Assessing America's 'imperial failure' in Iraq

[4>0rings]

The Iraq war is going to turn out to be worst American up in history.

Slavery, Vietnam, indian genocide, and civil war say hi.

[ChumpDumper]

We were going to win the war against communists by going to Vietnam? And nothing had changed by the time we left, after sacrificing 10 times as many American soldiers.

Eh, I guess hindsight is 20/20, but the communist monolith seemed scarier back then than the Muslim monolith.

About Iraq's lack of a government able to protect its people...you're preaching to the choir, which is why I don't think we should've left. But at least this government offers the possibility for freedoms that its people would not have otherwise enjoyed if Sadam were still in power.

What good is freedom if you are dead? Or just trade for another dictator in a few years? Why was it our place to decide what is best for them in the first place? We haven't done that in other places.

And the original statement WAS hyperbole because he said it's going to turn out to be the worst f* up in American history...but there's a lot of history left to be made. And if/when America crumbles, I'm pretty sure whatever led to that occuring will be seen as the worst f* up...not some decision to go into Iraq.

It could certainly be seen as a real turning point in the United States' role in the world; especially in the context of squandering the worldwide goodwill and cooperation the US enjoyed for less than two years after 9/11. Time will tell.

[AFBlue]

Eh, I guess hindsight is 20/20, but the communist monolith seemed scarier back then than the Muslim monolith.

When you say "Muslim monolith" I assume you mean the extremists that would carry out terrorist actions. That aside, to me it's 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Communism had the Soviet Union as its face and Islamic Extremism has Al-Queda as its face...both well organized, well funded and capable of destruction. While I don't think our current brand of terrorist is capable of starting WWIII, I also think that the deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction does not apply...hence, there's greater fear that some event will occur.

What good is freedom if you are dead? Or just trade for another dictator in a few years? Why was it our place to decide what is best for them in the first place? We haven't done that in other places.

Say what? Since the USSR folded and America became the pre-eminent super power, we have acted as the "world police" many times over. Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait and Iraq.

And at the "what good is freedom if you are dead?" comment. As if there wasn't death/murder under the previous regime.

It could certainly be seen as a real turning point in the United States' role in the world; especially in the context of squandering the worldwide goodwill and cooperation the US enjoyed for less than two years after 9/11. Time will tell.

The US role in the world will remain as long as we have the money and the guns. Personally, I think it's far more likely that we lose the money first and that our "demise" is related to some financial policies than a foreign policy decision to invade Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

When you say "Muslim monolith" I assume you mean the extremists that would carry out terrorist actions.

No, I mean the perceived monolith that people like DarrinS propagate.

That aside, to me it's 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Communism had the Soviet Union as its face and Islamic Extremism has Al-Queda as its face...both well organized, well funded and capable of destruction. While I don't think our current brand of terrorist is capable of starting WWIII, I also think that the deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction does not apply...hence, there's greater fear that some event will occur.

Sorry, the communists had many more resources and weapons to threaten the US and the world. It's not even close.

Say what? Since the USSR folded and America became the pre-eminent super power, we have acted as the "world police" many times over. Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait and Iraq.

There were actual conflicts happening in those areas.

And at the "what good is freedom if you are dead?" comment. As if there wasn't death/murder under the previous regime.

Less than after our "liberation." Plus they had electricity.

The US role in the world will remain as long as we have the money and the guns. Personally, I think it's far more likely that we lose the money first and that our "demise" is related to some financial policies than a foreign policy decision to invade Iraq.

Sure, our role as a huge military power will remain, but the American exceptionalism in foreign policy is dead as far as other countries are concerned.

[AFBlue]

Sorry, the communists had many more resources and weapons to threaten the US and the world. It's not even close.

Like I said, al-Queda is not likely to start WWIII, but these individuals have no fear of reprisal (i.e. MAD) so it makes them much more dangerous and unpredictable.

There were actual conflicts happening in those areas.

So you're saying the gassing of the Kurds or evidence of mass graves that were found weren't elements of genocide?

Less than after our "liberation." Plus they had electricity.

I'd like to see evidence of this. Of course, it will be hard to gather because so much of what went on under the Saddam regime was not public knowledge.

Sure, our role as a huge military power will remain, but the American exceptionalism in foreign policy is dead as far as other countries are concerned.

Dead for now...and either way, my point is that whatever leads to the downfall of this nation will ultimately be the "biggest f* up in its history"...and I sincerely doubt the decision to invade Iraq will lead to the downfall of this nation.

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said, al-Queda is not likely to start WWIII, but these individuals have no fear of reprisal (i.e. MAD) so it makes them much more dangerous and unpredictable.

They are actually fairly predictable and a much smaller group to boot.

So you're saying the gassing of the Kurds or evidence of mass graves that were found weren't elements of genocide?

I'm saying the US isn't responsible for those deaths. Anything after 2003, yes.

I'd like to see evidence of this. Of course, it will be hard to gather because so much of what went on under the Saddam regime was not public knowledge.

So the deaths you don't know about outweigh the deaths you do know about. Nice.

Dead for now...and either way, my point is that whatever leads to the downfall of this nation will ultimately be the "biggest f* up in its history"...and I sincerely doubt the decision to invade Iraq will lead to the downfall of this nation.

Vietnam sure didn't.

[AFBlue]

They are actually fairly predictable and a much smaller group to boot.

If they were fairly predictable we wouldn't have lost 3,000 lives on 9/11. And their size actually makes them more difficult to uncover...makes it easier for them to slip through the cracks and carry out their plots.

I'm saying the US isn't responsible for those deaths. Anything after 2003, yes.

Your original comment asked when we started to decide for others what was best for them. My statement was that it had been going on since we became the pre-eminent superpower. Not sure how we arrived at your response above.

So the deaths you don't know about outweigh the deaths you do know about. Nice.

I didn't say anything about which deaths "outweigh" the others. I just challenged you to provide proof that more death/murders are carried out now than were under Saddam's oppressive regime. I honestly don't think you can.

Vietnam sure didn't.

What's great is that I never said Vietnam did. I said that Iraq wasn't even the worst to date and cited Vietnam. I don't know what will be looked at as the worst f* up by America in its history when all is said and done...but I sincerely doubt it's Iraq.

[Winehole23]

I sincerely doubt you're right. (I do hope you turn out to be right.)

[clambake]

If they were fairly predictable we wouldn't have lost 3,000 lives on 9/11.

it was predicted.

[ChumpDumper]

If they were fairly predictable we wouldn't have lost 3,000 lives on 9/11. And their size actually makes them more difficult to uncover...makes it easier for them to slip through the cracks and carry out their plots.

9/11 was predicted by several parties. Others failed to listen.

Your original comment asked when we started to decide for others what was best for them. My statement was that it had been going on since we became the pre-eminent superpower. Not sure how we arrived at your response above.

We decided that a democracy was best for them and directly and indirectly killed several thousand of them as a result of our decision.

I didn't say anything about which deaths "outweigh" the others. I just challenged you to provide proof that more death/murders are carried out now than were under Saddam's oppressive regime. I honestly don't think you can.

And you can't prove otherwise. All that can be proved is the thousands dead because of our invasion. That cannot be disputed.

What's great is that I never said Vietnam did. I said that Iraq wasn't even the worst to date and cited Vietnam. I don't know what will be looked at as the worst f* up by America in its history when all is said and done...but I sincerely doubt it's Iraq.

You are free to disagree. Time will tell.

[AFBlue]

9/11 was predicted by several parties. Others failed to listen.

And the USS Cole? Kobar Towers? The train bombings in Spain? I cited the 9/11 terrorist attack because it's the most well known, but these other attacks were carried out by al-Queda operatives and were not predicted or prevented.

Yes, they are unpredictable and small enough to slip through the cracks.

We decided that a democracy was best for them and directly and indirectly killed several thousand of them as a result of our decision.

We decided that Saddam was a threat to our national security and that a new government would be better for everyone, not just Iraqis.

[clambake]

ha

[boutons_deux]

$547 Million Can’t Paper Over Failure of Afghanistan War

The Pentagon’s public relations machine is working overtime these days trying to sell a theme of “progress” in Afghanistan to push back against calls to end the war. The message machine behind this push is gargantuan, costing $547 million and employing more than 27,000 people.

“This year, the Pentagon will employ 27,000 people just for recruitment, advertising and public relations — almost as many as the total 30,000-person work force in the State Department. …[T]he Pentagon’s rapidly expanding media empire…is now bigger in size, money and power than many media companies.

“$547 million goes into public affairs, which reaches American audiences. And about $489 million more goes into what is known as psychological operations, which targets foreign audiences.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...aign=alternet#

==========

$500M of taxpayer dollars to lie to Americans

[Winehole23]

Defense is big government too, y'all.

[ChumpDumper]

And the USS Cole? Kobar Towers? The train bombings in Spain? I cited the 9/11 terrorist attack because it's the most well known, but these other attacks were carried out by al-Queda operatives and were not predicted or prevented.

Yes, they are unpredictable and small enough to slip through the cracks.

9/11 was predicted in part because of the previous attacks. Fortunately for us, they don't deal much in small potatoes. It was largely our unwillingness to take the prediction seriously. Now we do.

We decided that Saddam was a threat to our national security and that a new government would be better for everyone, not just Iraqis.

Were we right? And is it really our place to decide? Why not overthrow North Korea right now? Iran?

Make no mistake: we overthrew Saddam because it was easy. We just thought it would take care of -- and pay for -- itself afterward.

Colossal up.

Historical up.

[TinTin]

They are actually fairly predictable and a much smaller group to boot.

When you say they are a smaller group to boot, are you inferring that it is defeat them than the soviets?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm saying the threat is smaller.

Always has been.

If the initial Afghanistan campaign hadn't relied so heavily on locals, it indeed might have been much easier to effectively eliminate AQ in 2001.

[Winehole23]

The invasion of Iraq and the broader war on terror implicitly raised Al Qaeda and terrorism to a level of (world-historical) importance they did not deserve.

[Winehole23]

And do not deserve now.

[TinTin]

I should have asked the question outright

When you said a much smaller group to boot, what did you mean

[ChumpDumper]

I should have asked the question outright

When you said a much smaller group to boot, what did you mean

I meant there are only a few hundred members of Al Qaeda at best, compared to the millions of Communist members of armed forces back in the day -- , even today.

[AFBlue]

Colossal up.

Historical up.

Not bigger than Vietnam.

[AFBlue]

Defense is big government too, y'all.

It's my fundamental belief that government exists to protect the rights of its people...by means of force if necessary. I wouldn't mind a tax increase if it meant my dollars were going to securing those freedoms.

[ChumpDumper]

Not bigger than Vietnam.

We're only halfway through this one. Give it time.

[AFBlue]

We're only halfway through this one. Give it time.

Actually I think the more time we spend there, the less long-term negative impact it has. As long as we continue to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed during the invasion and train Iraqi security forces/police how to protect their own people, I think we'll continue to repair our relationship with the Iraqi people and the international community as a whole.