"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"

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
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 (WMD and the
possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, Iraqi
interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that
ended the first Gulf war).

Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done.
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. As are a significant
number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the governments,
militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors.

Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well
before we were embroiled in Iraq. And I disagree with the notion that the US
should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in check,
that is just one more element to include among those bearing on the
decision. Also, you forgot to mention Afghanistan; I assume you deliberately
excluded North Korea because of geography. <grin>

 

When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared
war on the US.

So what was the threat

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.

Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's
airspace?

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.

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.

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.

Iraq was a great recruiting ground.

So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia,
Sudan, ...

 

When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared
war on the US.

So what was the threat

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.

Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's
airspace?



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

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.

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.

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.

Iraq was a great recruiting ground.

So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia,
Sudan, ...

 

well that didnt reply correctly. oops!

 

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.

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.

Not so! WMD is more than just nuclear weapons.

To which they had earlier agreed.

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?

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).

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.

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!

<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.

 

Got it. One reason that I stayed with Tosh in preference to IBM was that
Tosh has an authorise workshop in central London not a million miles from me
so can deliver and collect machine, and even have some work done
"while-u-wait".

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

If Mexico and Canada declared 2/3 of the US airspace off limits, don't
you think we'd be upset?

And the no-fly zones weren't part of the UN cease-fire that ended the
first Gulf War; they were imposed by the US and Britain.

Like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Except he had no WMD. Pakistan does and is a much bigger threat to
supply them to terrorists, by the way.

Yes, and the inspectors were looking for all. He had none, nada, zip.

No, see above.

If the gov't was no threat to me, I'd rather have the 4000 Americans
back and the $1 trillion back.

Polls show that's a tiny number.

So why do we prop up the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Yes, but having US troops in an Islamic country was really a great
recruitment tool.

So no "Prime Directive" for you?

Saudi Arabia is ruled by despots. They flog women in public, cut off
the hands of thieves, train terrorists in Madras schools, export
Wahabism, a verion of Islam that preaches hatred of the west, they
don't let women vote or drive or even go out in public alone...

Why aren't we overthrowing them?