War-Losing Faction

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

While 1441 didn't say "fly at it, USA," it most certainly does not say "don't."

"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".

Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt. Ain't real. And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion. I would not credit the notion that the UN did not understand this.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion.

Ah, I love this line of thinking that our administration shares: the problem will be solved by removing Saddam and not much will be needed beyond that. Force the dictator out, and the people will resolve the rest, right? Everyone over there supports our ideals, so it should all go smoothly. We should only need 5,000 troops stationed in Iraq right now since they should all mostly be pro-American by now, right? Cultural, tribal, political, and religious issues aside, we can fix anything by simply removing the dictator and letting the people do the rest! It really is that easy.

What? You say there's still violence, unrest, and instability? I have no idea why -- the plan was perfect from day one and it was the only way to solve the world's security problem. It must be an outside force, as the difficulty we're experiencing could never come from within a country we've fully "liberated". Yes, it must be some other entity interfering, someone else that supports the Axis of Evil. It must be Iran, right? What can we possibly do to solve that problem?

I often hear that we're in Iraq because of WMDs/genocide and I often hear that we are there to fight terrorism. By removing the dictator to solve the first problem, we've increased the other. All the air superiority and weaponry in the world will not change people's minds that are set through religion and hundreds of years of cultural differences. Our army is not equipped to do that. We may have removed a dictator, but that thing you fear so much, terrorism, is being made worse by our actions and the power vacuum we created.

UN rules, international policy, and morals aside, the money, manpower, time, and lives wasted in this war could have been better used to build a successful security force here at home. $366,000,000,000+ would have purchased plenty of x-ray machines, metal detectors, radiation scanners, port security, biological agent detectors, and other federal infrastructure to keep out all those WMDs that didn't even exist in the first place. Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.

Is the solution to stop these new terrorists to overthrow the governments of the countries they are coming from? Gee, what do you think would happen if we did that?

We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us, that there would be no corruption, that no one would attempt to take advantage of a population that grew up under tyranny in a country where a myriad of religious and political groups, both internal and external, were straining to kill each other and take over. You could call that the fault of someone's optimistic dream, but I tend to think we might have, oh, rushed into this war without too much thought. We just needed to do it. It was the only way.

Oh, if only someone could have warned us! Too bad the only people opposed to this war want us to lose it!

I'd say I'm thankful we didn't destabilize the entire region, but with the recent words coming out against Iran, I don't want to speak too soon.

[skysidhe]

I think this was very well said. I applaud you.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us,

'WE" meaning the 'administration' I hope because I know there are alot of people who knew it wouldn't work right from the beginning. I am included in that count.There is at least half of America who were against this and voted in another President.The writing was on the wall for anyone to see. It was the perverbail 'Emperors new clothes' People were told what to see and they saw it.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Oh, if only someone could have warned us!

I heard lots of warnings at the time. I havn't heard the administration bemoaning that. I hear alot of denial though.


Just my personal thoughts as I was reading. I very good read too Kitsune!

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

'WE" meaning the 'administration' I hope because I know there are alot of people who knew it wouldn't work right from the beginning. I am included in that count.There is at least half of America who were against this and voted in another President because the writing was on the wall.

Sorry about that -- I keep saying 'we' as in 'The United States'. It was drilled into my head at an early age and I really should have said 'this administration'.

I also couldn't turn off my sarcasm in writing that post, either.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

big snip ~ Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.~ big snip

Iraq is going to take forever to stabilize and heal. Fortunately Afghanistan, because we were busy in Iraq, has almost completely healed.
Except for a couple small areas the Canadians and Aussies are controlling, the Taliban holds sway again. The poppy crops are buying materiel, the girls have been kicked out of the schools, that is the ones that haven't been torn down.
Yes sir, Afghanistan is almost healed.

You know if we'd spent all that money on oil-less Afghanistan it would be all screwed up. With decent roads think of the injured children from speeding vehicles. With clean water supplies, they would lose the ability to build up their immune systems. With sustainable crops, they'd pick up all kinds of diverse food to have to learn how to prepare, which would take away from begging time. Without the taliban they would have to go to school, get literate, learn to think, and make decisions that have always been made for them. Oh, the pressure, oh, the humanity.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt.

And like I said, you shouldn't have to look in a resolution to find it. "Don't invade" is the universal default. Failing to say "do invade" is equivalent to saying "don't".