Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

That's like saying: "Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"



It's easy to try to recast the motives for war in some favourable light in hindsight. And it's easy to say that you support the "idea" of the Iraq invasion, but not the invasion itself.

US interests have not been served in Iraq. They are not in a stronger position, geopolitically or economically, as a result of the war. They may yet get some oil out of Iraq but at what cost? They figure the Iraq War tally will come in around a trillion dollars--that'sa lot of oil.

Geopolitically, the US has strengthened extermist Mulsims, Iran and Pakistan. It has not undermined radicalism at all, as any reasonable person would concluide after reading the papers for a month. Look at the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, look at the wingnut in charge in Iran, look at Lebanon, look at the occupied Palestinian territories.

At the same time the US has weakened its own hand as it has lost a lot of credibility among its friends. Bringing back torture and arbitrary detention, Colin Powell lying to the world about WMD on the UN podium, tearing up treaties, needless sabre-rattling.



The bottom line is that the neo-cons are finished. So from the point of view that Iraq hastened people's awareness of their incompetence, I suppose it was a good thing.

I salute your optimism on the future of Iraq. Things will get better there soon. They can't get much worse.

   

Yet Canada elected some last year. LZ

   

Bang on the mark Jake, such clarity isn't the norm. I to use to vote Liberal but I see the party as being nothing more than Socialist with an agenda to imprison Canadians into their ethos.

   

Harper? He's ditching his neo-con stripes but fast. He wouldn't touch Iraq with a ten-foot pole now. All of a sudden he's "got religion" with respect to the environment. And he spends a lot of time trying to make Quebec happy these days.

I like the guy personally--strikes me as an eminently practical man. Unfortunately he's got a bunch of lightweights working for him--Stockwell Day, Rona Ambrose, Peter Mackay and that dude who was in charge of DND. Flaherty seems pretty good, as does Lund and he dude at Indian Affairs. Juries out on some of the others.

If he dumps some dead weight in the next election, I'll vote for him. I like Stphane Dion too-smart guy, survivor, gets results. But I don't thihnk the Liberals have spent enough time in the corner yet for being bad.

   

It's the same party, with dions ugly mug.

   

Not a done deal...like I said a lot depends on what happens in Iraq.


Extremist Muslims were in power in Iran long before the Iraq war. As for Pakistan...what are you talking about? Except for a brief period, the place has always been controlled by dictatorships which do not have to worry about 'morality' as they handle the restive populace. The extremist element in Pakistan have been the ones behind the Taleban regime before, during and after the Sept 11 attacks. This is true to this day. Please do not drag Pakistan into the picture as a pillar of moderate islam at ANY time. its always been a tinderbox since its inception. I have lived my growing years in that part of the world and am well aware of the geo-political situation there.



Again all these were in play LONG before the US invaded Iraq. Infact the Shia Sunni discord was the major reason Saddam was left in power after the first Iraq-US/Allied war. Nobody wanted to go in and police the place while they killed each other then. Its a pity the US did not prepare for it this time. Its the Bush admin biggest failure to date.



Have you heard that countries do not have friends? Any way 'credibility' matters as long as you have the economic clout. Canada and the rest of the world is currently courting China NOT because of 'credibility' or 'friendly feelings'. Why do you people always apply abstract feelings of morality to world politics?

The bottom line is that if the Iraq situation does not Improve for the US...the west, especially Canada and the US will suffer the consequence. This loss will be in terms of economic clout and control over resources. China and Russia will be the beneficiaries in the new world order. I find it disconcerting that Liberals would cheer and hope for such an event .
That attitude translating into weakening political resolve, infact, will fuel any failure in Iraq. You liberals are cutting off your nose to spite the face.

Inother words The American and the Canadian dream will become the 'Chinese', 'Russian' and 'Indian' dream. I hope the 'credibility' and 'feelgood morality' will compensate. Maybe you can migrate there cause none of them will come here while you and me burn. Hey, its not that much of a problem for me since I can just go back...I still have family there. Maybe I can recount to them how western civilization created its own demise doing the 'morally right' thing.

   

There are only 10?

   

All this is irrelavant to the topic--were US interests served by invading Iraq. WE're not discussing "morlaity" we're discussing interests. Two different ball games. As for the strengthening of Iran, this is even admitted by the neo-cons at this point. Iraq was balancing influence against the Shiites in Iran. With Iraq embroiled in sectarian strife, and the secularist Ba'ath party out of power, Iran's influence in Iraq has increased.

Pakistan? A pillar of moderate Islam? I don't think so. You are talking about a regime that sold nuclear technology to North Korea. Musharraf is more dangerous than Saddam was.

To remind you, Iraq was not an Ismalmist country--before the invasion anyway.



Which is the point that I was making. It was a failure.




Credibility is not a moral concept. I didn't say amyhting about "friendly feelings"--those are your words, not mine. The US has squandered its political capital, and leaders of most democractic countires know that a close realtionship with Bush is toxic at the polls.




I don't think so. China and India will rise regardless. Deal with it.

Your point about morals is strange. The Iraq War was based on moral precepts, not on US interests. Had they been following thier interests they would not have invaded. The dismal failure that the war has been is testament to this.

   

That's like saying: "Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

   

You are the one who said that the war strengthened extremist muslims. My argument is that it did not. Failure in Iraq will.


Iran has taken advantage of the bad situation In iraq. My point is that the handling of Iraq AFTER the war has caused the BAD situation...not the war itself. Saddm was routed in weeks.



Agree for most part except about Musharraf. He is the one holding Pakistan together today. Else it would have been taken by the US on the way to Afghanistan via an obliging india OR a part of the Taleban. He is the friendy dictator and further proogf that world politics is not about 'Democracy' either but a balancing act based on economic interests.


I am differentiating between the war and the sectarian violence. The war was won.



Short sighted political games does not mean a thing to US economic self interests and longterm economic clout.



India is not as much a threat as China. Their rising is not the problem. Economic clout and control over resources is the US counterbalance...lest its burried under the rise of the BRIC(brazil,russia,india,china) economies.


This is where the neocons have you fooled. Nobody is stupid enough to go to war if it were not to secure economic interests. However, NO politician can ever say this either. Its not politically correct. My point is strange because I do not buy into the conservative argument that the War was based on 'justice' NOR the liberal argument that the war was 'morally wrong'. My point is that world politics and related decisions are made on the basis of economic self interest rather than morals.

Can you point out a war that was based purely on Morals...at anytime in history? By the same token can you point out an alliance between states based on morality either? A dictatorship can be a democracies friend. A communist state can be an islamic nations friend. Look around you for proof. You can massacare muslims(e.g: russia in chechnya) and still be Irans friend and an islamic ally. Likewise a Saudi Monarch/dictator can be an American friend.

I guess its strange...probably because its original. I'm thinking of a patent.

   

And yet he admitted that he tried and failed, while Bush and his Admin had 8 months and did shit fuck all. Ever see the Bill Clinton rant during his Fox News interview?



*claps*





Yes and No...

   

Yeah I saw Clinton lose his temper, he didn't like a tough question.

   

He answered it and cut through the bullshit.

   

Yes, this is the new tack of he neo-conservatives: They liked the idea of the war, but the war in reality was flawed. I agree that the execution of the invasion was flawed. But this was eminently forseeable considering who was in charge in America. There is no action on earth more subject ot the law of unintended consequence than war.



Saddam was removed. On that basis, and that basis alone, the war was won. Has it served American interests? I don't think so, but the good people of America will be the final judge of that, I suppose. I see little positive outcome as a result of the invasion. Their are but a few things on earth worse than a bloody tyrant; anarchy is one of them. The US has sullied its own credibility, will spend upwards of a trillion dollars, lose thousands of youngest and best citizens.

Then there is the opportunity cost--that is, what opportunities were lost in order to invade Iraq. The most important was taking the eyes off the prize--Osama bin Laden. 9/11 and all that business.



Well, we disagree on this one. There's an old saying "When all you got is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." While not exactly stupidity, this is the fatal flaw in reasoning of the neo-cons.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that the war was based on the eocnomic interests of some. I just think that history has demonstarted--thus far at least--that it was not in the bestr intersts of the US as a whole.

   

Securing "Economic Interests" with violence is morally bankrupt thinking. What of Competition? What of Property Rights? Murder and Theft is good Foreign Policy?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next