The US war in Iraq

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
41

Just to clarify, what’s the problem with Iraq again?

  1. It’s costing too much money?

2 Coalition soldiers are dying. All soldiers know this is a risk, but due to altruistic decisions, more are dying than need be?

Any other problems?

On the good side, Iraq has become flypaper for terrorists. We are indeed killing many off. It provides a good diversion for Arabs who would otherwise go to Pakistan to launch attacks into Afghan.

We have brought more (limited) freedoms to the people of Iraq.

We have a base in the middle east. I’m sure we are picking up intelligence on Syria and Iran.

I know we are all military experts here, but perhaps this is indeed the way you fight this kind of war?

War really is hell. A lot of reasonable people, who just want to live their lives, end up getting killed. History has shown the consequences of the aftermath of war so many times. New threats emerge from places you would never expect. New attrocities. Perhaps having these “police actions” is actually the cheap way to fight a war?

42

Just to clarify, what’s the problem with Iraq again?

Well, we are spending huge amounts of tax-extorted money, thousands of American soldiers are dying, and this just pointless destruction of lives and money because no greater value will be gained. It’s not even a good loss-leader – we’re not even getting one tenth back in return.

perhaps this is indeed the way you fight this kind of war?

By “this kind of war”, do you mean “a war where you pointlessly destroy wealth and lives with no reasonable hope of getting something good in return, and just fight the war so that you can demonstrate your willingness to fight an unreasoned war?”. I guess so. But the question out to be, should we fight such wars? My position, and I think a traditional policy of the military (perhaps just the old-fashioned military) is that the goal of war is to stop the enemy by killing them, and not to prolong the combat as long as possible.

43

Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, … all have been involved in terrorist attacks against other countries in that region of the world. But not against the U.S. on U.S. soil, except for Pakistan on 9-11. I’m not sure what you mean by creating a terrorist milieu if it doesn’t include Pakistan as the major participant.

Most of the 9/11 suicide bombers were from Saudi Arabia. Iran has been involved in terror attacks against Americans, as I mentioned else where.

9-11 was the worst terrorist attack in recent (post WWII) history against any country. Clearly Pakistan is very important. I don’t follow how Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff harp on Iran and never mention Pakistan.

They see Iran as the major Islamic strong hold, the big spreader of the ideas. Iran, afterall, is an Islamic totalitarian state. Pakistan wouldn’t be unimportant, but it’s not the most important on the list.

Thales wrote:

“Rogue fanatics would be nothing more than weak gangs if not for state support.”

Focus on the particular rogue bin Laden. The prosperity of the Middle Eastern region, such as it is, enabled him to become rich. And that prosperity was due in large part to the United States. We pump money into Middle Eastern dictatorships by buying their oil. Government restrictions on American industry (nuclear power, oil drilling locations, etc.) prevent us from becoming substantially, even totally, independent of that oil – as Inspector pointed out.

Probably true, but bin Laden had the protection and financial support of terrorist states, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, which was my point.

And before it’s over the Iraq War will have cost us over a trillion dollars, a thousand billion dollars, money sucked out of private sources, including industrialists and including innovators in energy production.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the point I made, which is that Iran is the main problem.

The U.S. CIA makes Pakistan much more dangerous by supporting its intelligence agency. This is where bin Laden himself came from.

I don’t know what you mean by “came from”, but bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia.

With U.S government help Al Qaeda was set up to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Later that same Al Qaeda expanded and turned against the U.S.

Right, we fought the Soviets via the Mujajadeen (sp?). However, we’re not responsible for him being a wild-eyed fanatic.

Our own state helped bin Laden in the two ways above. This is worth repeating because it’s easily within our power to end such help to future bin Ladens. End this help first, then worry about the danger of Iran or whatever.

I don’t agree. If we run into a bin Laden we can squash him like a bug, if we’d only use our power properly. You need a ruthlessly rights upholding and righteous foreign policy. That’s what will keep you safe. Nobody is messing with Rome, because if you mess with it, bad things happen to you.

“Al Qaeda was financed by donors in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, in fact, pushed, and still pushes, this fanaticism.”

Not Saudi Arabia as a state, just the opposite. The Saudi monarchy loves the material aspect of the U.S. – it makes billions off the U.S. and that enables it to rule. That the U.S. props up the Saudi monarchy is one reason Saudis who oppose the monarchy, fanatics though some may be, hate the U.S.

Saudi Arabia is filled with fanatacism. It has universities that teach and spread that stuff. They have very little in the way of science and engineering schools.

It’s true that U.S. installations in the Middle East have been victims of terrorist attacks. But what were we doing there in the first place? What on earth were American Marines spending our money and risking their lives in Lebanon in 1983 for? Not for any benevolently selfish reason. It was pure and senseless sacrifice.

It was probably to support the oil trade, which is a benevolently selfish reason.

“… Hezbollah is basically a wing of the Iranian army. They finance them to the tune of 200 million dollars a year. They took American hostages in 1979.”

Regarding the last – the American hostages taken in Tehran in 1979 – then some background is in order. American history vis-a-vis Iran didn’t begin in 1979. In 1953 the U.S. CIA instigated a coup d’etat in Iran that overthrew the socialist parliamentary government, ultimately installing a dictator, a man calling himself “the Shah of Iran.” This thug was supposed to be friendlier to U.S. interests, and the U.S. government supported him with foreign aid. But to the people of Iran the Shah was far worse than the government the U.S. helped overthrow: the Savak secret police, torture and murder of dissenters, etc. – tens of thousands of Iranians, perhaps millions, were killed during his regime. Eventually there was a popular uprising groping to end the oppression. This uprising got subverted by a Shah faction led by Ruhollah Khomeini, who ended up replacing the Shah as dictator in 1979. Unlike the Shah, Khomeini was a radical Islam type and called himself the Ayatollah.

I have real doubts that the Shah was worse than a socialist. Socialists are very brutal, and what replaced the Shah was far worse again. The fact is that the real problem in that region is that it’s mired in an extremely irrational philosophy and that’s why it is brutal. The U.S. was just dealing with a bad region. It’s like getting a kettle full of toxins and trying to make it a little less toxic.

44

Probably true, but bin Laden had the protection and financial support of terrorist states, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, which was my point.

Do you have a source for this? Bin Laden hates Saudi Arabia, and the feeling is mutual. Saudi Arabia, while still a terror-sponsor, has poured vast amounts of money into fighting Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. I don’t doubt that there are some Saudi mosques that give financial support to bin Laden, but you can’t blame the government for that.

To do so would be like blaming the United States government for supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad, just because of the Holy Land Foundation.

45

Do you have a source for this? Bin Laden hates Saudi Arabia, and the feeling is mutual. Saudi Arabia, while still a terror-sponsor, has poured vast amounts of money into fighting Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. I don’t doubt that there are some Saudi mosques that give financial support to bin Laden, but you can’t blame the government for that.

You can blame the government, if they don’t stop it.

Here is a quote from TIA Daily, Aug 06, 2002:

Link

The Saudi rulers are vigorous promoters of Wahhabism, a fanatical Islamic sect that preaches—among other barbaric doctrines—that Muslims have a duty to hate non-Muslims. They have exported this hatred to the rest of the region, inspiring and sponsoring the Taliban, paying blood money to Palestinian terrorists, broadcasting anti-Jewish incitement and anti-American propaganda in their state-controlled press, and tolerating the free flow of money to organizations like al-Qaeda.

46

Thales,

Those of us with no first hand knowledge of Saudi Arabia must rely on reputable reporters to find out what’s going on there. Robert Tracinski’s TIAdaily comment, quoted by you, relies on a July 10, 2002 Pentagon briefing (described in the Washington Post) entitled “Taking Saudi Out of Arabia” given by Laurent Murawiec, at that time a Rand Corporation analyst and still a member of the Hudson Institute.

Murawiec is a neoconservative, not a reputable reporter. The Hudson Institute is a neoconservative think-tank. The final slide he projected at his Pentagon presentation is an example of neocon nuttiness:

… “Grand strategy for the Middle East

… Iraq is the tactical pivot

… Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot

… Egypt the prize.”

To be perfectly frank, I don’t want Egypt.

Neoconservatives have an agenda superceding truth – the justifications for the Iraq War being a prime example of their deceit. They can’t be trusted to describe Wahhabism accurately because they will always paint Arabs in the worst colors irrespective of the facts. Since Murawiec is associated with these people I don’t trust him. (And I wouldn’t trust Tracinski either.) The truth about muslims is bad enough without exaggerating.

You can find disgusting war-mongering things in the Bible. It would be unjust to focus on these parts and say “Look what disgusting warmongering creeps all these christians be.” Yet some people do just that regarding the Talmud and Judaism. Their method should not be imitated when considering the Koran and Islam.

I suspect Wahhabism is no different from fundamentalist Christianity: the vast majority of its adherents are harmless (except to themselves), and then there are the fanatics who are not.

The notion that Wahhabism is little different from fundamentalist Christianity is upheld by some people whose reputation or credentials indicate that they, unlike Tracinski, may know what they’re talking about. The BBC article linked to at the end of this post is probably closer to the truth than Tracinski’s paragraph.

Gary Leupp, a professor at Tufts History Department, is mentioned many places on the Internet, praised and vilified. He may be wrong or exaggerate in the opposite direction, but I’d trust him before I’d trust neocons like Murawiec above, or those at the National Review, or at FrontPageMag.

Who then is a reputable reporter about Wahhabism? The problem is finding an “expert” we can trust. I’m still looking. But I wouldn’t trust the neoconservatives if they said the sky was blue, and in this case they may be saying it’s orange.

The Saudi monarchy is probably promoting Wahhabism for the same reason Napoleon promoted Christianity in France: to keep the masses docile and obedient. It’s an old story: The Count said to the Priest, I’ll keep them poor and you keep them stupid.

Thales wrote:

I have real doubts that the Shah was worse than a socialist.

No need to have one doubt about it. I gave a thumbnail sketch in my previous post and there are plenty of reputable articles on the Internet fleshing it out. The Iranian people did not rise up against their parliamentary socialist system, instead the coup against it was instigated by the CIA, which intentionally installed the Shah as dictator. And the Iranian people did rise up, eventually, against the brutality of the Shah. The uprising got hijacked by a Shah faction led by Ruhollah Khomeini. The CIA ultimately – if stupidly – helped install an islamic theocracy in Iran.

You (Thales) continue:

Socialists are very brutal, and what replaced the Shah was far worse again.

Of course the first part, before the comma, is not always true. A country can possess a substantial amount of socialism without barbarism: France, Sweden, the Pilgrims, etc. And in the Middle East, socialism is a step forward, not – as in the U.S. and Europe – a step backward.

Your second part – “what replaced the Shah was far worse” – that is, worse than the Shah – sluffs over the fact that the Shah was far worse than what the CIA overthrew to install him. (And you might flesh out why Ruhollah Khomeini was far worse for the Iranians than the Shah. When you get that low it’s hard to make distinctions.)

Here’s the BBC article about Wahhabism:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1571144.stm

“In daily life, the Saudi religious establishment – the ulema – have imposed strict segregation of the sexes, an absolute prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcohol, a ban on women driving and many other social restrictions.

“The rules are enforced by the ‘mutawa’, or religious police, who patrol the streets and shopping centres on the look-out for anyone breaking the rules.”

This is too bad, but it’s not “I hate Americans because they’re free. I think I’ll go over there and blow myself up.”

David,

I had asked: Are there any reputable references showing that the Iranian government helped bin Laden execute 9-11?

You answered by talking about Iran creating “a terrorist milieu.” This is rhetoric when I want explicit facts. It’s doubtful such facts exist, because if they did then, given the Bush Administration’s obvious desire to do a “mission accomplished” in Iran, the Administration would be proclaiming the Iranian government’s 9-11 participation to the skies night and day at rock concert volume.

Instead all we hear is “Nuclear bomb some years from now.” The Administration is silent about the fact that Iran right now, unlike Iraq in 2003, really does have an arsenal of viable chemical weapons. It has had them for many years. But that fact doesn’t fit what the neoconservatives call their “created reality.”

There are obvious things the U.S. should do before Iraqing Iran is even considered. Fast, easy, inexpensive things – indeed we’d keep a lot more of our money if we did them – described in my earlier posts #39 and parts of #38 about desire, means, and success. Stop involving ourselves in other countries’ wars, become energy independent from the Middle East—and in general stop aiding and trading with dictatorships, and above all clean up the massive criminal corruption in our government as described by Rodney Stich in Defrauding America and other books.

I’ve quoted Randolph Bourne before but his pithy observation is worth repeating: “War is the health of the State.” Usually war is unhealthy for you and me. War is the absolute last option.

47

You answered by talking about Iran creating “a terrorist milieu.” This is rhetoric when I want explicit facts. It’s doubtful such facts exist, because if they did then, given the Bush Administration’s obvious desire to do a “mission accomplished” in Iran, the Administration would be proclaiming the Iranian government’s 9-11 participation to the skies night and day at rock concert volume.

That’s the most bizarre proof I’ve ever seen. What you’re demanding, then, is not proof that Iran helped al Qaida terrorists to bring about 9/11, but proof that agents of the Iranian government gave materials aid directly to al Qaida.

Iran caused 9-11, via the so-called Revolution, which terminates the movement toward freedom in the Middle East, established terrorism as a viable political tool, and was the political model of a modern Islamist theocracy as was created in Afghanistan. What parts of this do you dispute.

48

First I would like to correct what I said to Alon in my last post, and clarify it further: My criticism was only of that post, and not of the individual writing it, in general.

I realize also that what seemed to me as “memorization” could simply be the result of bad phrasing, lack of time to write the ideas in enough detail or other factors. In fact I also realized it (the other possible factors) when I wrote my post, which is why I said “it seems memorized” and not “it is memorized, and this is what the writer DOES (all the time)”.

On 6th reading I do think that the overall tone was a bit too much, and I’m sorry for that. I hope you’d come back to the discussion sometime, Alon.

If there were a reason to think that another two thousand American deaths and a couple trillion dollars more might somehow bring freedom to Iraq, I might at least consider the arguments, but until you can give even a smattering of a reason to think that freedom and rational behavior is possible there, I don’t see that the “stay the course” argument has a jot of persuasiveness.

Perhaps it is not the money or amount of soldiers that can make the difference in Iraq: perhaps the problem is with enforcement: Punishments not severe enough, American soldiers avoiding use of force against Iraqis (to not create antagonism), etc’. Perhaps the policy is the problem and not the money… I don’t really know.

However, if self defense for America (in the long term) can be achieved more efficiently by leaving now, then I think that they should leave. Careful examination of future costs and predictions of how Iraq is likely to develop is necessary.

As for what you said about democracy and election in Iran: Were the elections really free and reflect the citizen’s actual opinions?

Now, with that said, I want to base my argument that providing (some sort of) education for freedom and individual rights can be a form of self-defense:

Armed rebellion would only be justified if rights were significantly violated, for example, there would be a loss of freedom of speech. As long as ideas can be freely exchanged the process that lead to rights violation can be reversed via non-violent means, through intellectual revolution.

(bold emphasis mine). What do you mean by “justified” here? moral? Is armed rebellion a question of morality or of efficiency? Suppose you thought that some armed rebellion could lead to the abolishment of taxes (in a way that would not ruin the economy, meaning gradually), would it be immoral to do it? I don’t think so. I think that armed rebellion is a question of efficiency and cost in achieving freedom. Efficiency, and not morality (though it is moral to do what is most efficient, but I rather leave that aspect aside in this discussion) is the factor in the decision of the form of self-defense.

Investing money and resources in educating citizens of another country is altruism. Education is not a proper role of a government even when it comes to it’s own citizens. In contrast, ARI is an intellectual institution so it serves a different role in society.

Good point. I realize I should have made my initial argument more clear. I said: “Why does the ARI only encourage choosing the educating strategy in internal policy, but not in external policy?” and it sounds as if I think that education grows on trees. There is a difference if a private organization decides to give value to someone for free, or if the government does that (using other people’s money). So it does seem like there’s a huge hole in my argument (or question). But there isn’t (or at least, the government/private company is not that). Here is the explanation:

In a free society any individual or private company are free to do whatever they want with their resources (as long as all the owners agree). So in fact if some company with a self-sacrificial philosophy decides to buy and donate books to kids, they are free to choose whatever irrational course of action they want (but the government should not be).

The thing is: that I am examining the ARI’s actions under the premise that they represent what is rational, and what IS self-defense. Self defense here is a principle that can be applied not just to a private organization, a group of people, but also to an individual or a country. I am looking at their actions and making them a principle of self defense: to explain further: if I apply this principle to an individual that is being harassed by bullies at his school, this individual would act in self defense by offering free lectures that guide students how to avoid the use of violence. When this principle of rational self-defense is applied to a government, one form of rational self defense of a country would be to invest resources in spreading good philosophy.

The primary difference is that one is a form of altruism and the other is not.

I hope I explained better now why I think

this is not self-sacrifice, but a form of self-defense.

Ayn Rand books, with the permission of ARI, have been translated to many languages.

Just translation is not enough. Do you know that in Israel we only have TF, AS and anthem translated? and those books are not very known. I was very surprised to discover that in the local library in some city in California, I can find VoS, or video tapes of Rand (!!). People in Israel are hardly familiar with Objectivism.

49

(Ifat @ Nov 17 2006, 10:18 AM)

Freedom can be gained by force. It’s the cost and the method’s-efficiency that are in question here, when considering the best course of action.

(~Sophia~ @ Nov 18 2006, 11:19 PM)

Armed rebellion would only be justified if rights were significantly violated, for example, there would be a loss of freedom of speech. As long as ideas can be freely exchanged the process that lead to rights violation can be reversed via non-violent means, through intellectual revolution.

What do you mean by “justified” here? moral? Is armed rebellion a question of morality or of efficiency?

Both. Armed rebellion results in massive loss of lives, property damage and losses, overall disruption of economic activity, looting - just to name a few.

But most importantly, what you do not want to promote in society is legitimizing the use of force over rational dialogue. To attempt to achieve the good by physical force, when intelectual persuasion is possible, is to reject reason as means with which men should deal with one another. Overthrowing of government by physical force, so called armed uprising, must be thus considered as the last resort, when no other means are available.

(~Sophia~ @ Nov 18 2006, 11:19 PM)

Investing money and resources in educating citizens of another country is altruism. Education is not a proper role of a government even when it comes to it’s own citizens. In contrast, ARI is an intellectual institution so it serves a different role in society.

Self defense here is a principle that can be applied not just to a private organization, a group of people, but also to an individual or a country.

I am looking at their actions and making them a principle of self defense: to explain further: if I apply this principle to an individual that is being harassed by bullies at his school, this individual would act in self defense by offering free lectures that guide students how to avoid the use of violence. When this principle of rational self-defense is applied to a government, one form of rational self defense of a country would be to invest resources in spreading good philosophy.

I hope I explained better now why I think this is not self-sacrifice, but a form of self-defense.

Your definition of self defense must be different from mine. The right of self-defense is a legal and moral, right to use force to defend yourself, your family, and your property against physical attack. The only proper purpose of government is to protect its citzens from physical violence. Government may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. Education is not a form of self defence as you suggest. One does not and cannot ‘negotiate’ with brutality. When faced with it what one needs is firm opposition.

Citizens of one country should not be forced to pay for education of citizens of other countries (sacrificing their own enconomic prosperity) as means of preventing potential physical attacks.

(Ifat @ Nov 17 2006, 10:18 AM)

Why does the ARI only encourage choosing the educating strategy in internal policy, but not in external policy?

(~Sophia~ @ Nov 18 2006, 11:19 PM)

Ayn Rand books, with the permission of ARI, have been translated to many languages

Just translation is not enough. Do you know that in Israel we only have TF, AS and anthem translated? and those books are not very known. I was very surprised to discover that in the local library in some city in California, I can find VoS, or video tapes of Rand (!!). People in Israel are hardly familiar with Objectivism.

Not enough for what and for whom? This is the issue of priorities. People who financially support ARI, who are mostly Americans, are more concerned with spreading Objectivism in their own backyard, as they should be. That is the primary role of ARI. Educating the rest of the world is of secondary concern, as it should be.

50

I would like to put this thread back to what Moose said, in post number 1: “What do you think needs to be done [in Iraq]?”

The following needs to be done, and follows by its justification:

Need 1:

We need to identify who the enemy is in Iraq, and how much of a threat they are to the United States interests to its people.

Justification 1:

Before we continue throwing money and our army men’s lives in Iraq, we should have intelligence of who exactly is attacking us. Once we identify who is attacking us, then we can react accordingly. No person, company, or government can act without first knowing why they are acting. If we don’t know who to attack, then we

Need 2:

Attack the enemy without putting American troops at risk.

Justification 2:

Once we know who the enemy is, we can of course take them out. The method we should use should be “by any means necessary”. This includes: Air Assault, Fire Bombing, Napalm, Agent Orange, Mustard Gas, and, if needed, Nuclear. This is very easy to be done by planes, and all of our enemies will not put up much of an air challenge for us.

Need 3:

Kill civilians.

Justification 3:

There is absolutely no such thing as innocents in war. If an individual is part of an economic system of a dictatorship, then they are supporting the dictatorship. People who support the enemy are the enemy, and should be treated as such (i.e. killed). To win a war, we have to kill as much enemies as needed to make them loose the will to fight. Only after that, will we be able to say “we won”.

If the Jihadists realize we mean business, and we deal with them swiftly and cheaply, only then would our self interest be protected, which is the whole point of war. And that is the only way for us to win the War on Terror.

To everyone else:

In a dictatorship, the wealth (and lives) ultimately belongs to one person: The dictator. The wealth that a dictator receives is by handouts by the wonderful United Nations, which is wealth looted from the rich, productive nations. Those nations have already lost that wealth, and what the army is doing is removing that wealth once and for all, so the dictator is unable to continue using it. Do not fool yourself into thinking that it is wealth they have created, it is not. It is material goods that is given to them, and that they have absolutely no right to own those goods.

Also, don’t let yourself get distracted into thinking we have to set up a “democracy” (ugh!). Why should we sacrifice our money, our time, and our men to give a country that brings us no value a democracy? I see no reason for it, and I do not see sacrifice as ever being good.

51

“We need to identify who the enemy is in Iraq, and how much of a threat they are to the United States interests to its people.”

Identify the enemy? There is – and never was – any physically threatening enemy of the United States in Iraq.

The United States as in here at home in America.

… How account for three thousand U.S. servicemen killed and ten thousand maimed for life?

They were sent there by lying neoconservatives to destroy Iraq. Deceit is part of the neoconservatives’ philosophy.

Parenthetically, what military power Iraq had, though no threat to the U.S., was given to it by the West, primarily the U.S.

52

Mark H: You stated "Identify the enemy? There is – and never was – any physically threatening enemy of the United States in Iraq. "

Yes there was. Saddam Hussian was a dictator. In effect, he enslaved his people (at the point of a gun, but i shouldn’t have to say that) to basically do his bidding. If they don’t do his bidding, then they get killed.

A dictator, all dictators, survive on wealth that is either looted by force, or given to them. For a country to willingly give up that wealth to its enemies is a sacrifice. And a dictator would only seek out more wealth, and will end up attacking another country to get it (if the payments are stopped).

You also said “They were sent there by lying neoconservatives to destroy Iraq. Deceit is part of the neoconservatives’ philosophy.”

I dislike the neoconservatives as much as you, however, I want proof that deceit was used to to start this war, by the Neoconservatives, and that deceit is part of their philosophy.

You also said: “Parenthetically, what military power Iraq had, though no threat to the U.S., was given to it by the West, primarily the U.S.”

Yes, Iraq was a threat to the USA before the war started. Its a known fact that they had chemical weapons, which they used during the Iraq/ Persia war. Moreover, Iraq also used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and attempted to build a nuclear reactor (before Israel destroyed it).

Now, it looked like in 2002 and 2003 that the west was going to stop giving Iraq money. That means, for Iraq to survive, it had to get money from other sources, such as selling either chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons. Who would they sell it to? The terrorists, of course (which Saddam had a close relationship to). Therefore, we needed to take out Saddam before terrorists get those weapons, and before they use it either against the United States population or her interests.

My conclusion (unless evidence to the contrary is presented), the war with Iraq is just, but not the military actions after.

53

The argument (paraphrasing):

“Because Iraq was a dictatorship therefore it was a danger to the U.S., a danger so great Iraq needed to be invaded right away.”

is surely fallacious. If it were valid, the U.S. would have to invade several dozen other countries besides Iraq.

Let’s see: China, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Cuba, Haiti … but you can make your own list if you don’t like the start of that one. Your list will encompass a good deal of Asia, Central and South America, and Africa. (Don’t be fooled by “republic” in a country’s name, or “elections” in its political process.)

“… I want proof that

[1] deceit was used to start this [iraq] war,

[2] by the Neoconservatives, and

[3] that deceit is part of their philosophy.”

These are old and well-documented stories by now. For how the Administration – which [2] was advised by neocons like Perle, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, etc. – was [1] less than honest with the American public about its reasons for invading Iraq, Google:

pentagon + “office of special plans”

For how [3] deceit is part of the neocons’ philosophy, Google:

neoconservatives + “leo strauss”

Of course not all the items these searches bring up are reputable, but there are plenty of reputable ones that make the case.

“… it looked like in 2002 and 2003 that the West was going to stop giving Iraq money. … for Iraq to survive, it had to get money from other sources, such as selling either chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons. Who would they sell it to? The terrorists, of course (which Saddam had a close relationship to).”

That Saddam was involved with the 9-11 terrorists is the biggest lie of the Administration’s run-up to the Iraq invasion. Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9-11. And at that time Saddam had no chemical or nuclear weapons to sell anybody. And Saddam had no motivation to attack the continental U.S. And even if he hated the U.S. he wasn’t such a fool, being a relatively fixed target himself, as to do it.

So far about 3,000 American soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, in both cases about five times that many maimed for life, hundreds of billions of Americans’ dollars gone forever, America’s reputation for decency in tatters … the Iraq War may be the greatest military disaster of all time.

It did destroy Iraq though, which is what the neocons wanted.

54

I’m going to argue that the best thing to do in Iraq is to stay put. Let the people actually involved work out how to secure the nation. It will take time. It is worth it. There are mistakes, but it is on the right track.

Iraq was a good move. If you want to hold Afghan, history has shown you have to stop Pakistani and Arab infiltration.

Pakistan was convinced to work with us, grudgingly. Pakistan has nuclear missiles, 165 million people and a military that can hold back India. A war with them would be expensive. So we have their limited help in keeping incursions down. Which is better than all out war.

If you’re not going to fully stop the Pakistani infiltration into Afghan, you need to stop the Arabs at least.

Iraq was the most logical choice to create a diversion for the Arabs. Iraq has a population of 26 million (compare to 68 million in non-arab Iran) . It is very divided bewteen 3 or 4 major ethnic groups. You already have a safe haven of sorts in the Kurdish area. Your troops have already been there before. The Iraqi military was a joke. UN restrictions made the country weaker. You already had intelligence working in the Kurdish area. 80% of the population had no love of their government. Placing yourself in Iraq places you beside Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, all three are key in fighting terrorism. In short, Iraq was a failed state and the cheapest option in money and lives.

There was no other choice of a nation to invade to keep the Arab terrorists busy. Iraq was a sound strategic choice. A few thousand coalition soldiers dead? Stop being such whimps, they are soldiers. It’s war. And it’s cheaper to fight it in their lands than on ours. You should consider Iraq the strategic positioning in a war that will take out Syria and Iran.

55

You should consider Iraq the strategic positioning in a war that will take out Syria and Iran.

If Bush really intended to use Iraq as a starting point and then take one Iran and/or Syria, it would be a super-strong case for war. OTOH, his real plan was not that. It was to take over Iraq, let democracy blossom, and let that example inspire the people of Syria and Iran into introducing democracy in their own countries. When the Iraqis democratically opted for a government based on religion, Bush found himself stumped. Now, Bush finds himself in a position where withdrawing will leave behind an iraq that is much weaker than before the invasion. That means that Iran and/or Syria will end up with influence over Iraq.

Right now much of Iraq is in civil-war mode. Is there any point staying there is nothing is going to change? And, if something is going to change, then what and how?

56

Right now much of Iraq is in civil-war mode. Is there any point staying there is nothing is going to change? And, if something is going to change, then what and how?

At this point, I wonder if the only workable solution is to break the country into 3 autonomous nations. There would have to be a Kurdish nation along with Sunni and Shiite nations. I realize that the Turks don’t want an independent Kurdistan on their border. However, convincing them to accept such a state would be easier than solving the disaster that is present day Iraq. Short of that, I don’t see any way to stop the killing. If we just pack up and leave, I think the genocide that results will make Cambodia in the 1970s seem like a cake-walk.

57

On the subject of Islam…

The Muslims Are Right

A poem by

Brandon Cropper

11-25-06

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cropperb

The Muslims are right,

Just examine their ways

And you’ll see that they’re properly frightened;

The Muslims see clearly the threats to their culture,

For the West is a culture Enlightened.

While they tout religion and dogma and prayer,

And their youth memorize the Koran,

The West has its science and reason and freedom,

And the sovereign rights of man.

Islam preaches faith and belief -

The oldest saw in all history.

The West created the hypothesis,

And our science reveals every mystery.

Islam offers the altruist ethic:

Sacrifice they call virtue.

Jefferson immortalized our sacred phrase:

Its happiness man should pursue.

Islam claims that Sharia Law

Applies everywhere on the planet.

“Behead unbeliever!” they shout in a rage,

“Submit infidels to the gamut!”

But the West won’t give up -

We’ve come way too far

To submit to primordial beasts.

We will not regress to their ancient and dreary

Cannibalistic feast.

They spend more time praying

Than we spend at playing;

We work while they kneel in the mosque.

What will they get for their prayers when its over?

Nothing! They’ll see that they’ve lost.

Who will win this round?

Freedom, or Islam?

The West won before this began:

No more religion, hatred, contrition,

For we’ve found the Rights of Man.

The End

58

However, convincing them to accept such a state would be easier than solving the disaster that is present day Iraq.

What disaster? There is no disaster.

Iraqis are killing each other off. The war is in their lands. Not ours. Coalition troops should stay. To leave would invite Iran and Syria into the picture. To stay tempts Iran and Syria to meddle in Iraqs affrais, which can be used as more justification to engage them in war.

Iraq was and is the right move.

And yes, a democracy in Iraq could influence the rest of the people in the region. And that is a lot cheaper than all out war.

59

What disaster? There is no disaster.

The place is out of control, with roughly 3,500 civillians being killed this month and dozens of our soldiers. On top of that, the situation is beginning to become politically unmanageable in this country.

Iraqis are killing each other off. The war is in their lands. Not ours. Coalition troops should stay. To leave would invite Iran and Syria into the picture. To stay tempts Iran and Syria to meddle in Iraqs affrais, which can be used as more justification to engage them in war.

Iraq was and is the right move.

There simply isn’t the political will in this country to unilaterally engage Iran and Syria in a war.

And yes, a democracy in Iraq could influence the rest of the people in the region. And that is a lot cheaper than all out war.

That’s a pipe dream because the people of Iraq are incapable of creating a peaceful democracy. I would have preferred to see us depose Saddam and then leave after we had captured and executed him. I don’t really care what kind of government rules Iraq as long as it doesn’t threaten our interests.

60

There was no other choice of a nation to invade to keep the Arab terrorists busy… And it’s cheaper to fight it in their lands than on ours.

How do you make the argument that if we didn’t invade (and don’t continue to occupy) Iraq, there’d be more terrorist attacks here?