Four Reasons for War by Friedman NYT

[BaliBabyDoc]

I don't know Moonie. I think you can take Friedman's article and do a spin similar to what Bush Leaguers claim in Iraq. The truth of the matter is "what's good for the USA" sometimes coincides with the best interests of another. When Saddam attacked Iran it was bad for everyone. Predictably, we picked the wrong side of the conflict (animosity towards a country's populist leadership does not justify supporting its overthrow).

Far too often in the past we've tried to pick between bad (Ayatollah, socialism) and evil (Saddam, Allende) . . . instead of standing with the people. Iran gave us the boot b/c we spent decades supporting a despotic shah that tolerated oil interests which collected more than 2/3 of all revenues from a resource they claimed (oil) but did not own. OPEC was a response to Western capitalist greed, as well.

Saddam attacked Iran but we supported him b/c he wasn't the Ayatollah. With full knowledge of his offenses against his own people and Iran we continued to support him. Once the bodies were piled chin high we decided his company was unpalatable . . . but it wasn't until he threatened the flow of oil (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) that his actions became intolerable.

We liberated Kuwait and defended Saudi Arabia but gave little thought to Iraqis suffering under Saddam's regime. Many of the same people occupying the current Bush administration endorsed this policy b/c it satisfied US interests. Even those that supported deposing Saddam were not looking out for the Iraqis but thinking about a "friendlier" (READ: controllable) regime in Baghdad.

Iraqis (and Iranians) have suffered due to US duplicity in the past and present. But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam is out of power, no one is draining the marshes (granted they are in trouble if Halliburton finds oil/natural gas), no one is launching chemical weapon attacks, a much smaller number of people are being interrogated at undisclosed locations (but at least it is likely they will come home . . . eventually), and party membership isn't a pre-requisite for getting ahead.

Potable water, adequate food, reliable electricity, and reasonably safe streets will come once real humanitarians arrive but every Iraqi can at least hope for a better tomorrow. Fortunately for them the stars were aligned and OUR interests (beat down Saddam/grab the oil) just happened to coincide with their improved future general welfare.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The United States is in need of a regime change, the sooner the better.

Yes and your point would be? Who disagrees that US foreign policy in the Middle East has been an abject failure for decades b/c we were either concerned for the welfare of just ONE group of people (Israelis) and oil? It is absolutely true that if Bush just wanted cheap oil we could have let the Franco-, Russo-, Sinophiles have their way. Of course, Saddam would become the world's most powerful man b/c it would only be a matter of time before he would resume his attempts to gobble up oil states.

Yes Bush is indeed dangerously myopic and ignorant . . . but tunnel vision in this instance has removed a POS from power and sort of liberated the people from despair. Bush's global vision is BS but what do you expect from someone that doesn't like to read or be informed that he's wrong.

 

[JellyBaby]

Potable water, adequate food, reliable electricity, and reasonably safe streets will come once real humanitarians arrive but every Iraqi can at least hope for a better tomorrow. Fortunately for them the stars were aligned and OUR interests (beat down Saddam/grab the oil) just happened to coincide with their improved future general welfare.

And how, BBD, do you personally feel about the benefits to Iraqis being tangential and largely coincidental?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And how, BBD, do you personally feel about the benefits to Iraqis being tangential and largely coincidental?

The hypocrisy may irreparably damage our country's well deserved reputation as an exceptional (more often than not) citizen of the global community. To treat people as a means to an ends is arguably the most inhumane of behaviors . . . it commonly occurs . . . but that doesn't make it any less detestable. BUT . . . you cannot ignore the benefits of deposing Saddam (particularly with a relatively low number of civilian casualties) just because the intent was NOT particularly honorable.

The clear absence of a considerate, humane plan for Occupation is arguably the worst offense of this administration. Waging war under false pretenses is certainly bad . . . but one could argue the Bush Oil War was as good as unjust war could possibly be.

 

[JellyBaby]

BaliBabyDoc, yes that's the pragmatic response and I'm in agreement but what I'm after is....does it sit well with you?

btw, not to change the subject which is always tempting when you can't quite get to the heart of an important matter, but I'm really enjoying your use of bold highlighting in your posts...just remember not to overuse or misuse them or you might find the endeavor self-defeating.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

OK

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

And how, BBD, do you personally feel about the benefits to Iraqis being tangential and largely coincidental?

The hypocrisy may irreparably damage our country's well deserved reputation as an exceptional (more often than not) citizen of the global community. To treat people as a means to an ends is arguably the most inhumane of behaviors . . . it commonly occurs . . . but that doesn't make it any less detestable. BUT . . . you cannot ignore the benefits of deposing Saddam (particularly with a relatively low number of civilian casualties) just because the intent was NOT particularly honorable.

The clear absence of a considerate, humane plan for Occupation is arguably the worst offense of this administration. Waging war under false pretenses is certainly bad . . . but one could argue the Bush Oil War was as good as unjust war could possibly be.

Are you taking this side of the argument because you actually believe it or is it just an exercise in objectivity?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

BaliBabyDoc, yes that's the pragmatic response and I'm in agreement but what I'm after is....does it sit well with you?

Honestly . . . sort of. As an undisciplined pacifist I embrace the notion that you turn the other cheek, love your enemy (or in our case enemies), and seek forgiveness for your wrongdoings. The undisciplined aspect means if you catch me at the wrong time I just might go off instead of deliberately considering all of the options to violence.

If we laid waste to Iraq . . . I would be just short of treasonous in my denunciations of my government . . . and I would definitely support the legal removal of complicit leadership (Bush, my senators Libby Dole and John "please vote for me" Edwards). We succeeded in battle b/c 1) our military has no equal, 2) Saddam's family couldn't lead ants to a picnic, 3) the Iraqi military was weak, and 4) few Iraqis wanted to fight for Saddam. If the professional military had run their operation we might still be fighting (pitched combat/large scale guerrilla) in major cities plus whatever WMD exists in Iraq would likely be used. We would still win but the costs to all involved would make for dramatically different calculus in assessing the value of victory.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Are you taking this side of the argument because you actually believe it or is it just an exercise in objectivity?

Unlike limp lobes associated with Bush . . . I do not believe in sides. This war was not Just . . . but it was tolerable b/c the casualties were low and the leadership took the greatest lumps. Thus far the Occupation is intolerable. I have low regard for any American that thinks they can morally justify denying the UN and other countries the opportunity to significantly help Iraq b/c we (America) hold grudges. I'm not sure what's worse . . . retarding the process on political grounds or delaying the process on economic ones. Regardless, there's no excuse for our behavior to date . . . yet the President and his cabal think we've won something.

Bush gets props for waging a reasonably measured war against a despotic regime. He gets demerits for the false pretense and should be impeached if he misled the American public by omission or commission. In the meantime, somebody needs to light a fire under the rebuilding process before all the gold wears off this thinly-plated victory.

Note: Impeachment should come in September 2004 b/c the last thing we need is Cheney running the country.
Limp lobes does not refer to you, UQ.

 

[JellyBaby]

An undisciplined pacfist eh? And one who's getting better at using bold. j/k That's unique enough I suppose and relatively inoffensive. You should run for office!

If we "do" NK you'll get that more professional, balanced conflict you mentioned. On the other hand that's why we won't see anything done to NK. U.S. foreign policy may not be just but it's often predictable.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Can't run for office . . . invariably I would offend just about everybody b/c I think everybody is FOS . . .