WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-13 17:28:36 +0000

I think we all agree that the Hussein regime was no cakewalk. However, the Bush Administration's reason for invading Iraq was not to promote human rights. We were worried about our safety, not Iraqi safety. I may be cynical, but I don't think I'm incorrect. 300,000 people over 24 years. That's 34.25 people a day. How many of those years was the Hussein regime favored by the U.S.? At least 8, from 1980 to 1988? Is that reasonable? So there's 100,000 people killed while we were holding this bastard's hand. Under the current occupation, we've been unable to prevent ~14,000 Iraqi deaths. Since March 2003, that's 20 months or 23.33 people a day. rladew is right, we've made a big difference for the Iraqi people. I feel a lot better about myself.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-13 19:06:51 +0000

No one is arguing that Bush is Mother Teresa here... and 9/11 or no, a good place to start in reducing global terrorism is to actively pursue countries that may not have directly attacked us but are friendly to terror in supporting training bases and operate their government in a totalitarian fashion where women and children are repeadetly raped, killed or taken advantage of. Having a lot of oil doesn't hurt either :) I'm not naive enough to think we're in this just for humanitarian reasons, but I would be bold enough to argue that reducing the threat of terror at least is a higher priority than oil. Advocating for other nation's freedom and democracy I dont think I'm idealistic enough to say is as important as oil though. (I did just see Far. 9/11 - should probably be a new thread - and I was curious about the Secret Service detail squadding around the Saudi embassy....) Kerry, though, is gonna have a tough time building alliances with the new countries he would prospectively be working with (Would you be happy if you are a leader of a country dealing with a man who has essentially called you a puppet?) At this point the question isnt to be in oIraq or not to be in Iraq, so no matter what happens, we are going to need a leader who can respectfully deal with these other nations. I don't feel like Kerry is off on the right foot on this one....

Posted by G lib on 2004-10-13 19:31:39 +0000

Just one word: Israel.

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-13 19:33:44 +0000

So getting the 30 million people that were pissed off at Saddam pissed off at us is going to make the U.S. safer? The Administration didn't argue the humanitarian angle for removing Saddam Hussein, because they knew they would receive no public support for their actions. Instead we get fears of WMDs as reasoning behind the rush to war. The "spreading of freedom" may indeed by a reasonable tool in the goal of reducing Jihadist Islam. It would have been nice if we could have debated whether or not the tool was worth the risks before we went into Iraq. The jihadist's main beef is that the U.S. is seen as meddler in Suadi Aradia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Meddling in a third Arabic country might not be the best way to calm those guys down.

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-13 19:43:41 +0000

Kerry has belittled 30 countries. Bush has problems with the other 150 or so. I don't think we really need to worry about our relations with Britain and Australia. I'm more concerned about Russia, and the leftover Soviet nuclear material. The Germans are ready to go: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b76459e-1c80-11d9-8d72-00000e2511c8.html

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-13 19:53:19 +0000

Being Idealistic and Naive here: what if this plan to help Iraq towards democracy worked and we had Iraq as an ally in the middle east?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-13 20:05:01 +0000

Exactly, rladew, and I don't believe we can do with Bush. Have you heard any of the world leaders Kerry "belittled" say as much? This line of defense for Bush is viable only if it is a real perception, and I haven't heard any of it, not even from the UK. (Travis?) Already the majority of Iraqis would vote for Saddam, and with Bush still in power, I believe that number will continue to grow...

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-13 20:24:34 +0000

The jihadists would still be up in arms about our roles in Saudi Arabia and Israel. A democratic and free Iraq is A Good Thing(tm), but is it worth the cost? Here's cost-benefit analysis: COSTS 1,112 American lives ~14,000 Iraqi lives 7,532 American wounded ??? Iraqi wounded $120 billion dollars ...all those numbers are going up for the forseeable future... tying up a significant portion of the active duty military for 10-20 years BENEFITS We replace a Western-style secular regime with a Western-style secular regime. US companies have access to Iraqi oil concerns. I can't see how the dot of "free Iraq" is connected to the dot of "lowered risk of attack from jihadist Islam". al Qaeda was not previously training there, nor was Hussein a source of funding. Could someone fill me in on the benefits

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-13 20:29:17 +0000

Isn't Turkey supposed to be the beacon of freedom, democracy and propserity to the Muslim world? Is that beacon so weak that we need another? Will we need a third? Aren't we about two years too late on this debate? Can I ask another question?

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-13 20:30:45 +0000

Oh yeah and as far as Germany and France not playing ball with us Google "Oil for Food" sometime: you know that great thing good ole Kofi is involved in with Iraq Germany and France......

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-13 21:02:09 +0000

We know France and Germany and Russia are just as sleazy as we are when it comes to foreign relations. How about it: Can you fill me in on the benefits of a free and democratic Iraq? Other than the warm and fuzzy feeling of "spreading freedom".

Posted by G lib on 2004-10-13 21:11:13 +0000

G(lib) steps up to the plate: RLadew said: "and 9/11 or no, a good place to start in reducing global terrorism is to actively pursue countries that may not have directly attacked us but are friendly to terror in supporting training bases..." I completely disagree. Terrorism comes from disenfranchisement, a sense of hoplessness that leads people to want to join groups that make them feel better about themseleves, that prop them up. This goes for gangs, the mob, the IRA, the columbine kids, etc etc etc. It has nothing to do with governments at all, except for that destitute governments (am I stretching by putting school administrations in this category?) will often tolerate these groups because they can't get rid of them. They can't get rid of them because they have so much popular support from people who belong to these groups and are organized, and they don't have the money to fund a good alternative. IMHO-- (and the view of books I've read on the topic), the only way to combat terrorism (both domestic and international) is to combat hoplessness and disenfranchisement. This is what the US should be taking care of, rather than evicting corrupt regimes that will just be supplanted by other corrupt regimes. Terrorism, in most expert's opinions (including the Dean of my institute) is a multi-headed hydra. Cut off one, and there is always another that grows back. The only way to get rid of it is to starve its source. The source is human desperation.

Posted by rladew on 2004-10-14 00:45:05 +0000

[quote:4792ac63e0]How about it: Can you fill me in on the benefits of a free and democratic Iraq? Other than the warm and fuzzy feeling of "spreading freedom". terryg[/quote:4792ac63e0] See, Terry, I really can't, that was why I was saying it was idealistic / naive. I would argue, though, that there already have been tangible effects of a more democratic Iraq. Remember the IraqI athletes being able to come out to the Olympics in July? How about Allowi (sp?) meeting all trfr of power deadlines and working around the clock for elections? What about roads, electrical services and food American troops have helped Iraqi's with? It's not as sexy as fighting in Fallujah and wont sell newspapers... I am not ALWAYS advocating brute force, but even if we left Iraq out of the picture and focused solely on Al Qaeda, its true they may feel disenfranchised with us and I agree with G(lib)'s assesment of teerorism's multi-heads / cells (If you get a chance to see the film 'Battle of Algiers' - it is totally worth it - Criterion just put out the restored DVD...) unless you cut off the source it will multiply. There certainly should be efforts to peacefully change the relationships between the US and terrorist factions, but this strategy alone isnt doing anything to stop the problem either.... [joke]Can we bomb the hell out of em and THEN talk nice to them[/joke]

Posted by G lib on 2004-10-14 13:20:48 +0000

Ladewtangclan- I think that the current way the US is 'waging the war on' terrorism is just making it worse. The US is, in a sense, fanning the flames of the Jihad by its policies on Israel, occupation of Iraq, intolerance of Islam.

Posted by tgl on 2004-10-14 14:54:46 +0000

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a veritable treasure trove of human desperation. With some major and glaring exceptions, I do believe that the US intervention is making everyday life better there. The Kurds for example, are doing very well. However, the desperation that has spawned al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations is in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Palestine. There was no funding or training from the Baathists that led to the attacks of 2001 Sept. 11. Easing Iraqi suffering doesn't translate into an easing of suffering for Egyptians and Saudis and Palestinians. In so much that Iraqi oil following freely might lessen the power of OPEC, and hence, the House of Saud (the major reason nearly every neocon in the Administration jointly authored that PNAC position paper on Iraqi invasion in... 1991? '96?), I can't see how invading Iraq lessens the grip of radical jihadist Islam on the young, unemployed, uneducated males in Saudi Arabia. We're only flaming the fire, as G notes, while we are in Iraq. 'The Battle of Algiers' is on my list. It is sort of ironic that the French have had more experience battling jihadist Islam than the U.S. ...and more succcess?