Oh fer Chrissakes! Can we get any more amateurish?

[East Street Trader]

Patroklos I give respect to your view that worthwhile things can be achieved while remaining in occupation of Iraq.

If US troops stay in large numbers I hope US interests can be advanced and I also hope that the lot of the Iraqis can be improved.

But I don't understand you to say that this comes free. At the least it costs a whole lot of money, some lives and a substantial exacerbation of the strained relations around the world between the western countries and moslems.

Let's not call that "losing". But equally let's not call it "winning" either.

What I would find interesting is to hear one lesson which you have learned from the Iraq war which you think democrats would agree with and one lesson from a democrat that he or she thinks you would agree with.

For example does anyone think that you can create a democracy by holding an election? Possibly there would be a consensus on that.

Or how about "intelligence". People of all political persuasions, I think, felt let down by what US and UK spies had to say before the war. Is there a consensus now on how you sensibly treat information from spies in peacetime?

Perhaps more controversially what do people now think about creating a power vacuum? Shrapnel seems to think that intervening militarily to oust an oppressive regime is generally a good idea. But is that the current mainstream view in the US? Or would people from both sides of the spectrum fight shy of such intervention when it will create the sort of power vacuum to be seen in Iraq?

[Lancer]

We should be paying for the whole thing by selling/using Iraqi oil. I'm sick of this do gooder BS at a billion a day.

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why is anyone responding to his functionally illiterate posts?

My guess would be because of the same reason why I've been responding to the "functionally illiterate" posts of most people here. We like to argue out our frustrations at things we can't chage (easily anyway). The truth is, most of us don't have a clue what we're talking about. Most of us are probably very intelligent true, despite what side your on, but unless you're somehow directly involved with the issue before us, you can only go by what the media reports or some biased polotician tells us. Now we can use our intelligence and life expierence to judge what is true and what is false and to analyze what we think is true, but if you think for a minute that you know so much, and you truly buy into what your favored political group tells you, then you truly are an ignorant fool.

[Ramo]

We should be paying for the whole thing by selling/using Iraqi oil. I'm sick of this do gooder BS at a billion a day.

Yes, that might work in the magical land of unicorns and competent Republicans, but their oil revenues for an entire month are what the occupation costs each a day or two, and appropriating their oil revenue is basically the only thing that could unite the Iraqi people (in throwing us the hell out).

[Ramo]

The truth is, most of us don't have a clue what we're talking about.

Some more than others...

[Patroklos]

But I don't understand you to say that this comes free. At the least it costs a whole lot of money, some lives and a substantial exacerbation of the strained relations around the world between the western countries and moslems.

What post of mine are you replying? Are you trying to say I think this enterprise is free/easy?

What I would find interesting is to hear one lesson which you have learned from the Iraq war which you think democrats would agree with and one lesson from a democrat that he or she thinks you would agree with.

There are a few things the war critics say that I have always agreed with. Examples are the minimalist aproach the invasion and occupation forces and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army.

Perhaps more controversially what do people now think about creating a power vacuum? Shrapnel seems to think that intervening militarily to oust an oppressive regime is generally a good idea. But is that the current mainstream view in the US? Or would people from both sides of the spectrum fight shy of such intervention when it will create the sort of power vacuum to be seen in Iraq?

That is a question that can't be answered yet. If Iraq turns into a stablized country in even five years from now, in a century will people think it odd it took a decade to radically change a country of 30 odd million people with such divisive problems? Probably not, reasonable people don't think that now.

Even now, relative to similar conflicts, the human cost is extrodinarily light.

Now obviously if Iraq does end up a failed state if we stayed 15 years or only lost 1000 troops or 1000 Iraqis it was not worth it. But that outcome, and a successful one for that matter, can not be assumed at this point.

[Ramo]

That is a question that can't be answered yet. If Iraq turns into a stablized country in even five years from now, in a century will people think it odd it took a decade to radically change a country of 30 odd million people with such divisive problems? Probably not, reasonable people don't think that now.

Even now, relative to similar conflicts, the human cost is extrodinarily light.

Now obviously if Iraq does end up a failed state if we stayed 15 years or only lost 1000 troops or 1000 Iraqis it was not worth it. But that outcome, and a successful one for that matter, can not be assumed at this point.

But the costs haven't been extraordinarily light. We've already seen some disastrous consequences of the past few years' civil war - hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, millions fleeing the country as refugees. By any reasonable standard, that's a pretty horrendous cost in human life. And it's not clear that our current presence is doing all that much besides delaying the end game. Thus far, Iraqi politicans have not show n any willingness to make the politcal compromises that would reduce sectarian violence.

But your logic is that despite the lack of motion on this matter in the current climate, maybe five years down the line that won't be the case. So the question is, how efficient are our expenses in Iraq really are in making peoples' lives better. What could we be spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on besides Iraq? Look at the Global Campaign for Education, which would insure that every child in the world gets a primary school education, needs an American contribution of $3 billion by 2012 (while the occupation of Iraq has cost on the order of a trillion dollars in a similar time frame). In other words, using the military to improve human rights is frequently more inefficient than nonmilitary means, and in this case is far more inefficient given the high costs and extremely dubious returns. As and added bonus, there's some nasty blowblack, creating all sorts of other problems.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Remember in 2000, his critics were saying that he was a moron, and the counter was: Yeah, but he's surrounding himself with good advisors.

We didn't know then that he tended to tell those good advisers what he wanted them to tell him...ah well, live and learn.

[Shrapnel12]

[QUOTE}
What I would find interesting is to hear one lesson which you have learned from the Iraq war which you think democrats would agree with and one lesson from a democrat that he or she thinks you would agree with.
[/QUOTE]

This is hard to answer because it depends on what you think the motivations of the administration and what their plans are. Are they bumbling fools or evil manipulators? Who says the war isn't going exactly the way Bush wants it to go (therefore no lesson needs learned)? One lesson I can come up with is to demand more from our leaders in justifying a war and to investigate any possibility of a hidden agenda. A lesson I hope democrats will learn is that once all the questioning is done any you agree war is a good idea, you support the goal 100% and don't turn your back on it when it goes wrong (this does not mean you have to stick to a failed strategy though). I don't think anyone will ever learn that lesson though.

[QUOTE]
Perhaps more controversially what do people now think about creating a power vacuum? Shrapnel seems to think that intervening militarily to oust an oppressive regime is generally a good idea. But is that the current mainstream view in the US? Or would people from both sides of the spectrum fight shy of such intervention when it will create the sort of power vacuum to be seen in Iraq? [QUOTE}

I don't think anything is generally a good idea. I'm judge things specific to the situation. It is a hard ethical question whether to use force or not and there is no good answer when using your military to save lives. Take the genocide in Africa. Should we have invaded to save them? Should we invade every country that endagers its citizens. On one side, It pains me greatly to sit by and watch people mercilessly slaughtered, on the other side if we invade so many countries, after a while the whole world will see us as villians (This is already starting to happen). It's a judgement call that we will not ever get quite right. Is the cure worse then the disease? Sometimes yes, sometimes no and unfortunately, until these backwards nations begin to respect life more, we will be wrong more often then right.

Originally posted by Elok
We didn't know then that he tended to tell those good advisers what he wanted them to tell him...ah well, live and learn.

Lots of people think Bush is a moron, but there is another theory. His manipulations could be carefully manipulated if not by himself then by his advisors (he may be just a puppet). I have a hypothosis based on documentaries and reports I have seen. It is a guess and I have no proof. I think this war was orchestrated by the Saudi's to counter Iran. It seems from some reports, that Saudi Arabia (sunni) and Iran (****e) have been fighting a cold war for domination of the Middle East. This cold war goes back at least as far as the Iran/Iraq war. Anyway, my theory is that Bush went to the Saudis for help in the fight against terrorism. I think they have more pull with Al Queda then we know. In return for invading Iraq, the Saudis used their pull to keep Al Queda from attacking the U.S. After all, most people believe that if the terrorists want to attack us again, they can't really be stopped and the security situation in the U.S. leaves serious doubts to how effective it has been. So why haven't we been attacked yet? Something or someone is stopping them somehow. Feel free to shoot this hypothosis with holes, it's just a thought.

[Ramo]

I certainly haven't heard that one before. How did these documentaries and reports explain that the invasion of Iraq helped the Saudis in their struggle against Iran? And where could I subscribe to your newsletter?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
For example does anyone think that you can create a democracy by holding an election? Possibly there would be a consensus on that.

It depends on what you mean by democracy. You can create "democracy" by having elections, but you won't have good democracy unless you instill certain values into the population such as respect for minorities of all types (i.e. the people who lose to election), respect for human rights, respect for the rule of law, etc. None of this can be done overnight or even within a decade. Trying to impose a democracy through a short/painless foreign occupation won't work, but this has been known since the French Revolution. Restoring democracy to a country that had it may be possible. Assisting an existing domestic revolution may also be feasible.

Perhaps more controversially what do people now think about creating a power vacuum? Shrapnel seems to think that intervening militarily to oust an oppressive regime is generally a good idea. But is that the current mainstream view in the US? Or would people from both sides of the spectrum fight shy of such intervention when it will create the sort of power vacuum to be seen in Iraq?

Creating a power vacum is worse than leaving the dictator in place. Chaos is worse than order. Now, the previous statements are generally true though not always. If the dictator regularly executes dissidents, then it's not hard to stay safe. If the dictator is paranoid and randomly executes people to sow fear in the population, then maybe chaos won't be worse in comparison.

Disbanding the bureaucracy/army/institutions of state is the worst possible thing that could be done. Wiping out the secret police would be ok.

Even now, relative to similar conflicts, the human cost is extrodinarily light.

Maybe in terms of American lives. In terms of dead and displaced Iraqis the conflict is disastrous.

This is hard to answer because it depends on what you think the motivations of the administration and what their plans are. Are they bumbling fools or evil manipulators? Who says the war isn't going exactly the way Bush wants it to go (therefore no lesson needs learned)? One lesson I can come up with is to demand more from our leaders in justifying a war and to investigate any possibility of a hidden agenda.

I think the trouble is that the administration isn't monolithic. They don't all have the same reasons for going. Some are downright incompetent, some have hidden agendas, some fall into both categories, though I doubt there is a single administration hidden agenda.

A lesson I hope democrats will learn is that once all the questioning is done any you agree war is a good idea, you support the goal 100% and don't turn your back on it when it goes wrong (this does not mean you have to stick to a failed strategy though). I don't think anyone will ever learn that lesson though.

The trouble is that this war was a bad idea. Though the lesson is somewhat important, as the war in Afghanistan was not a bad idea and is suffering because everyone's attention/resources were diverted to Iraq.

Lots of people think Bush is a moron, but there is another theory. His manipulations could be carefully manipulated if not by himself then by his advisors (he may be just a puppet).

I think Bush can be easily manipulated by Cheney & friends. Bush himself is not terribly bright.

I have a hypothosis based on documentaries and reports I have seen. It is a guess and I have no proof. I think this war was orchestrated by the Saudi's to counter Iran. It seems from some reports, that Saudi Arabia (sunni) and Iran (****e) have been fighting a cold war for domination of the Middle East.

Somewhat true, but Saddam was a Sunni and no friend of the Iranian's. Indeed, he'd fought a war against them somewhat recently. Removing Saddam doesn't weaken Iran's position. (Indeed the bungled handling of the war has shown that it's helped Iran.) That being said, Saddam and the Saudis aren't great friends either.

In return for invading Iraq, the Saudis used their pull to keep Al Queda from attacking the U.S. After all, most people believe that if the terrorists want to attack us again, they can't really be stopped and the security situation in the U.S. leaves serious doubts to how effective it has been.

I doubt anyone has that kind of control over Al Qaeda.

So why haven't we been attacked yet? Something or someone is stopping them somehow. Feel free to shoot this hypothosis with holes, it's just a thought.

Might have something to do with hiding in a cave on the Afghani/Pakistani border. I think the Afghan war was all about fighting terrorism, and the Iraqi war was about pretty much everything else.

[MRT144]

the biggest hole in the hypothesis is that iran is stronger because of iraq, not weaker.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by MRT144
the biggest hole in the hypothesis is that iran is stronger because of iraq, not weaker.

That would only be a hole if the Admin would have actually taken time to think about the impact of the invasion. There's a fair bit of evidence that they didn't.

Heck, if you're into conspiracy theories, remember reports that Chalabi was paid off by the Iranians? What if the war in Iraq is an Iranian ploy to get the US to topple Saddam and create a vacuum that they can move into, all while making the US look bad.

[Elok]

There could be all manner of explanations for Bush's actions, but in the absence of further evidence they are all about equally likely. So I prefer to go by the simplest explanation I can think of that fits what I have seen: he is a naive, incompetent man who thinks in simplistic cops-and-robbers, cowboys-and-indians terms, and that combined with his love of decisive action led him to start an unnecessary war against a man who, while unpleasant, was not really an immediate threat to us or any of our allies.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Elok
There could be all manner of explanations for Bush's actions, but in the absence of further evidence they are all about equally likely. So I prefer to go by the simplest explanation I can think of that fits what I have seen: he is a naive, incompetent man who thinks in simplistic cops-and-robbers, cowboys-and-indians terms, and that combined with his love of decisive action led him to start an unnecessary war against a man who, while unpleasant, was not really an immediate threat to us or any of our allies.

Don't forget, Saddam reportedly tried to have his dad killed. (Actually, there is evidence* that Bush wanted to get Saddam before 9/11.)


* Depends how much you trust former admin. insider's reports.