the jobs to rebuild Iraq. We should be letting Iraqis do it.
[b]If the situation for ordinary Iraqis is considerable worse after Saddam is kidnapped (in our hypothetic scenario), then doesn't the U.S. have a responsibility to at least leave things at the level at which they found it?
We would have a responsibility to help a democratic group take power, if it asked us to. That's all. I suppose that's kind e purpose of going in to leave if post invasion Iraq is going to be hostile to the US.[/b]
Grabbing Saddam and leaving would have resulted in chaos. Denying the invading country’s responsibility to the citizens of the country invaded seems fairly cold-hearted. At the time of Saddam’s capture there were no democratic groups in any position to gain power so, if the U.S. were to leave at that point, a non-democratic force would have had to be turned to.
I agree with your second point.
Please elaborate.
The U.S. government has been stating repeatedly that they wish Iraq to be a fountainhead of democracy in the Middle East. And the approach they’ve taken to setting up the administration and the economy all appears to project the U.S. system. But Iraq mightn’t be ready for democracy, and it may reject completely the American Way. A stable government which treated its people fairly was perhaps the best that could have been hoped for at this time.
Then what was the US supposed to do? I don't think it's reasonable for the US to put a non-democratic government in power anywhere, and it defeats the purpose of going in to leave if post invasion Iraq is going to be hostile to the US.
Of course it defeats the purpose. But I don’t think the purpose (still working under the assumption that Saddam was actually a threat) is justifiable in the first place. You’ve handed me a position in which a blunder has just been played. I can offer you the best defence as I see it, but the game is still probably lost.
Originally posted by dylsure, but the next one would have learned not to sell oil for euros like saddam did. russia was already eyeing on the possibility of also skipping dollar trade, as euro trade seemed to work well for saddam. should the oil world change currency from dollar trade to any other, no more free money subvention for the u.s. economy, which would very likely spell *kaboom*. what then? a risk too great to take. saddam had to be taken out, and fast.
If the U.S. had taken that approach, it seems pretty certain the void would have been filled by someone not dissimilar - in fact, probably worse.
as an oil tycoon, bush was very well aware of all this. he's not stupid, a master of business administration from harvard, he knows exactly what he's doing. it's just that his excuses are stupid, because they're simply made up, manufactured to suit the needs.
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicwhen i see a post like this i know the writer is a lowly rated chess player. There is I believe a correlation between one dimensional reactionism and unawareness in chess. i have not bothered with correct punctuation with this message by the way you uncle sam apologists.
Today is Memorial Day. First proclaimed in 1868, Memorial Day was reserved to honor soldiers who died in the Civil War, one of the nation's bloodiest conflicts and the only one fought by and against Americans on U.S. soil. This is a special day for Americans to remember the ultimate sacrifice that our service members in the Armed Forces have made on it all: “Live free or die”!
ENJOY, BUT REMEMBER AMERICA! HAVE A BLESSED MEMORIAL DAY!
Originally posted by chancremechanicI think he is a girl.
It never ceases to amaze me how you America-haters nit-pick at the least important parts of a message because you can't think of anything else to say....could THAT be a sign of low intelligence? For your info, it wouldn't let me put the message in paragraph format, except the way i edited it. Now, go find out where your girlfriend is...I hear there's a US Navy ship in town, and you're on a ches site? What a dweeb....😲
1 edit
Originally posted by zorro34us🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄. You sound like a chess dweeb. Maybe he has to work instead of playing chess all day. There's other things in life besides sitting on a computer playing chess all day. Ever heard of Poontang?
when i see a post like this i know the writer is a lowly rated chess player. There is I believe a correlation between one dimensional reactionism and unawareness in chess. i have not bothered with correct punctuation with this message by the way you uncle sam apologists.