"rob" > wrote in message
g.com...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Oct 14, 1:12 pm, "SteveT" >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > QX wrote:
>>
>> >> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is
>> >> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way.
>>
>> >> > And Bush was different?
>>
>> >> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to
>> >> > their
>> >> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting?
>>
>> >> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending
>> >> thousands
>> >> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current
>> >> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)?
>> > You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us,
>> > period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it.
>>
>> First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out
>> that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I
>> believed
>> the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in
>> Europe
>> *was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our
>
> When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared
> war on the US.
If your point is that we should only ever engage in military hostilities
against countries that formally declare war on us, that would seem
consistent with a (very, very) strict Constructionalist view of the
"declaration of war" provision of the US Constitution. I personally consider
what the US Congress did just prior to the invasion to be sufficient. Back
to the original question: "What did he [Bush] do in 8 years, besides send
thousands of US troops to their death at a price of a trillion dollars and
counting?" I am asserting that, as asked, that same accusation could be
thrown at FDR and Truman with respect to WW II in Europe. Thousands of US
troops went to their deaths and a lot of money was spent, both before and
after the war. The missing point in the original question is that the Iraq
war was unjustified (in the mind of the person asking). I don't see the
point in pursuing this any further in this context -- the rest of our
exchange addresses this question (how justified, if at all, was the Iraq war
that overthrew the Ba'athist government) well.

>> allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention
>> against
>> Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling
>> and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World
>> powers
>> don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is
>> the
>> point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise
>> relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under
>> Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted
>
> So what was the threat
Interference with our overflights, financial support of terrorists in
Israel (a country visited frequently by Americans), the danger of
proliferation of WMD to terrorists, to name a few.

>>(WMD and the
>> possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists,
>
> But there was no clear evidence Saddam had WMD (all the evidence he
> didn't was dismissed) and the inspectors were there doing their job.
Not so! WMD is more than just nuclear weapons.

>>Iraqi
>> interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that
>> ended the first Gulf war).
>
> Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's
> airspace?
To which they had earlier agreed.

> the first war never really ended....cease fire only. restrictions from
> that war were still in place.

>> >> But I expect
>> >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of
>> >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis
>> >> threatened by
>> >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly
>> >> disagree with you.
>> > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and
>> > want us out.
>> > <snip>
>>
>> Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done.
>
> And with it, the ones who knew how to make a gov't work and who knew
> how to make a military work; then we had 5+ years of Amateur Hour.
Insufficient, IMHO. The Nazis and the Italian Fascist government knew
how to make a government and military (well, at least the Nazis did! <grin>)
work. I'd MUCH rather have an amateur government than an efficient, brutal
immoral one, wouldn't you?

>> Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence
>> just
>> because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness
>> to
>> defend itself and its people are happy we're there.
>
> Polls say it's a tiny number. You might also note Iraq has lost a
> huge portion of its population since we invaded to people simply
> leaving.
Of course, only those both willing to give the US and allies the benefit
of the doubt AND who are fully cognizant of the sad (although improving, or
so we are told) state of the Iraqi police and military, are happy with our
presence (and very likely not everyone in that class, as we've simply messed
things up too much in many ways).

>>As are a significant
>> number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the
>> governments,
>> militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors.
>
> Oh great, 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars so the royal
> family of Kuwait can be happy. The country where women cannot vote or
> drive.
What makes you think this point has anything to do with mine? The fact
that our intervention made the royal family of Kuwait happy is not
particularly relevant. I think it's fair to assume that, as a whole, the
Kuwaiti people feel fortunate that Hussein did not succeed, whatever their
feelings are towards their royal family. Clearly, the US intent is NOT to
suppress women's right to vote or to education, otherwise we'd be on the
other side of the fight in Afghanistan.

>> > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists
>> > recruited by American actions in Iraq.
>>
>> Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well
>> before we were embroiled in Iraq.
>
> Iraq was a great recruiting ground.
So are nearly all other countries in the region. So is the US support of
Israel. So is our power, both military and economic. So, no doubt, is the
behavior of our fellow citizens when they visit other countries, or interact
with visitors of other countries who come here. During the Tehran hostage
crisis, I overheard a discussion between an Iranaian woman and an American
couple at Detroit Metro airport. No doubt finding her accent intriguing,
they asked her from whence she had come. "Iran" she replied (with a short
"a" and a slightly trilled "r"). "Where?" they asked. She repeated the name
of her country a couple more times, then added "you know, Tehran, where the
Ayatollah is?" "Oh," one of the Americans replied, "you mean I-RAN!" As if
she didn't properly pronounce the name of her native country!

>>And I disagree with the notion that the US
>> should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in
>> check,
>
> So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia,
> Sudan, ...

<snip>
Um, I think you missed the word "necessarily" that I used. I don't know
whether we should invade North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, because
I don't have access to the necessary intelligence. But I wouldnt
automatically be against the suggestion, just because "those countries are
no threat to us." I think it might have been Ayn Rand who said something
like "Moral countries have the right, but not the obligation, to overthrow
despots in other countries." I'm not sure I *quite* agree with that
statement but I'm inclined to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the
morality that it suggests.