i want to see what people have to say

I think the war is a monumental catastrophe for this country, one that I believe will overshadow Vietnam in the future. It's hard to know even where to begin. I'll just state a few broad points (for my own good).

The US now has a severely tarnished image in the eyes of the world after violating both its own policy, and that of international law, by invading a country that posed no direct threat to its soil.

The true motivation of our going to war remains murky. Even now, after Bush's original reasons have all been proven inadequate or wrong, we don't have an answer, and it's outrageous that the US isn't more outraged. Oil was certainly part of it; the Bush family holding a grudge against Hussein was certainly part of it; indulging the military-industrial complex was certainly part of it; praying on the country's post-9/11 fears of Middle Eastern culture was part of it.

Nobody would argue with the point that Saddam Hussein was a vicious and cruel dictator. "Removing" him as the US did, however, has not yielded many positives. The quality of life for many Iraqis is currently worse than it was under Hussein. The country's infrastructure was badly hurt by the war. Insurgents have turned many areas that were comparitively peaceful before the war into a living nightmare. The newly-installed "democratic" government is just beginning to face the monumental challenges that await it.

Not only that, but the entire Middle East has been de-stabilized by the removal of Hussein. The region is usually teeming with instability, of course, but it's been made worse, and the US' actions may ultimately be the straw that broke the camel's back. Iraq and Iran were previously holding each other in check; now without the threat of Hussein, Iran is asserting itself in a most ominous way. The Bush administration, of course, takes this as a direct challenge, and has casually proposed using nuclear weapons against Iran. Yikes. Exactly what this has to do with Israel's newest mess is beyond my capacity, but intuitively, instability seems to breed instability.

And the war itself, specifically, is not going well. Parents of soldiers are being forced to buy and send their children body armor, as the military's supply is scarce and inadequate. Some soldiers aren't even able to eat properly sometimes. At this point, neither withdrawing from Iraq or staying there seem to make much sense.

It seems entirely convenient that the war closely followed 9/11. Recently the NORAD tapes of that day were released, and more and more eyebrows are slowly being raised. Cheney was quoted before 9/11 as saying that this country needed a "Pearl Harbor-like catalysing event." It's not that far-fetched for me to imagine that, with the world's supply of oil dwindling, the Bush administration has designs on controlling the entire Middle East and its oil supply, and that in order to promote this, 9/11 was either engineered by the US or allowed to happen. Going to war with Iraq would be the next step in that plan--the blanket "terror threat" in the wake of the attack was effectively exploited, with or without WMDs. Bush's recent, sudden interest in promoting alternative energy seems like a classic smokescreen.

OK, that's enough. I haven't seen enough to fully embrace the above theory, but if it turns out to be true, I will honestly not be shocked. In any case the war in Iraq is a complete debacle.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Commontone,

Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by Commontone:

Not only that, but the entire Middle East has been de-stabilized by the removal of Hussein. The region is usually teeming with instability, of course, but it's been made worse, and the US' actions may ultimately be the straw that broke the camel's back.

This is especially funny since the standard intellectuals' justification for US support of brutal dictators throughout the world has been that it is all done "in the interests of stability."

I don't really feel like rehashing my whole view on the war (if you look hard enough in the Politics forum, you'll find it), but Commontone's opening phrase is a good enough description:

quote:

OPB: Commontone

I think the war is a monumental catastrophe

Is that sarcasm? You're new, so I can't really tell.

quote:

Originally posted by GUITAR_FREAK_93:
i think that the iraqi people are a lot safer now that the chains of oppression have been broken.

Actually, the feeling of many Iraqis is that they have traded one dictator for another. Insurgents are driving around Iraqi cities and shooting pedestrians at random, or shooting cars' tires--this is somewhat "oppressive," I have to say.

quote:

Originally posted by GUITAR_FREAK_93
i think that the iraqi people are a lot safer now that the chains of oppression have been broken.

If by safer you mean being exposed to rape/murder and being stripped of their ability to grow their own food among many other things, then yeah.

I think we can all agree that the United States's execution of the war could have been better planned, and I'm sure many of us will disagree about whether the US should have invaded to begin with, but the fact is that we did invade and we are there. The key question then seems to be, what now? I'm really perplexed by the people who want the US to withdraw immediately. Do they really think Iraq would improve? Granted there have been some isolated incidents of Iraqi's being mistreated by US soldiers, but those are just that--isolated. They are so remarkable that every time they happen we have to hear about it on the front page of the New York Times for weeks at a time. It's easy to wax about how the US's image is tarnished in the eyes of world opinion (not necessarily a bad thing) and how our leaders are such foolish crooks, but how about some practical suggestions?

I think the problem is that there are no practical suggestions. I read a headline a few days back about how the military brass now fears that there could be a full-blown civil war in Iraq. That was a headline! I guess I forgot to give them the memo before we went over there that that's what would happen, but at least all my friends and family got it, and I'm sure several other members around here did too.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
It's easy to wax about how the US's image is tarnished in the eyes of world opinion (not necessarily a bad thing)

I happen to agree that this is a good thing in some ways. The more opposition to our insane foreign policy, the more unlikely our ruinous schemes will come to fruition. For people living in the US, however, it's undoubtedly a bad thing that so many people think badly of us.

quote:

Granted there have been some isolated incidents of Iraqi's being mistreated by US soldiers, but those are just that--isolated.

Is there any reason to believe this? The conditions in Iraq are not such that every abuse by US soldiers--or even a small percentage of such abuses--are going to be documented and exposed. There was a guy on NPR the other day who just got done writing a book on this topic. He said he started out thinking basically the same thing as you, Pax, that things like Abu Ghraib and reported abuses were isolated, but he was really appalled to find out that that wasn't the case. The abuses are systematic.

Furthermore, I don't see any reason to expect otherwise. When you put human beings--especially such young ones--in that kind of situation, they're going to respond in predictable ways. The same thing happened in Vietnam. I suppose back then it was fashionable to dismiss My Lai as an isolated incident, but we now know, through extensive documentation, that such massacres were fairly common in Vietnam. What was remarkable about My Lai was that an officer objected to the massacre so strongly and that it therefore gained such attention.

Yeah, I mean you could be right. US soldiers could be over there raping women and killing children everyday just for shits and giggles. I guess I just have a higher opinion of military personnel than you do. Do you actually know any soldiers RL? The ones I know don't strike me as the raping/murdering type. Granted that normal people in extreme circumstances can be driven to extreme lengths, but from what I hear, most soldiers spend most their time in quite boring circumstances--doing patrols, listening to music, writing, etc.

I think that being on the side of world opinion is not necssarily something to be proud of. World opinion before Reagan said that it was useless to try to win the Cold War. World opinion in the 30's said that Hitler would not amount to much. And world opinion now says that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party. History is written by the victors, not by "world opinion," and in my opinion, America and freedom will ultimately be the victors in the Middle East turmoil we are now seeing--not necessarily because we are stronger, but because our ideas are better.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I think the problem is that there are no practical suggestions. I read a headline a few days back about how the military brass now fears that there could be a full-blown civil war in Iraq. That was a headline! I guess I forgot to give them the memo before we went over there that that's what would happen, but at least all my friends and family got it, and I'm sure several other members around here did too.

People have been saying there is a civil war in Iraq for months now. But it's hard to have a civil war when it is essentially a few thousand people versus tens of millions of people. The best the few thousand people can ever do is what they are doing now--have the occasional suicide bombing, drive-by shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I guess I just have a higher opinion of military personnel than you do. Do you actually know any soldiers RL? The ones I know don't strike me as the raping/murdering type.

Ahh, I get it. You support the troops more than I do. You probably hate the terrorists more than me too.

quote:

I think that being on the side of world opinion is not necssarily something to be proud of.

Yeah, there was a point when most people in the US supported segregation. Shit, why doesn't Bush just select the next president? I'm not really sure why we have elections anymore, since being on the side of US population's opinion isn't necessarily something to be proud of.

EDIT: Had to change "it's" to "isn't" in that last sentence.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RavingLunatic,

Hey, pax, I'm not talking about what you're talking about. I guess you still haven't gotten the memo.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I think that being on the side of world opinion is not necssarily something to be proud of.

Conservatives remind me of that neighbor down the street that has parties every night and plays his crappy music really loud, despite the fact that everyone else is trying to sleep. It's in his best interest to stay up late and party, and he doesn't care what anyone else thinks. Unfortunately, one of these days, someone's going to kick his ass.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I guess I just have a higher opinion of military personnel than you do. Do you actually know any soldiers RL? The ones I know don't strike me as the raping/murdering type.

Ahh, I get it. You support the troops more than I do. You probably hate the terrorists more than me too.

quote:

I think that being on the side of world opinion is not necssarily something to be proud of.

Yeah, there was a point when most people in the US supported segregation. Shit, why doesn't Bush just select the next president? I'm not really sure why we have elections anymore, since being on the side of US population's opinion it's necessarily something to be proud of.

That's a good point. Popular opinion is not always right, especially in the eyes of history.

It's not that I support the troops more than you do RL, but I obviously think more of their character than you do.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
That's a good point. Popular opinion is not always right, especially in the eyes of history.

...and therefore it should be disregarded. All should defer to King George.

If you're pushing democracy as a cure-all to the woes of people around the world, you would do well to show some respect towards the opinions of said people.

quote:

It's not that I support the troops more than you do RL, but I obviously think more of their character than you do.

I love this. It's possible for Iraqi troops or Indonesian troops or Turkish troops or Haitian troops or French troops or the troops of any other country in the world to commit massacres with some regularity, but not the troops of the Holy nation, not US troops. All abuses by US troops must be the work of isolated madmen. All other US troops behave in a saintly manner, even under extreme duress.

Oh, I forgot the ironclad anecdotal evidence of Pax's military friends that Iraqi military duty is "boring," not stressful or frightening. I guess all the people coming back with PTSD are just weak-minded.

I was an air traffic controller for five years. No, nobody was shooting at me for those five years, but it sure felt like it for a combined two weeks of the year.

I'm sure current soldiers would agree, although they may add more time to the shooting parts. REAL wars, like WW II, you'd probably have to go with one-fourth of the time, but yes, WAR is amazingly boring, at least until you're killed.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I love this. It's possible for Iraqi troops or Indonesian troops or Turkish troops or Haitian troops or French troops or the troops of any other country in the world to commit massacres with some regularity, but not the troops of the Holy nation, not US troops. All abuses by US troops must be the work of isolated madmen. All other US troops behave in a saintly manner, even under extreme duress.

I never said US forces didn't do bad things, just that most of the troops aren't bad people and don't rape/murder children. I'm sure the same can be said of Iraqi military, French military, etc. Every country has some bad apples.

I also never said that popular opinion should be disregarded, just that it is sometimes best to be running against conventional wisdom. There are times when conventional wisdom proves to be correct, and some times when it proves to be incorrect.

And btw democracy is hardly a cure-all. Simply giving people the chance to vote for their leaders does not ensure that the voters will vote for the people who best represent their long term interests. This is probably where I disagree with the neocons the most...can a US occupation reverse the backwardness of a fundamental Muslim culture? I don't see how.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I never said US forces didn't do bad things, just that most of the troops aren't bad people and don't rape/murder children. I'm sure the same can be said of Iraqi military, French military, etc. Every country has some bad apples.

The problem is that when you have 100,000 troops over there, a lot of abuses are bound to occur, and this never seems to be taken into account when the decision of whether to go to war is made. Instead, they act as if massacres, rapes, murder etc could never have been expected to occur and that they're shocked that such a thing could happen in a war zone. Ideally, those things don't occur, but the reality is that they do happen in every war.

One of the problems with rushing to war is that you know, you know, that lots and lots of awful things are going to happen. The good things you'd like to happen, however, are extremely uncertain.