Four Reasons for War by Friedman NYT

[BaliBabyDoc]

NYT via CNN
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

 

[SuperTool]

Bush squandered the momentum of the WoT on Iraq. We had support of nearly everyone in the world after 9/11, but Bush let the WoT be hijacked by neocons at the Pentagon.

 

[jjones]

I agree about the rebuilding. Justified or not, the war is won or lost based upon that outcome.

 

[StormRider]

I think this was an excellent article. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[hagbard]

Friedman is an agent of Israel. The real reason for the war was to keep the Arabs down on behalf of Israel.

 

[JellyBaby]

Good article. We may never know the real reasons why Bush Inc. favored misleading us with all that WMD propoganda over convincing us using more valid reasons to invade.

I might guess he sought a more secular angle instead of a moral one, fearing perhaps some would turn a pure moral angle into some right-wing Holy War by conservy neo-cons. Of course, morality may not have been foremost on his mind. We can only guess what the King really had in mind.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Friedman is an agent of Israel. The real reason for the war was to keep the Arabs down on behalf of Israel.

Who cares?! The man speaks the truth. His bias towards Israel has no bearing on the multitude of Muslim countries that live under despotic regimes. The Bush Oil War of 2003 can certainly claim responsibility for ending one of them.

 

[Moonbeam]

I might guess he sought a more secular angle instead of a moral one, fearing perhaps some would turn a pure moral angle into some right-wing Holy War by conservy neo-cons. Of course, morality may not have been foremost on his mind. We can only guess what the King really had in mind.
---------------------
Jesus, Jelly, it was the only argument that had any real pull with me.

I explained my feelings on this in another thread where CaptnKirk cited this article. Anybody can accidentally do some good.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Friedman is an agent of Israel. The real reason for the war was to keep the Arabs down on behalf of Israel.

Who cares?! The man speaks the truth. His bias towards Israel has no bearing on the multitude of Muslim countries that live under despotic regimes. The Bush Oil War of 2003 can certainly claim responsibility for ending one of them.

They're under despotic regimes because Israel and people like Friedman and Pearle want it that way. Now they want it under the grip of the US since these regimes no longer seem to have the same control over their people they once had.

 

[JellyBaby]

Jesus, Jelly, it was the only argument that had any real pull with me.

It should have been the only argument that mattered. All I'm saying is that his Handlers may have shied away from it out of fear Bush Inc. would be demonized for being some radical fundie type with "holy" on the brain all the time.

They prefer to overestimate us.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: hagbard
Friedman is an agent of Israel. The real reason for the war was to keep the Arabs down on behalf of Israel.

You're an agent of spastic speculation, so I'll give Friedman a little more credibility than you.

 

[glenn1]

Bush squandered the momentum of the WoT on Iraq. We had support of nearly everyone in the world after 9/11, but Bush let the WoT be hijacked by neocons at the Pentagon.

Here's an article which i posted not long ago which agrees with you (somewhat) but puts a far different perspective on the same sentiment...


Bush didn't squander the world's sympathy - he spent it

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice article, glenn. The problem with the thesis is that war was not necessary to unload a dead policy. The American people were not in on the loop. The argument is way way too sophisticated for Bush.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Interesting article.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: hagbard
Friedman is an agent of Israel. The real reason for the war was to keep the Arabs down on behalf of Israel.

Word up.

 

[Zrom999]

What a load of ethnocentric bull.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Zrom999
What a load of ethnocentric bull.

Which load of ethnocentric bull? The USA arming the Israelis to the teeth? The Israeli occupation (Sharon's words, not mine) of Palestinian territory? Israeli terror attacks against Palestinian women and children? Or Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli women and children? Or US terror attacks against Iraqi women and children? The list goes on and on.

Plenty of ethnocentric bull to go around. Depends on which side you're on I guess.

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Zrom999
What a load of ethnocentric bull.

Which load of ethnocentric bull? The USA arming the Israelis to the teeth? The Israeli occupation (Sharon's words, not mine) of Palestinian territory? Israeli terror attacks against Palestinian women and children? Or Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli women and children? Or US terror attacks against Iraqi women and children? The list goes on and on.

Plenty of ethnocentric bull to go around. Depends on which side you're on I guess.

I was referring to Friedmans jibberish.
Its basically our ways of doing things are better than yours. He is saying the war was justified to change the society of the people in the middle east to one that is more acceptable to the US.

 

[Moonbeam]

What if there's something called truth, Zrom, and the US with its inallienable rights is closer to it? Maybe what we call good really is? I think this isn't so simple. Is there a truth about human nature or is everything relative? Does freedom mean anything? Does the human soul aspire to something higher?

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What if there's something called truth, Zrom, and the US with its inallienable rights is closer to it? Maybe what we call good really is? I think this isn't so simple. Is there a truth about human nature or is everything relative? Does freedom mean anything? Does the human soul aspire to something higher?

Appearantly you do not read carefully clown. I was stating that Friedman was being ethnocentric is his op-ed piece. His claim was that the US was justified since they would change Iraq to a "more acceptable" society to the US. I never agreed with this. That is why I referred to it as "ethnocentric bull". The US ways of doing things are not always the best ways of doing things. If everyone around the world felt that way then there would be no communism, peoples republics, socialist states, kingdoms, emirates etc. All gov'ts would be carbon copies of the US gov't.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Friedman is indeed ethnocentric BUT IMHO if you visited most of the countries he mentions (preferably on the DL . . . so say you are from Canada or Norway) and ask the people what they think . . . I bet many would say their country's government sux and needs significant change. Now I'm sure they would NOT endorse the US methods of the past or present but they would certainly agree with Friedman that these governments deserve regime change.

 

[Moonbeam]

Appearantly you do not read carefully clown. I was stating that Friedman was being ethnocentric is his op-ed piece. His claim was that the US was justified since they would change Iraq to a "more acceptable" society to the US. I never agreed with this. That is why I referred to it as "ethnocentric bull". The US ways of doing things are not always the best ways of doing things. If everyone around the world felt that way then there would be no communism, peoples republics, socialist states, kingdoms, emirates etc. All gov'ts would be carbon copies of the US gov't.
-----------------------
Hey, morZon I resemble being called a clown. The minute you said I couldn't read, well of course, I knew you couldn't so I checked. Yup you missed by a mile. Did you get a chance to real Bali's post:

"Friedman is indeed ethnocentric BUT IMHO if you visited most of the countries he mentions (preferably on the DL . . . so say you are from Canada or Norway) and ask the people what they think . . . I bet many would say their country's government sux and needs significant change. Now I'm sure they would NOT endorse the US methods of the past or present but they would certainly agree with Friedman that these governments deserve regime change."
--------------------
See, locked in that post is a notion that people recognize better and worse, ( their country's government sux and needs significant change ) You're all hung up on the US shoving our form of government down somebody's throat, but that's not what I said. I'm saying, asking really, if you see in humanity a yearning for something better, and if so where does that notion of better come from if not that is comes from something inside us, some sense of better and worce, some will to perfection based on some inner blueprint, some inborn sense of justice and the good? If you think not then your would is a relative one and one government is as good as another. But if your agree than some governments are better than others and if ours is better than theirs, then one may presume the people will be better off under ours.

 

[Syringer]

Excellent article.

Btw anyone know if there's a moonbeam filter around anywhere?

 

[JellyBaby]

Btw anyone know if there's a moonbeam filter around anywhere?

You mean some physical screen that can be purchased at your local Home Depot? I suggest a can opener instead.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Friedman is indeed ethnocentric BUT IMHO if you visited most of the countries he mentions (preferably on the DL . . . so say you are from Canada or Norway) and ask the people what they think . . . I bet many would say their country's government sux and needs significant change. Now I'm sure they would NOT endorse the US methods of the past or present but they would certainly agree with Friedman that these governments deserve regime change.

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