As Iraq is freed of Saddam, US sets stage for next wars

From Yahoo!/Reuters

Welcome to the never-ending cycle of violence, folks. Enjoy the celebration while it lasts.

why wouldn''t you send a message like that?

If someone across the street is beating a kid down with a stick, and you just finished with one bully, why the heck not look across the street with a frown?

But I suppose its ok to deal with one threat and just go ahead and ignore the others?

I''m starting to get really tired of the ""US is a warmonger state"".

Do you honestly think Bush is waging war for fun? You think he has some plan for world dominion? Good grief.

We''ve spent $80 billion, 1000s of Iraqi lives, and almost all of our diplomatic credibility to liberate Iraq, why should we immediately turn around try to do this again before the dust settles in Baghdad? Our economy, our people, our reputation can''t survive another war, to say nothing at how much more difficult a war in any of those three countries would be compared to Iraq.

I''m not saying we need to start another war, I''m stating its not a bad idea to let the others know that we''re capable and ready to do it if our security is at stake. Not to mention the consequences of such action.

I can''t believe any leader of state or even terrorist group, wouldn''t think twice now about attacking us or our interests. If they do, they are insane and should be considered dangerous to the point of needing them gone.

For the most part, I''ve been in strong favor of this action (as if you didn''t know), but I''ll be keeping an open mind during the ''re-building'' stages. I lean much more towards capitalism and free-markets which might not jibe with the middle east, but I''m just as curious as anyone how the US will treat Iraq going forward.

It''s called peace through force. They respect power. We have just shown that we have power. No one has said we''re going to war with another country. I wouldn''t have a problem of getting rid of the Governments in Iran and Syria.

Elysium enters the thread. Looks around. Points one finger in the air and opens mouth to speak. Looks around some more. Closes mouth, finger still pointing indirectly into the air. Sighs heavily (or Goresquely if you prefer fake adverbs). Wanders out of the thread muttering.

Well, time for the classics:

""Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive."" - Ayn Rand

""It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."" - General Robert E. Lee

""Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind."" - John F. Kennedy

""Only the winners decide what were war crimes."" - Gary Wills

""There never was a good war, or a bad peace."" - Benjamin Franklin

""War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it."" - Desiderius Erasmus

""War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military."" - George Clemenceau

""When the rich make war it''s the poor that die."" - Jean-Paul Sartre

""You cant say civilization isnt advancing: in every war they kill you in a new way."" - Will Rogers

""The tragedy of war is that it uses man''s best to do man''s worst."" - Harry Emerson Fosdick

""After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing."" - Dwight D. Eisenhower

""Nations have recently been led to borrow billions for war; no nation has ever borrowed largely for education. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both."" - Abraham Flexner

""The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants, and for peace like retarded pygmies."" - Lester Bowles Pearson

""Soldiers usually win the battles and generals [and presidents] get the credit for them."" - Napolean Bonaparte

""The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."" - Thomas Edison

""The more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war."" - Eleanor Roosevelt

It''s called peace through force. They respect power. We have just shown that we have power.

Uh... was there anyone in the world who questioned whether the US had power? God, it''s not like they even respect power! Look at Israel! Seems like everytime there''s a suicide bomber, some Palestinian block gets bull-dozed! Does that STOP the suicide bombings? OF COURSE IT DOESN''T!

Telling three other countries that Iraq is a lesson to them amounts to nothing more than waving your dick around.

And hey - if it''s okay for the US to attack Iraq because they feel threatened by potential WMDs, what happens when the US threatens other countries?

"Elysium" wrote:

Elysium enters the thread. Looks around. Points one finger in the air and opens mouth to speak. Looks around some more. Closes mouth, finger still pointing indirectly into the air. Sighs heavily (or Goresquely if you prefer fake adverbs). Wanders out of the thread muttering.

Ah HA! The evil right wing conservative duo of Yomm/Ulairi have stiffled one voice of the tree-hugging left/individual peacenik brigade! Thru sheer volume of mass spaming and stubborn highly held beliefs we shall crush all other opposition.

And Rat, I don''t think anyone here believes that war is good. I do believe it to be a nessasary evil. In my universe, war would be fought with the dollar, not bullets.

I''m not saying war is good. It''s a paradox no doubt. I''m with Locke.

Iran and Syria are the next big funders of terrorist and the culture we are trying to fight.

"Ulairi" wrote:

and the culture we are trying to fight.

Whoah, bad phrasing there. Maybe you''d want to drop this off of the official pamphlet.

""It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."" - General Robert E. Lee

I like this one, it seems especially relevant. War is behind glass and through scratchy lenses on the other side of the world, why not start another one? The only thiing I can think of that might stem that tide is the paycheck, if we each pay so much for a war, well be less likely to start one.

Also Ulairi, Id like to point out that I agree with you. Iran, Syria etc are supporters of terrorism, and we should fight them. I just think its erronous to believe that terrorism has anything to do with thier government, and that us going in and killing or ""removing"" thier government will have any effect other than increasing terrorist activity. Terrorism is an extension of the wishes of a society. Terrorism is allowed because the people want us gone, or damaged, or whatever. They dont hate us because were free over here, they hate us for entirely correctable reasons. I just believe we should spend the money correcting those reasons instead of killing them.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

and the culture we are trying to fight.

Whoah, bad phrasing there. Maybe you''d want to drop this off of the official pamphlet.

I''m assuming he meant the terrorist culture. Again, I don''t think anyone here is saying we have to overthrow every government not alligned to our way of thinking. But if their own government can''t control splinter groups that pose a direct threat to our well being....

Agreed, Pyro, and having a long-term military prescence in Iraq (and I for one don''t think the military will leave Iraq) won''t do anything to stave off anti-Americanism.

"Yomm" wrote:
"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

and the culture we are trying to fight.

Whoah, bad phrasing there. Maybe you''d want to drop this off of the official pamphlet.

I''m assuming he meant the terrorist culture. Again, I don''t think anyone here is saying we have to overthrow every government not alligned to our way of thinking. But if their own government can''t control splinter groups that pose a direct threat to our well being....

Yes. I meant the culture of terror. Not Islamic culture its self.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Agreed, Pyro, and having a long-term military prescence in Iraq (and I for one don''t think the military will leave Iraq) won''t do anything to stave off anti-Americanism.

Our military won''t leave. We''re still in Korea, Germany, Japan, etc. We will let them have their own government. We''re not an imperalist power.

We''re not an imperalist power.

im·pe·ri·al·ism

1. The policy of extending a nation''s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

"Koesj" wrote:
We''re not an imperalist power.

im·pe·ri·al·ism

1. The policy of extending a nation''s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Then we rule every country and every part of the world. Did the French do what we want?

Nope, but you are extending your nations power by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations alone. So technically, yeah, the US is an imperialistic power. Not that I have a big problem with it but I guess some more hot-headed chauvinists and nationalists like the average frenchmen or pan-arabists from countries like Syria see this as a capital crime by the US. Sadly, being first is not always good

If Bush stops at Iraq he''s waring for his own interests. If he goes on to other tryannts he''s warmongering =\\

Iraqi people are now celebrating in the streets of Baghdad, one guy even held up a picture of Bush with the words ""Hero of Peace"", yet that isn''t even enough to satisify some people.

They cheered for Hussein because they have to. They are cheering for the US troops because they want to. The cameras of al-jazeera and other Arab news groups are pointing at them. I''m sure they wouldn''t feel forced or obligated to cheer if they really didn''t want to.

"Locke" wrote:

They cheered for Hussein because they have to. They are cheering for the US troops because they want to. The cameras of al-jazeera and other Arab news groups are pointing at them. I''m sure they wouldn''t feel forced or obligated to cheer if they really didn''t want to.

Well said.

"Locke" wrote:

They cheered for Hussein because they have to. They are cheering for the US troops because they want to. The cameras of al-jazeera and other Arab news groups are pointing at them. I''m sure they wouldn''t feel forced or obligated to cheer if they really didn''t want to.

Im not so sure, the US is going to be the new ruling faction, at least in the short term, and in the long term they will have major influence over the area. Im not saying noone is glad to see them, but I bet theres a fair share of bootlickers. Its not good practice to guess at the entire groups motives, because there is not really one motive.

And even if they do want us there, dont pretend this is a humanitarian war. We took out Hussien cause he broke a treaty, in the best case scenario. Worst case is we took out Hussien to further the Administration''s personal interests. Either way, it has nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi''s, that is just putting spin on the situation.

What motives can they possible have?! What do they possibly have to gain by kissing up to Americans as you say they are doing?? Are they going to get more food and water if they kiss up as opposed to the people who didn''t? Or maybe they''ll be appointed government positions? Or maybe they are just in full auto mode to cheer anyone in power? My god give the people some diginity.

Why is it then good practice to guess the motives of the US adminstration?

I don''t pretend this war is anything, it is what it is, but you can pretend it is a war to further Bush''s personal interest. But I whole heartily support this war for its humanitarian efforts. Can you at least be happy that Iraqi people are finally free? What gets me the most is that the anti-war people can''t even acknowledge that freedom is finally in Iraq and it''s a good thing.

Of course Bush isn''t out for his personal interests; when his dad took on Saddam in ''91, W was more worried about how the Texas Rangers would do in the next season. Bush has a cabal of supporters in his cabinet (Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Dick Armitage) who have in the public domain declared their desire to launch a war to take Iraq back in 1998. Now, the real big question is (which has never been talked about), what does the Project for the New American Century want the president to do next? Syria? Iran? North Korea? China?

Woah there. Im sure a lot of people who didnt support the war or didnt support the way the administration went to war are VERY happy the Iraqi people are freed.

As to people celebrating, I have no doubts that a lot is genuine. I dont think you can just throw out the possibility that people are doing it because they are on TV. I dont think you can rule out ""boot lickers"" also.

The toppling of the Saddam statue is a very positive symbol. Iraq has some tough times ahead. We can only hope for the best for them.

what does the Project for the New American Century want the president to do next? Syria? Iran? North Korea? China?

I think they spin them all except for China and find out which one the American public bites on the most.

N. Korea is making the PNAC''s case for them.

They''ve already talked up Syria.

It wouldnt be hard to stir up memories of the Iran hostage crisis.

"Locke" wrote:

What motives can they possible have?! What do they possibly have to gain by kissing up to Americans as you say they are doing?? Are they going to get more food and water if they kiss up as opposed to the people who didn''t? Or maybe they''ll be appointed government positions? Or maybe they are just in full auto mode to cheer anyone in power? My god give the people some diginity.

I didnt mean they were all bootlickers, I meant that you cant assume its all goodwill. Im sure thier conditions will be better than they were before, and thats great. My problem with this war is, as always, with what will happen to our conditions. Thier conditions are definately better, and again, thats great.

Why is it then good practice to guess the motives of the US adminstration?

The US administration is organized, a crowd is not. Thats the distinction I make, anyway.

I don''t pretend this war is anything, it is what it is, but you can pretend it is a war to further Bush''s personal interest. But I whole heartily support this war for its humanitarian efforts. Can you at least be happy that Iraqi people are finally free? What gets me the most is that the anti-war people can''t even acknowledge that freedom is finally in Iraq and it''s a good thing.

I never said it was to further Bush''s personal interests, I said that was the worst case scenario. I dont support this war in spite of the humanitarian efforts. See what I said above, nobody except the crazies think that Iraq won''t be better off.

I dont think the humanitarian efforts are worth war, especially in this manner. If it was a humanitarian effort to help Americans, itd be different. I would totally support war in that case. But were ""helping"" someone who didnt really ask for our help. Yes they appreciate it, but when things start to go to sh*t, which they will, they will blame us. Because they didn''t ask for our help, nobody did. The Administration (note I dont say Bush, theres more people than him that make the decisions) wanted it to happen, and they went and did it. So even on the humanitarian side, I think we still lose.

But time will see about that I guess.

First, I supported this war from the start.
Second, I''m glad to see the Iraqi people happy.

When people talk about war they always talk about the motives of the war. There are usually two groups. The first group says that we are going to war to further our own self-interests. The second group says that we are going to war to free the people, make the world a better place, etc.

Now, the fact is, both groups are right. I''m not saying that one group is right during one war and one group is right during another war, both groups are always right. We go to war because we like what we will get out of it and we go to war because we are doing something good.

You are lying to yourself if you think that helping people wasn''t a major part of the equation when determining whether we would go to war or not. However, you are also lying to yourself if you don''t think that an equally important part of the equation was what we would get from the war. So, the question of war is not ""do we go to war for fiscal or humanitarian reasons"", but rather ""do the humanitarian and fiscal reasons balance out"".

The problem a lot of the leftist seem to have is that they can''t accept the fact that if there is not a benefit for us, we don''t go. The protestors that I have seen aren''t protesting because we are freeing the Iraqi people, they are protesting because they know we will get something out of this war.

For example, in this war we get a new capitalist nation to buy our stuff and some of our corporations get some very lucrative contracts. The bombing of Kosovo got the media to re-focus their lenses.

War will never be fought for purely humanitarian reasons because humanity has not evolved to the point where people are capable of thinking of others without considering themselves. War will never be fought for purely fiscal reasons because if a nation attempted a purely fiscal war, the governments of the world would unite against that nation and punish them through sanctions, removing diplomatic support in the future, or even , ironically, war.

""The toppling of the Saddam statue is a very positive symbol. Iraq has some tough times ahead. We can only hope for the best for them.""

Oh, I''m sure they''ll do fine. It''s not like the US is going to leave them alone after this, they promised to fix all their problems.

Im sure a lot of people who didnt support the war or didnt support the way the administration went to war are VERY happy the Iraqi people are freed.

You know, it just seems the great ''justifier'' to me. Happy Iraqi''s equals successes in war and inevitably, more support for the US. Problem is though that a lot of people do not only resent the way the war was started but the concept of any war against Iraq itself. I am already won over by the way the US has intelligently handled the winning of this war, sucks though that a lot of hard-headed peaceniks will find new excuses for their ignorance

This is what pisses me off about the peace movement. They aren''t against war because they''re for the Iraqi people, but their agaisnt the government. Being against the government is fine by me, I sure am. Just don''t say you''re against a war. That is self-centered and racist. Unless you and yours are living under a dictator do not use the freeing of a people to fight your battle with the government. Say you''re against the government and that''s why you''re fighting the war. This is why people like Tom Delay piss me off. He was against other wars because his guy wasn''t in office.