Was Bush right all-along?

TomF

The seeming development of a Kiev-like, popular, long-term street-demonstration against Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the recent popular success of elections in Iraq make it look to me that Bush was right all-along to put a very large and very aggressive American (read "democratic") presence into the middle of the Arabic Middle East. The nearest recent large event I can think of to compare it to is the period after collapse of the Soviet Union and its Empire, although maybe a closer analogy is the period after the French Revolution when French armies bloodied the noses of "reactionary states" around them who tried to stop the revolution and its spread of the revolutionaries versions of "liberty, equality and brotherhood" into the wider Europe.

Imagine if the French had successfully landed in 1796, or had brought a much larger force in 1798 to Ireland and did some serious bashing of the British Army and the Militia in Ireland. The whole history of this part of the world could have been hugely different.

Here's an snippet of an interesting article on the post's subject:
"The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has triggered widespread unrest, but the very same act would not have elicited any notable response three years ago. Clearly, both fear and practice have been undermined by recent events in the Middle East. More specifically, the new American involvement in the Middle East -- indeed, the much maligned Greater Middle East initiative - seems to have empowered the Lebanese nation."
http://www.techcentralstation.com/022505D.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

vibe666

er, no he wasn't. I'd love to back it up with some rhetoric, but i really can't be arsed.

Memnoch

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

that seems to be the extent of your response to anyone suggesting that the US/Israel are up to no good. It's not like they haven't been up to no good in the past or haven't had people murdered. This kind of arguement is not only weak but it shows a complete and utter lack and inability to debate a point. So next time instead of throwing out veiled insults that don't amount to anything why not try and actually make a point? Also it would be nice if you could specify who exactly these people are that you constantly refer to. Currently anyone who thinks the US does anything underhanded is a tin-foil hat type according to you it would seem.

and the fact that the EU don't recognise them as a terrorist group bothers me even more.

the fact that no one has taken the US or UK to court over their crimes against humanity and crimes against peace should bother you more.

MrJoeSoap

One word: OIL.

Capt'n Midnight

Was Bush right all-along?

No. He's still considered a wishy washy liberal by the neo-conservatives.

Have a read of "The Prince" by Machavelli on the subject of the territories taken over by New Princes, the reactions of people would not supprise people from the past, so why does it supprise people now ?

joseph brand

No.

He is a big kid.

Still can't believe so many years of History in America, all under the rule of one family, . . .no, not the Baldwins, . . .the Bushi (Plural for Bush).

No more Bush, let's have a Brazilian

Dinner

I always thought he was right. I think this arguement that it was only about oil is ignorant and narrow minded. Getting rid of Saddam = good thing.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

TomF wrote:

The seeming development of a Kiev-like, popular, long-term street-demonstration against Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the recent popular success of elections in Iraq make it look to me that Bush was right all-along to put a very large and very aggressive American (read "democratic") presence into the middle of the Arabic Middle East.

Two points

1 - There was a large and very sucessful democratic presence in large parts of the middle east 50 years ago till american foriegn policy and intelligence services very successfully managed to destroy it (Iran, Iraq etc). The idea that America is bringing democracy to the middle east is laughable considering they are the reason the region has been largely undemocratic for the last 50 years.

2 - American foriegn policy, both democrats and republicans, has been to destablise the region, and keep it in a constant state of control, to protect the most important part of the middle east, the oil. America long ago lost the moral authority to meddle in the Middle East.

To sum up, Bush doesn't have a clue what he is doing, and the neo-cons that control him are only interested in keeping the region weak so it can be easily controlled. How can Bush be right when he doesn't know what he is doing :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Arabel wrote:

I always thought he was right. I think this arguement that it was only about oil is ignorant and narrow minded. Getting rid of Saddam = good thing.

Getting rid of Saddam = Good Thing

That is probably exactly the same logic Bush bases his forigen policy on :rolleyes:

A more real world example would be

Invade Iraq + Have no clear plan of action once war is over + Have no clear understanding of region + Have no clear understanding of the different politics of the country + Kill large amounts of civilians + Have no plan or method to deal with the rise of terrorists + Have no plan of method to bring country together + Plan to stay in country for long term + Leave country in worse state than when you arrived = Bad Idea

Neuro

The US only sees fit to 'liberate' nations when it benefits itself in some way. The US wasn't too concerned about Saddam in the late seventies and eighties when the US-friendly Shah of Iran was deposed in the Iranian Revolution. The US was hoping that Iraq would wipe out the Iranian theocracy during the Iran-Iraq war.

In fact, the US spent most of the Cold War installing military dictators in South America, the Middle East and Africa to try and stop the spread of Communism.

For a country whose stated foreign policy is to spread 'freedom' and 'democracy' around the world, they seem to have no interest in Africa whatsoever, the continent with the greatest number of despots and military dictators. But then again, with the exception of Nigeria, there's not much oil in Africa!

Nor do they seem to be concerned about free elections in Pakistan, a country whose president was overthrown by the military and who are known to possess nuclear weapons. But that's probably because they're supposedly helping the US to search for Bin Laden and his cronies.

We shouldn't be so naive as to believe that the US is interested in spreading democracy around the world. Yes, Iraq is a better place without Saddam, but his removal was merely coincidental. The real aim was to secure a new base of operations in the Middle East as their long time ally, Saudi Arabia, was becoming increasingly unstable. Spreading democracy is not an end in itself for the US, it's a means to some selfish end!

Orizio

No.The reasons for invading Iraq doe nor work on any level.If it was to fight terrorism then Saudi Arabia(who currently provide half of the suicide bombers in Iraq,and obviously funded Al-Queda) and Iran/Syria(who fund Hezbollah and now militias in Iraq)should have been on the firing line before Saddam.Not that Bush cares about fighting terrorism considering his support for the house of Saud and Uribe and his complete inaction in Darfur.Of course,as the Brits found out in the north quickly fighting terrorism on the front lines doesn't work but cutting funds to terror groups,working on poverty/illiteracy and having a strong intelligence system do.Considering the fact that the CIA themselves agree that Iraq is a future terrorist training ground,the fight against terrorism in Iraq has only helped the terrorists.

Nothing needs to be said about the WMD's.They weren't found,because there weren't there.

Next the idea that this was some kind of humanity mission is ludicrous.Again if bush cared about helping a people he would have went after N.Korea or at least attempt to help in Sudan,or Congo in 2001.He doesn't because any intelligent politician will not put his power in danger for 'humanity'.

Why did it happen?Oil,Bush's legacy,a whole new market to sell everything in and a pack of deluded but powerful neo-cons controlling the White House are the reasons.

Flukey

Arabel wrote:

Getting rid of Saddam = good thing.

That could have been done with one man, one gun and one bullet, and that bullet might not have even had to have been fired. There was no need for the invasion. Was Bush right all along? Certainly not and that is proved more and more each day. He liberated many innocent Iraqis alright, of their mortal existence.

ressem

Are there no other reasons why the US might have invaded Iraq?

My devil's advocate view would be that the administration decided that they will have to put heavy pressure on the Saud family to go against the hard line wahhabi leaders, that have a reputation for trying to export strict sharia law, for example to Indonesia, and sponsoring militant groups.

Perhaps invading Iraq is about easing the vice that the Sauds have on the US economy so economic pressure can be applied. E.g bargaining with the construction of water pipelines from Turkey (water from desalination costs more than oil in Arabia, and demand is skyrocketing as the urban population grows) and helping or hampering the attempts being made by the recent rulers to increase economic activity other than oil.

The king depends heavily on support of the main clans, so making these people aware that the states has a short term oil alternative might discourage an OPEC 1970's type price hike in retaliation for such demands.

A Dub in Glasgo

Was Bush right all-along?

No

Dinner

Flukey wrote:

That could have been done with one man, one gun and one bullet, and that bullet might not have even had to have been fired. There was no need for the invasion. Was Bush right all along? Certainly not and that is proved more and more each day. He liberated many innocent Iraqis alright, of their mortal existence.

They tried that, they had SAS and probably Seal teams in their trying to get him, but they never could definatley say if it was him or just a look a like. They tried to end the war before it started by using cruise missiles to hit the building where he and his other high ranking people were gathered.

The Iraqi people have more freedom now then they ever did before, the women dont have to fear rape camps, everyone needn't fear that they will be murdered in their beds so that Saaddam could rule with an iron fist.

Wicknight wrote:

That is probably exactly the same logic Bush bases his forigen policy on

Yous seem to be under some impression that leaving Saddam in power would be a good thing, please tell me you aren't that ignorant. If he was left in power what would happen? Sometime down the line he would have died, and one of his sons would have taken power and I can only imagine that it would lead to more trouble when the other one would probably have tried to take power.

I dont recall anyone ever saying that it would be an easy or quick war, it was always going to be long, but unless you are an idiot, you should see that things have improved, the elections were a success, terrorists have resorted to kidnapping GI Joe, they are increasingly more desperate because any time they show themselves they are obliterated.

Flukey

You are right Arabel, the Iraqis no longer have to fear attacks from Saddam. Now they have to fear attacks from the coalition forces and terrorists. As I said already, a lot of Iraqis have been liberated by the coalition, of their mortal existence. This was exactly what was predicted before the invasion by those who opposed the war and just about everything else predicted has come to pass too. Terrorism has increased, not reduced. There were no WMDs. Innocent Iraqis are still being killed, only now by the coalition forces and terrorists that were not event there prior to the invasion. The country is far more unstable now than it was before the invasion. We are a long way from peace and democracy there, despite the token elections. Every objective set for this war has not been achieved and in many cases worsened. Saddam may be gone and that is a good thing, but for a lot of people things have only got worse. I am not advocating a return to the old regime, just pointing out that the new one is far from what we were all promised as are conditions in the country, but exactly what people opposed to the invasion predicted, except maybe a bit worse.

Dinner

Of course Iraq was more stable with Saddam then it is now, thats because if you put a foot wrong in the old regime you got killed. I dont think that peace will be there anytime soon, but Iraq would always have to be faced, and its problems would not have gone away, just ignored. I would much prefer to face Iraq sooner rather than later.

I believe that terrorism in Iraq is being defeated, it'll just take a while. The people that you say are being robbed of their mortal existance are turning on terrorism too. Here are just 2 links that show that the Iraqi people are trying to defeat terrorism too.

A wave of Anti-Insurgency

Iraqi Villagers kill 5 insurgents

Flukey

The terrorism is only a new thing there Arabel, that has started since the invasion and indeed because of the invasion. You are right that all dictators keep a certain amount of stability, but the way it has gone now is far beyond the fact that Saddam is no longer there. What has happened is not just filling the gap that Saddam has left; there are many other aspects to it reacting to issues that the invasion has created.

Dinner

Yeah I know this type of terrorism is new but under Saddam it was a differant type of terror, it was a terror where you were afraid to say anything for fear you were talking to some sort of spy.

I know that there are many reasons why this terrorism is happening but the point I was making is that the public are continuing to get behind the US and UK, the police force are finding their feet, and the army played a fair role in the felluja assault. Terrorism is being overpowered.

Zombrex

Arabel wrote:

Yous seem to be under some impression that leaving Saddam in power would be a good thing, please tell me you aren't that ignorant.

Why is the only alternative to not invading a country, be supporting it :rolleyes:

Sometime there is no way to get the best out come. The best out come would have been for Saddam to go and for Iraq to become a peaceful and free country. That was never possible

America needs to stop doing thing like this because it cannot get this mythical outcome of democracy through out the world, and just ends up causing huge mess.

Arabel wrote:

If he was left in power what would happen?.

The exact same thing that happened the 30 years he was in power. Nothing changed.

Arabel wrote:

I dont recall anyone ever saying that it would be an easy or quick war, it was always going to be long, but unless you are an idiot, you should see that things have improved, the elections were a success, terrorists have resorted to kidnapping GI Joe, they are increasingly more desperate because any time they show themselves they are obliterated.

The US went into Iraq with no idea of what to do once they were there. As a result they have very nearly thrown the country into civil war, and it is more luck and the strength of the Iraqi people that this has not happened.

America are very very bad at doing things like this. So they need to stop.

If you have a skin cancer growth on your leg, that is bad and something should be done. But you don't want me cutting your leg off with a chainsaw and you nearly bleeding to death, because that is the only solution I can come up with.

The rest of the world does not want the US hacking away at regions they know nothing about, in the name of democracy, with the famous last words cry of "Something must be done!"

popinfresh

The Iraq war has been a complete disaster. I'm probably on my own here, but I think the world (USA in particular) would be a potentially safer place with Saddam Hussein still in power. Why? Because now the US actully is an evil empire that's invading Arab-countries. Which was the jest of Ossamma's arguments. All Bush is doing by invading Iraq/Afghanistan (and lets face it, probably Iran) is giving terrorists reason to hate the US even more than they did before. He acheived absolutely nothing by invading Iraq, the place is on the brink of civil war, people are dying everyday. I hate to say it, but in my opinion, the only way to rule a country such as Iraq, is with an iron fist. Which is what Saddam was doing. No that he's gone the country has gone to hell. I don't think anything good came of the Iraqi war. Unless of course you take into consideration the hidden motivs of the US government. :rolleyes:I simply refuse to beleive that the most intelegent country in the world would have invaded Iraq in the name of peace and freedom. (Any CIA personal that has since left the CIA said there was no evidence of WMD). I mean, if normal people talking on the internet can see the flawed and stuid logic given to us to justify invading Iraq, surely the most intelegent government in the world also foresaw this...

Elessar

TomF wrote:

Was Bush right all-along?

HAHAHAHA

You're a funny guy.

vibe666

if the US was bothered with anything other than oil they'd have stepped in during the yugoslavian or chechnyan 'problems' but no oil, no interest.

Flukey

Operation Iraqi Liberation

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Neuro

This thread is degenerating into the kind simplistic pro-war/pro-Saddam dichotomy that was evident in the media before and during the war.

Just because an individual disapproves of the war, does NOT mean that they approve of Saddam's rule over Iraq. Yes, Iraq is a far better place now that Saddam has been deposed but we have to question WHY the US wanted to get rid of him. Was it?

A: Because the US believes that everyone has a right to freedom/democracy etc.

B: That by getting rid of Saddam the US would get a foothold in the Middle East allowing it to excerpt control over the region and thereby guarantee oil supplies that are absolutely critical to the US economy.

(Yes, I know that the US only gets a small percentage of its oil from the Middle East but the supply/price relationship of oil is what's known in economics as highly inelastic.)

It's a little like Actua Reas and Mens Rea in criminal law:

- Actus Reas: what action did the accused perform.
- Mens Rea: what was the intent of the accused in performing the action.

In the case of the Iraqi war:

- Actus Reas: the US invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam and installed an interim government before allowing the populace to elect its own.
- Mens Rea: to remove a dictator whose continued control of Iraq was an embaraassment to the Bush family, to install a pro-US government that would allow the US to base its forces in Iraq to secure oil output in the region and keep a close watch on Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.

Neuro

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think the poster was referring to the Yugoslavian Civil War of 1991.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

m1ke

My opinion is a bit of a fence sitter, partly because I can't help being optimistic. If you had asked me before the war, I would have said no way... but if US foreign policy in the middle east manages to produce a viable political unit. That the centrifugal forces in Iraq don't rip it apart into civil war.

I will judge this a success when there have been two consecutive elections in Iraq that hold up to high standards of international scrutiny. Furthermore, i'll judge it a success if the level of terrorism doesn't threaten the functioning of the state.

It's a tall order but it actually looks possible because...
a) the assault on iraq was concluded pretty quickly
b) the regime was disolved quickly... a little too quickly actually, it left a dangerous power vaccum that distablished the region... they should have envisaged this happening in the event of their easy initial invasion.
c) They managed to pick of most of the leaders inc. Sadam and wisely haven't made any martyrs out of them
d) There has been a provisional election and they're trying to hammer out a political unit.

If you had asked me would this have happened before the war I would have said no way. But I think a lot of people need to admit to themselves that so far everything has more or less gone to plan. It would actually be nice if the US managed to transform this region into something better... and I actually hope that they do.