William Buckley: The American mission in Iraq has failed. We must acknowledge defeat.

[ChristinaM 0]

Really? Care to cite some instances? Communism? You seriously need to gain some perspective, DUD, er, DUDE.

The freedom you enjoy up-chucking this drivel that you put forth in these forums was paid for by those that...oh well what's the use?

It's fashionable to be indignant and pompous concerning issues that clearly involve burdens borne by others allowing you to continue espousing this uninformed nonsense.

Viva democracy and freedom!

My god, you're an ignorant, arrogant *******.

(I thought better of what I wrote originally.)

Edited February 26, 2006 by clmarsh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Time will tell what the effects of the Iraq war will be. Sadly western imperialist intervention has historically created more problems than it solved.

One need only look at the US actions in Haiti, Iran and Korea - and ask the question what stability did we bring to those countries?

Similarly you won't find many people who'll agree that the British and the French did a great deal of 'good' when they went into India, Africa and China.

Really? Care to cite some instances? Communism? You seriously need to gain some perspective, DUD, er, DUDE.

The freedom you enjoy up-chucking this drivel that you put forth in these forums was paid for by those that...oh well what's the use?

It's fashionable to be indignant and pompous concerning issues that clearly involve burdens borne by others allowing you to continue espousing this uninformed nonsense.

Viva democracy and freedom!

Uninformed nonsense, yet you don't provide anything of your own to add to the discussion. apart from throwing in personal attacks. Whatever, your opinion of me is clear, even if you don't have anything to add to a discussion

I merely said that western intervention in the affairs of 3rd world nations has historically had negative consequences (unintended or otherwise). I also said that pulling out of Iraq without satisfying our obligations to that country would be disastrous.

If you disagree with that idea, perhaps you would care to share your reasoning? Whatever man - share your opinion. They're like arseholes you know...

Edited February 26, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

US kicked out the Shah?? news to me.

I stand corrected

The question still stands though - would islamic militant terrorism be as prevalent today if we hadn't interfered with Iran by removing the prime minister, and supported a pseudo-stalinist dictator (saddam hussein), supplying him with weapons (of mass destruction) and financial aid, which he used (with the US blessing) in a war that killed over 1 million people?

As to Africa - what about the Rwandan genocide? - that certainly was primarily based in tribal divisions, but those existing divisions were exacerbated by Belgian Imperialism. Essentially they created a class society that favoured the Tutsis (elavating them to positions of power and authority) at the expense of the Hutus.

Again - many 3rd world countries (esp Africa) are saddled with massive debts that can only be repaid by further impoverishing the people. How can you develop an economy, build a decent infrastructure if you are forever paying off the interest on loans you cannot afford to pay back. Lets not forget that much of the money loaned to African nations was loaned to dictators who used it to finance wars against their own people.

At best the west has to assume some complicity in this - as I said I don't think the problems of the world exist in a vacuum. Like it or not we do bear at least some responsibility for them. We may not pull the trigger but often we pay the guy that does...

As I've mentioned in another thread there are multiple indication that the current version of Islamic fundamentalism is almost entirely a product of colonialism and the Cold War. Colonialism basically divided the Middle East along relatively arbitrary borders (see Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the like) and decided to first grant nation rights to people (Kurds, Armenians) and then deny them there rights 1 year later or so. Then the whole Israel issue, which was after all a European problem that was exported to the Middle East and led to the displacement of another group that had been granted territorial rights, the Palestinians. Israel, despite professions of recreating the Jewish state that had ended with the fall of Jerusalem in 68 AD, was primarily understood to serve as a Western Phalanx in the Middle East, a nation that would ensure furter control and access to the Middle East, and of course help keep the Middle East from turning communist. Thus Israel was the first attempt to ensure Western domination in the Middle East in that conflict we now now as the Cold War.

For the next 31 years any intervention in the Middle East was about creating affiliations: the Soviet Union tried their best to support nations that were anti-Western and groups that attempted to overthrow pro-Western governments, the US supported those nations that were staunchly anti-communist and not necessarily pro-democratic. Iran is a case in point as an ideological battleground. In 1953, Mossadeq became the democratically elected prime minister after ousting the Shah. He wanted to install a Western style democracy, but insisted that the oil wells within his nation should be nationalized because he argued that they belonged to the Iranian people and not the British/Americans. Because of his insistence on the Iranian ownership of the oil wells, the Americans ousted him reinstalled the Shah who continued to reign as a despot and keep resistance to a minimum. However, the US was so focused on the defeat of Communism that in 1979 when the Islamic fundamentalists had finally ousted the Shah, confusion arose as to who these people led by the Ayatollah were, since there were obviously not Communists (and not supported by the SU until the first gulf war (between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s). Afghanistan is another good example because noone in the Western world gave a sh*t about the country and it's attempts to become democratic in the 1970s until the Soviets marched into Afghanistan in 1979 to support a pro-soviet puppet government as a bulwark against the West (and Iran which had also confounded the Russians by choosing Islamic fundamentallism as the third way). Only after the SU attacked Afghanistan the US became interested in the area as a possible battleground in the Cold War, and as in other countries in the Middle East, they supported those whom they deemed most qualified in defeating the SU, not those most qualified to later install a democratic government, namely the Mujahedeen, who were ironically also supported by Iran and who later became known as the Taliban.

It's possible to make similar arguments for the rest of the world. The cold war was ony a cold war if you happened to live in the colder places of the globe. The battlegrounds of the cold war were those places that used to be colonized and that were almost all located in Asia (the Middle East, Vietnam, Korea, and at first China), Africa (Angola, Mozambique, and the Kongo), and South America (Chile, Bolivia, etc.). In terms of the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalism grew because it was the only way out of the cold war battleground and because democratic movements were unsafe allies for both sides since they were not easily controlled by the west and might decide to end postcolonial dependence on natural resources.

[Fuzzness 2]

Time will tell what the effects of the Iraq war will be. Sadly western imperialist intervention has historically created more problems than it solved.

One need only look at the US actions in Haiti, Iran and Korea - and ask the question what stability did we bring to those countries?

Similarly you won't find many people who'll agree that the British and the French did a great deal of 'good' when they went into India, Africa and China.

Really? Care to cite some instances? Communism? You seriously need to gain some perspective, DUD, er, DUDE.

The freedom you enjoy up-chucking this drivel that you put forth in these forums was paid for by those that...oh well what's the use?

It's fashionable to be indignant and pompous concerning issues that clearly involve burdens borne by others allowing you to continue espousing this uninformed nonsense.

Viva democracy and freedom!

How did invading Iraq, a country which posed no threat to us at all, add to our freedom? What about sticking our noses in others businesses? How does that add to our freedom?

And a little bit of info for you... America is not a democracy, it is a republic. There IS a difference.

Can't wait for the reply...

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Regime change by force is an iffy business, and fails much more often than not.

Among the major powers, the US has engaged in the largest number of regime changes. Since the past century, it has deployed its military to impose democratic rule in foreign lands on 18 occasions. Yet this impressive record of international activism has left an uninspiring legacy. Of all the regimes the US has replaced with force, democratic rule has been sustained in only five places - Germany, Japan, Italy, Panama, and Grenada. This suggests a success rate of less than 30 percent. Outside the developed world and Latin America, there hasn't been a single success.

In Latin America, the US efforts of regime change removed old dictatorships, but failed to rebuild new democracies. In Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, repeated direct American military interventions, including lengthy occupations, resulted only in new dictatorships. The only two successful cases of building democracy by force were Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989, one a tiny island and the other a small country where the US has based tens of thousands of troops.

The dearth of success in regime change was not for lack of trying. The US occupied Cuba and the Dominican Republic twice for extended periods in the past century. It stayed engaged in Haiti continuously for 19 years and in Nicaragua intermittently for 24 years in the early part of the 20th century. But in each case, US efforts came to nothing. The most discouraging case is Haiti. The last time the US tried a regime change in the impoverished and ill-governed nation was 1994. Although US-led forces peacefully ousted the junta and reinstalled the democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti's democracy unraveled again quickly. Today, the nation is mired in poverty and misrule under the same Aristide.

Washington's record is better in the more developed parts of the world. In postwar Japan, Germany, and Italy, US-led occupation forces successfully rebuilt democratic institutions. In these three countries, the state institutions were relatively strong and effective; their societies were more modern; all had brief histories of democratic rule. They were among the more promising candidates for democracy-building. In the developing world, on the other hand, US projects of regime change have been marked mostly with failures and disappointments.

Three lessons emerge from past American experience that President Bush should heed. First, given the overall low rate of success in regime change, a similar operation in the Middle East, a tough geopolitical neighborhood far away from American shores, carries greater risks and has less chance of success. Iraq, with 24 million people and a volatile ethnic mix, would be one of the most ambitious US projects.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publicati...fa=view&id=1158

[slim 1,530]

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

We broke it... now we MUST fix it.

It baffles me how the American public is perplexed at the rest of the world's (specifically the Arab world's) hatred of the US. They just don't understand how "those people over there" could hate us.... we're doing everything we can to help them.

YEAH RIGHT! Give me a break. Go live there for a little while. And I don't mean living there on a government sponsored subcontract work visa. I mean go downtown and live in one of these cities. Then come back on here and tell me why the US is doing such a good job of helping out the rest of the world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

We broke it... now we MUST fix it.

That's really the point. All good intentions aside - there is a historical tendency that a country (specifically a middle eastern / african country) which gets 'fixed' in this manner ends up breaking worse down the line.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Fishdude

[rebeccajo 14]

That said, I don't think we can assume failure in Iraq. The administration took us into a war that was illegal and unethical for reasons that were totally separate to protecting US national security. However, they now owe a debt to that country to rebuild its infrastructure and protect Iraq's national security. I don't think its reasonable to pull out of there without satisfying those obligations.

Its a reasonable assumption that the situation we are faced with today with regards to islamic fundamentalist terrorism stems directly from the actions of previous administrations towards the 3rd world.

I'm not so sure.

Islamic fundamentalists terrorized parts of the world well before the US even existed. Pre-Islamic Persia, for example. And later, the entire Indian subcontinent. There are books written by Muslim rulers of central asian territories speaking of their horror at learning how South Asia is overrun by non-believers and tales of their exploits (looting, murder, etc.) from their military excursions into infidel territory. Reference: Babar Nama.

Quite. But as I said, would Iran be the way it is if the US hadn't gotten involved there?

Put it another way - would the UK have gone through a half century of catholic terrorism at the hands of the IRA, if they hadn't have gone into Northern Ireland?

Terrorism does not exist in a vacuum.

The UK endured a half-century of terrorism because SOME politicians at first regarded the issues as 'over there' and not affecting the homeland.

What lesson can be learned from this, then?

Edited February 26, 2006 by rebeccajo

[Fischkoepfin 1]

The UK endured a half-century of terrorism because SOME politicians at first regarded the issues as 'over there' and not affecting the homeland.

What lesson can be learned from this, then?

Don't meddle with other places' business, maybe? Or if some country that is in a vasal-like relationship with yours wants to be independent, let it go in its entirety?

Didn't the UK eventually realize that it was a homemade problem? I'm not too familiar with the Northern Ireland conflict, but I think the colonization of Ireland and the oppression of Catholics in Ireland by the English/Scottish that lasted for several centuries heavily contributed to the rise of terrorism, more so than those British politicians sitting around and doing nothing. Similarly, I think it would be very important to realize that Islamic terrorism is the outcome of a set of historical events and that it will not disappear if our reaction is guided by more violence. Doing something to end it is of vital importance but a "war on terror" should be based on fighting ideology with works not fighting humans with weapons.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I have nothing to add but first Francis Fukuyama and now William F. Buckley, all in one week............

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That said, I don't think we can assume failure in Iraq. The administration took us into a war that was illegal and unethical for reasons that were totally separate to protecting US national security. However, they now owe a debt to that country to rebuild its infrastructure and protect Iraq's national security. I don't think its reasonable to pull out of there without satisfying those obligations.

Seeing the lack of progress there over the course of the last 2.5 - 3 years, is it not reasonable, though, to try and look for alternative means to satisfy these obligations (which I agree we have)? I mean what if our very presence there is one of the main if not the obstacle to satisfying our obligation of leaving Iraq with a somewhat intact infrastructure? Then it would be impossible to satisfy our obligations by staying there. I think that somehow we need to come up with an honest assessment of the situation and see what can be done to help Iraq back on it's feet. Staying the course is obviously a big loser of a strategy; I actually hesitate calling it a strategy at all. Our military presence might have to end for any visible progress towards an acceptable outcome to happen. I am not saying that pulling out of there is the way to go but it's something that needs to be on the table in terms of considerations. We can't keep running around with our heads stuck in the sand pretending we're still doing something good over there. There's a huge problem in Iraq and chances are that the problem is us.

[slim 1,530]

Exactly.

[pedroh 21]

How did invading Iraq, a country which posed no threat to us at all, add to our freedom? What about sticking our noses in others businesses? How does that add to our freedom?

And a little bit of info for you... America is not a democracy, it is a republic. There IS a difference.

Can't wait for the reply...

PWNED.. PWNED.. and PWNED

[KarenCee 3]

How did invading Iraq, a country which posed no threat to us at all, add to our freedom? What about sticking our noses in others businesses? How does that add to our freedom?

And a little bit of info for you... America is not a democracy, it is a republic. There IS a difference.

Can't wait for the reply...

PWNED.. PWNED.. and PWNED

OK...i'm ignorant....what does PWNED mean?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That said, I don't think we can assume failure in Iraq. The administration took us into a war that was illegal and unethical for reasons that were totally separate to protecting US national security. However, they now owe a debt to that country to rebuild its infrastructure and protect Iraq's national security. I don't think its reasonable to pull out of there without satisfying those obligations.

Seeing the lack of progress there over the course of the last 2.5 - 3 years, is it not reasonable, though, to try and look for alternative means to satisfy these obligations (which I agree we have)? I mean what if our very presence there is one of the main if not the obstacle to satisfying our obligation of leaving Iraq with a somewhat intact infrastructure? Then it would be impossible to satisfy our obligations by staying there. I think that somehow we need to come up with an honest assessment of the situation and see what can be done to help Iraq back on it's feet. Staying the course is obviously a big loser of a strategy; I actually hesitate calling it a strategy at all. Our military presence might have to end for any visible progress towards an acceptable outcome to happen. I am not saying that pulling out of there is the way to go but it's something that needs to be on the table in terms of considerations. We can't keep running around with our heads stuck in the sand pretending we're still doing something good over there. There's a huge problem in Iraq and chances are that the problem is us.

I think you're right - some sort of objective assessment of the current situation does need to be done so that the US (and allies) can exit Iraq without it collapsing into civil war. Something positive needs to come out of this - after the piss-poor planning of the initial invasion and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq.

I rather suspect that the current insurgent crisis would not have taken off to the degree that it did, had Rumsfeld actually listened to military planners and sent in sufficient troops.