The war in hindsight (No Spam)

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:29 am

So now that the war is over and we have all had time to think about the rights and wrongs of it – what is your position now.

Was it a noble course to save a reluctant world from the dangers of Sadam’s WMDs or was it a cynical invasion to secure oil-flow and military/political strategic power in the region while satisfying a lot of US industry. Or maybe you think it was righteous revenge for 9/11.

Lets hear it.

But be nice to each other and especially me

.

smass · Post by **smass** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:46 am

Be nice to each other - you have got to be kidding.

I just want to relay one funny story. Last week I was at a seminar where a mutual fund manager for one of the major fund families was presenting. He was going over his economic outlook and comparing current Fed monetary policy and global politics now to previous bear markets. He was making his case for the onset of a bull market. Specifically he was looking at the 1972-73 period and 1981. In a nutshell what he said was:

"What was the wild card factor that gave an unexpected jolt to the US economy in 1972 and again in 1981 leading the economy further into recession? Answer - Arab Oil Embargo. The rising prices of oil had a destabilizing effect on the US economy just when it could least afford it. Most economic indicators now indicate that the U.S economy is ready for an expansion. With that in mind - what is different now with regards to oil than back in 1972 and 1984? Answer - WE OWN IRAQ and we have 350,000 troops in IRAQ and Afganistan. Iran is sandwiched in between them. We paid off the Saudis. What do you think the chances of an oil embargo are now that there are a thousand Abrams tanks ready to roll on the ground right in the middle of oil country?"

I think this says it all.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:48 am

If anything, given that it now appears the WMD were not there in the first place, and the state of utter anarchy in Iraq, my original position has hardened even further.....

For me, the war was immoral, completely unjustified and profoundly irresponsible on a geopolitical level. This has not changed, and in addition I have recently began to question my support of the original Iraq war as well as Afghanistan...

smass · Post by **smass** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 10:39 am

The WMDs were used as justification - as the smoking gun per se. I do think that the administration thought IRAQ had a weapons program - but they probably exaggerated the extent of it in order to justify military action. IMHO the real reasons for the war were:

1. To secure oil flow and stabilize the economy - thereby making capitalists richer and getting George W. re-elected.

2. When taken together with Afganistan - to "kill them before they kill us" - in other words - dismantle two of the major countries who sponsor terrorism and thereby threaten the US and its allies.

I personally have no problem with the second reason. I burned my rose colored glasses years ago.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 10:54 am

er.. never mind..

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 1:43 pm

Perhaps I am a bit selfish, but it seemed to me that following 9/11, during the Iraqi invasion, and now following the successful military action, something most disturbing has taken place in my country. I specifically refer to the "Homeland Security" phenomenon that has established itself in the name of the "War against Terror." The power that this legislation gives the Federal government to violate the liberty, freedom, and privacy of Americans rings with ominous undertones to me. As history reveals...once the Federal government gains something, it never relinquishes what it has gained. In fact, it keeps expanding, growing more powerful every decade like a slowly growing malignant tumor. I look at the American Civil War as a turning point that tipped the delicate checks and balances system of the American governmental system in favor of the Federal entity...and since that time, the Federal government has been preoccupied with solidifying itself as the indisputable overlord of the United States, maintaining a strangle-hold upon the States by establishing a dependency upon it's massive revenues.

The "United States," to me, is a misnomer, an anachronism that speaks of a time when States actually had rights, and were united together for the common good of all Americans. That was a time long ago, when political office was a public service, and politicians were statesmen that held to the ideals that gave birth to the Constitution in the late eigthteenth century, following our successful bid for independence. The mud-slingers and charlatans of that time (Davy Crockett and Andrew Jackson come to mind) were moral zealots compared to the bureaucrats and power brokers of this day and age.

I believe that the developments upon my own soil have greater ramifications for the world than the invasion of Iraq, or Afghanistan.

smass · Post by **smass** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:16 pm

Interesting POV Chanak. I would just like to add that many of these "moral zealots" were also proponents of slavery. My own point of view on the civil war was that it did more good than harm. 150 years later, in 2003, I would tend to agree that the federal government has its hands in too many areas of our lives.

I am certainly no proponent of big government and I do support civil liberties. I draw the line when those very civil liberties that we hold so dear are perverted and used against us. The Patriot Act is an attempt to stop certain people (terrorists) from hiding behind these liberties. Maybe the government has gone too far into some Orwellian future - this is certainly debatable - but in my opinion there must be some urgency to crack down on those people who are here for the express purpose of promoting and carrying out terrorist acts. Sometimes I think if it was up to the ACLU we would be setting up some kind of low cost housing for terrorists - rather than putting them in jail where they belong...

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:42 pm

@Smass: LMAO! Great point concerning the ACLU.

Also, good points in general. I don't think we really disagree about much, as I see the point in what you're writing about. I suppose I hold a different view of the slavery issue - no, not supportive of it - but in the end, I think we see two sides of the same coin. I tend to focus on civil liberties and freedoms more than anything else, but card-carrying member of the ACLU I'm not.

I think common sense should rule the day when it comes to the responsible management of our freedoms in light of danger from either abroad, or within. As I feel the agenda of terrorist organizations is partially achieved with a reduction in our liberties, I am generally against restrictions in the name of anything.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 5:35 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
Perhaps I am a bit selfish, but it seemed to me that following 9/11, during the Iraqi invasion, and now following the successful military action, something most disturbing has taken place in my country. I specifically refer to the "Homeland Security" phenomenon that has established itself in the name of the "War against Terror." The power that this legislation gives the Federal government to violate the liberty, freedom, and privacy of Americans rings with ominous undertones to me. As history reveals...once the Federal government gains something, it never relinquishes what it has gained. In fact, it keeps expanding, growing more powerful every decade like a slowly growing malignant tumor. I look at the American Civil War as a turning point that tipped the delicate checks and balances system of the American governmental system in favor of the Federal entity...and since that time, the Federal government has been preoccupied with solidifying itself as the indisputable overlord of the United States, maintaining a strangle-hold upon the States by establishing a dependency upon it's massive revenues.

@Chanak, you've exactly reiterated a view I've expressed to my sister-in-law within the last year. (She turned frosty. Very bright person, but she sees the ACW as a simple slavery issue. It might help to know that her folks are German descended Missourians, some of the fiercest Unionists during the ACW. Many generations back, but some ideas didn't get challenged.) I agree: the nexus was Lincoln, creating a policy that out-Federalisted the old Federalists of fifty years before. Habeus corpus was thrown out, newspaper offices were commandeered, "tests" of loyalty were instituted, and the War itself was fought, at least in part, to prove by might the issue of whether states that freely joined a union could freely leave one.

(Of course, it was also fought over the slavery issue. That's what makes it so great a tragedy, in some ways, to me. On the one hand, the freedoms of the states and individuals were permanently curtailed--not that Lincoln foresaw this in the future, but his well-intentioned actions became the excuse used by people of inferior metal, IMO. On the other, whatever gains were made in providing rights truly due to the slaves were lost again when the Reconstruction was rolled back in the 1870s and 1880s. Nobody won.)

But I don't think anything comparable in US history regarding the loss of private rights has occurred in our previous wars. Even when California Attorney General Warren threw Asian Americans in Internment Camps during WWII, it was later declared unconstitutional; and Warren acted under emergency powers. He was acting above the law. By contrast, the Patriot Acts and the Homeland Security Department have been passed *into law.* To remove them will require a vote of the Supreme Court--and thanks to the politicization of the Courts under Reagan (whatever else he did that was good, starting the tradition of stacking the SC politically wasn't one of 'em) and Dubya, the chances of that are slim.

Odd, that use of the word, "conservative." Bush is called that, but I said even before his election that he was a radical, far outside the social and economic American mainstream. Wish I was wrong, now.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:11 pm

@Chan and fable: I am with you 1000% on this. The individual, has been sacrificed to the collective. It matters not if we are talking about an idividual as a person, or if we are talking about State's rights. We have all been shackled, enslaved, and layed open to the beast that is the Federal Government.

It has been a gradual process, but bit by bit, our individuality is being chipped away until one day some one is going to look up and realise just how far we have moved from 'The Land of the Free', to "The Land of the Deluded".

The sad thing is, it is so gradual, that people don't even see it coming.

Antimatter · Post by **Antimatter** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:09 pm

The sad thing is most people don't seem to care anyways. For instance, many people who strongly opposed the war in Iraq originally now don't care. In fact they barely seem to remember.

Anyways, I agree with pretty much everything posted and don't have much else to add, so...

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 10:50 pm

"Bit by bit" is a good way of putting it, @Scayde. That's how it's been happening, like a gradual erosion.

@fable: Right-o in bringing out the fact that this is indeed the first time that actions which purposefully violated our Constitutional rights was made *law.* Political tampering with the courts from all factions has resulted in a legal system which, in turn, oversteps it's boundaries as defined by the very document that defined the union of states that was America. It seems to me that the overall effect has been a regime developing in Washington, one which has gained it's power by fostering a dependency of the States to it's largesse, thanks to the Federal Income Tax levied early in the past century. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that supposed to be an *emergency* measure instituted to support the war at the time?

Not that I'm against taxation by the Federal agency...however, it illustrates my belief that the Federal government has far exceeded the bounds that the framers of the Constitution originally had in mind. Case in point: the Federal government uses the leverage created by financial dependency to force the States to comply with it's wishes. The Federal government also possesses ultimate authority over the National Guard, and can Federalize these troops at the drop of a hat, with the States having no say in the matter at all. If a State decided to say "no," it would be a simple matter for the President to order the United States Army to take matters into hand.

These soldiers are not paid by the States they are assigned to...they are paid by the Federal Government, from Federal Tax money. You get the picture.

@Antimatter: One of the side effects of this war is that took the minds of people to vengeance, and a place of fear from terrorist threats. This sets the stage for a loss of freedom in the name of the War on Terror....and people's apathy doesn't surprise me in the least. I expected it.

EDIT - @fable: Uh, wait a minute. We're forgetting about Prohibition, the infamous amendment that was repealed back in the 30's.

James Mason · Post by **James Mason** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 1:51 am

Originally posted by smass
Sometimes I think if it was up to the ACLU we would be setting up some kind of low cost housing for terrorists - rather than putting them in jail where they belong...

Maybe if they had the things the ACLU fights for they wouldn't have been terrorists to begin with.

Antimatter · Post by **Antimatter** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 10:16 am

@Chanak, the apathy doesn't particularly surprise me either, but I still find it sad.

Oh, and since you're speaking of taxes I thought I'd mention the Boston Tea Party. One of the (many) reasons for the Revolutionary war was high taxes. The rest fell under too much government control as well. If this loss of liberties does not stop might we see another "revolution" in the relative near future?

And the way it sounds now is that politicians have almost taken over the courts. That would effectively remove one of our "checks and balances" that was originally set up to prevent this kind of thing. Also, with so many people willing to blindly follow the President during war time, could we see a loss of power to the legislative branch as well? We could be setting ourselves up for a sort of behind the scenes dictatorship. Now that's a scary thing...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:21 pm

Call me blind, or biased or whatever.... it might be the American Flag boxers I am wearing but my position has never changed. We went to clean up a mess we made during the Iran Iraq conflict. The homeland invasion (thats what its called right??) is a very scary thing that in the hands of the wrong people can hurt me individually really bad. The stoner, the bootlegger the innocent white middle class teen who isn't following the grain completly. Sure I hate terrorists as much as the next blood thirsty american but for crying out loud there needs to be checks and balances.

Anyhow. Onword and forward... If it werent for my Asthma I'd be posting from Iraq.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 3:58 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
Call me blind, or biased or whatever.... it might be the American Flag boxers I am wearing but my position has never changed. We went to clean up a mess we made during the Iran Iraq conflict. The homeland invasion (thats what its called right??) is a very scary thing that in the hands of the wrong people can hurt me individually really bad. The stoner, the bootlegger the innocent white middle class teen who isn't following the grain completly. Sure I hate terrorists as much as the next blood thirsty american but for crying out loud there needs to be checks and balances.

Anyhow. Onword and forward... If it werent for my Asthma I'd be posting from Iraq.

*HUG*...Thug , My support for our country has not changed. It has not lessened. What I don't support are new laws and policies which are eroding our freedoms and changing the very nature of what it is to be an American. The "Land of the Free" is turning into the "Land of the Watched"...and I for one resent it. The reason I love this country is that historicaly it has been the herald of personal freedom. This has been changing over the past 150 years, with some of the most dramatic changes occuring here in these last 2 years. These are freedoms that I would fight and die for, and they are being stripped not by outside forces, but from within our own Country. It brings to mind the theatrical display when Khrushchev beat his shoe on the podium at the UN and yelled "We will bury you from within".

With the caviat that it is not the USSR that is doing this, but we are doing it to ourselves, or rather allowing it to happen, because of fear, anger, what ever..

It feels his words were very prophetic right now

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:14 am

I realise now that when I said ‘the war in hindsight’ this could be taken to mean the American civil war. The war I was referring to was the very resent one where the US invaded Iraq (the mild irony was kindly meant

).

It is of course reassuring that the Americans on this board take their civil liberties serious.
By the way, since many of you seem so worried about the infringement of the American people’s liberty by its own government, how do you view the US government treatment of the Iraqi people’s rights?

Originally posted by smass

2. When taken together with Afganistan - to "kill them before they kill us" - in other words - dismantle two of the major countries who sponsor terrorism and thereby threaten the US and its allies.

I personally have no problem with the second reason. I burned my rose colored glasses years ago.

There is little doubt that Afghanistan was a terrorist haven but from what I have read in the press it seems there is nothing that connects Iraq with terrorism on any scale that could threaten America (the one thing I have heard is that Sadam gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine).

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:34 am

@Tom what I have gathered is that the Link between Alqueda and Saddam is a myth, which makes those finger pointers who are so ready to villianize bush claim "No Terrorist ties".

From what I have read Saddam supported terrorism. I do believe Bush said rather clearly some time ago... those Terrorists and those who support them are our foe. Not just those who threaten our borders...

btw I think it was Hamas he had ties to ( I could be wrong )

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:20 am

For Gruntboy

IMO, it's a bit early to be discussing the war "in hindsight," but ...

As I have stated on this forum previously: I was/am against the war against Iraq as presented and executed.

However, today I am going to play devil's advocate because I'm mad the Gruntboy has been banned.

So ...

A tyrant and his tyrannical state have been eliminated from the face of the earth. This is a positive development, people.

Don't talk to me of "destabilization" of the region. This is the middle east! It doesn't get any more destabilized! For the same reason, don't raise the issue of greater anti-American/western sentiment. Don't say a "sovereign" nation was invaded. No nation that so abuses the rights of it's own people can claim any right to "sovereignty." Let us not discuss civilian causualties ... unless we also wish to discuss Kuwaiti civilian casualties. Or count the dead in the mass graves now being found in Iraq. Terrorist ties? How about the fact that Hussein WAS a terrorist? For how else can one decribe his regime? The Patriot Act? Hardly has anything to do with this war - it was from the last one (Afghanistan, remember?) And, really, it was more an outcome of September 11 than anything else.

Anyway, bump this thread in five years and maybe we can have a discussion of the war in hindsight. Posting the topic the same week as six British soldiers were slaughtered smacks of bias.

End of Gruntboy rant.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 12:12 pm

@Tom: In my own opinion, one of the most serious side-effects of the Iraqi invasion was the resulting "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security" maneuvers which happened in my own country. I honestly believe that the effects of this will not be limited to American soil. That is another can of worms, to be sure, but I felt it approriate to discuss. I am sorry that it spun so far afield, though, for in my attempts to illustrate what I feel is a very real danger to Americans and the world at large, I delved into history. I'll be mindful of this in future posts.

What of the rights of Iraqi citizens? I think asking them this question would be more fitting, since none of us were there personally. We have to rely on the reports of the various news agencies, and quite frankly I trust those about as far as I can throw my car.

I contrast the information relayed by public news reports with things related to me by the military command structure, and veterans who were there. I first began to distrust news agencies during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm back in 1990, as I happened to be privy to some operations information that was not available to the public at large, at the time. This, coupled with information I received from my brother-in-law - who was assigned to the 24th Infantry out of Ft. Stewart, Ga (the 24th was deployed to the Persian Gulf in August of 1989, and did not return Stateside until the assault phase, called Desert Storm, was complete) - illustrated that in the absence of data, news agencies are only too happy to extrapolate and embellish as they see fit. The military did not feed the press misinformation, they simply refused to divulge data they felt was vital to the success of the mission at the time.

We've heard conflicting stories in the press concerning surrendering Iraqi troops during the invasion that happened this year. While many rely on these reports for info concerning the war, I know a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division, who in turn has buddies in the 3rd Infantry Division, and so on, and so on...and the information they relay to me paints a decidely different picture than what some of the press organizations do. These fellows were there when the bullets were flying, and the artillery shells were falling. A group of "surrendering" Iraqi soldiers, found in a truck, surprised American soldiers by producing a number of AK-47 rifles and an RPG. One American was killed in this firefight, while every one of the Iraqis were killed. I notice with some amusement how spins are placed upon this incident, all depending upon the source which you hear it from. According to my buddies, those American soldiers made the mistake of not following through with POW SOP. To me, that story relates deception by the Iraqis, and troops not thinking like they were trained to.

However, in the end, I find that I am in agreement with Lazarus. One less tyrant in the world, and regardless of the complications which will surely follow the removal of his regime in Iraq, the world was made brighter thereby. I am reminded of the chaos that reigned in Russia (and other former Republics) following the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This happens when the existing structures of any nation are pulled down. It takes time to restore order...Saddam was in power for a very long time.