U.S losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq? - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
February 17th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Genocide in Rwanda, The Sudan, and the Congo? Not according to the UN, EU, or the African Congress. So why is Genocide when discussing why the US didn't respond, and Crimes against humanity when discussing the UN.

Kettle, pot, pot, kettle.
February 17th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
the beginning of the war in Iraq seemed to be for the WMD,

than it turns out to be liberation of Iraqi ppl....

nice save, U.S government..really a nice save...

although american ppl have to suffer the death of over thousand loyal soldiers, for maybe some body else's oil companies...i dont know
February 17th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Wait, Sexybeast, but I thought it was a heathonistically immoral to go into Iraq?
--
Boots
February 17th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
Whisper,

I am afraid you have not read my earlier posts. Possibly because they were too detailed to hold the attention span.

However, you may like to read the Defence Policy Guidelines and the National Energy Policy of the US govt and the Proceedings on the Caspian Sea Area in the Congress.

An analytical reading of these would give you the rationale for not only Iraq but also for Afghanistan, Iran and the Caspian Oil Reserves; as also the need to have quick reaction strategically based around the world or at least the critical areas. The quest for light and rapid reaction like the Stryker Brigade is a case in point.

At the risk of repeating, the contention of 'liberation from oppression' or 'Freedom and Democracy' appears a trifle uncomfortable a proposition to accept, when there are genuine genocides galore in Darfur, Rwanda and even today at the Congo border there was another 'cleansing' reported, where the 'forces of liberation should devote attention but are conspicuous by their absence. Iraq should ahve been liberated in the 1980s when Saddam gassed the Iranians and his own.

This paradox naturally leads to the view that the moral issues are not quite what they are being stated.

I do regret if my post has caused you distress, but may I, at the same time state, that what the US did was in hernational interest and I presume that sentiment (if one can call national interest so) is her birthright.
Uh oh, now you are backtracking and dancing around the issue.

YOU SAID "in purely moral and altruistic terms" that it was bad. Oh, no no no, when you look at the morals of the situation it was the morally correct thing to do. The morally incorrect thing to do was let the people suffer. You just wrote 3 paragraphs about the Geo-Politics of the situation which are irrelevent since we are talking "purely in moral and altruistic terms."

But your 4th paragraph is quite the eyebrow raiser. From someone who tries to assert himself as the intellectual superior by an "attention span" quip, your argument is parodoxical and might I opine, quite illogical. You are trying to rubuke my assertion that purely on morals, going into Iraq was the correct thing to do by countering "well, US didn't help in Rawanda and Darfur." Really? So you are saying that what the U.S. did in Iraq is so correct that the U.S. should be doing it all over the world and you kindly give examples of places the U.S. could help out. Well thank you for bringing to light the moral obligation of powerful nations to help the weak like in Rawanda, Darfur, and Iraq. Now that you have established that, in purely moraly altruistic terms you cannot disagree that going into Iraq was the perfectly correct thing to do.

Unless of course your attention span is too short to read the entirety of my writing.
I am neither backtracking nor doing a jig.

I have written rather long posts on the subject which apparently you have not read. Had you read, then this post of mine would have been redundant.

1. The invasion of Iraq is moral to the extent that it ‘liberates the oppressed’
2. Yet, the level of morality is, without doubt, less than the level of morality that manifests the requirement of intervention or invasion in Darfur, Rwanda etc. It might be recalled that the US find Darfur a genocide. The mayhem and displacement of population does indicate (to all) that it is ethnic cleansing to say the least in Rwanda.
3. In comparison, there was no ‘ethnic cleansing’ per se in Iraq since there was no displacement of population. Killings, yes.
4. Therefore, the Invasion on Iraq is moral, but not to the level of morality as in Darfur, South Sudan or Rwanda.

Given the American indignation of ‘oppression’ in Iraq as also the high decibel media blitz in support, the attempt to make it appear more moral to intervene in Iraq and not in the evidently more oppressed areas is what makes the whole blitz and the hurt moral indignation a trifle suspect. Had it occurred when the killings in Iraq took place i.e. the 1980s, this moral indignation would have been accepted without cavilling. Right now, it does not wear the ‘moral indignation’ cloak well.

Do read the Defence Policy Guidance and the National Energy Policy of the US for greater details on the rationale for, apart from other places, the Invasion of Iraq.

I also do not subscribe to the theory of powerful nations intervening with military might to bring succour to anyone for any reason, unless it is under the UN Flag. Why the UN flag? Because it indicates to the population being ‘liberated’ that it is not the agenda of any particular nation, because come what may, when a nation invades, there is the suspicion that there is some hidden agenda. The UN has intervened in many places including the no fly zone (which indeed impinged on Iraq’s sovereignty) and yet there was no outcry as for the current Invasion of Iraq. There was no outcry since it had the mandate of the UN, even if it were a US agenda.

It would be worth recalling that Osama and his coots ‘invaded’ the US by bringing down two towers. It invited the wrath of all Americans. Now, if the Iraqis (the Sunnis and now the Shias as per the Washington Post news posted by GingerB), don’t appreciate the invasion or liberation and are storming the bastion of ‘liberated’ Iraq, then it is a negative form of ‘extending the other cheek’;or as one would say ‘tit for tat’ or as per Islamic law ‘an eye for an eye’. Notwithstanding, my opinion is that it will lead the Iraqis nowhere if they continue with their ‘war against liberation’ by egging their storm troopers as suicide bombers and professional beheaders.
February 17th, 2005  
Young Winston
 
 
If we could get back on topic.

Has the US lost focus? No. I think there are some very smart people behind Bush who used 9/11 as a catalyst to get the US into Iraq. A democracy domino affect in the Middle East is what they are after.

If more peace is brought to the region and a reduction in terrorism in the long run is achieved, then I will take my hat off to them (although I have my doubts).

The WMD's was the fear factor to win public support for the invasion and it worked well.

I support the overthrow of Saddam but not quite the way it was done. The US has lost a lot of goodwill in the world as a result. It is sad that a lot of deception was undertaken to "scare the pants off" the public but that is now in the past.

I think US troops will have to stay in Iraq for many years and it will be costly in lives and cash. Will the US public get sick of the whole business? I hope not.

Progress between the Israelis and Palestinians give some glimmer of hope as well.
February 17th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
U.S losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq?

The current situation on TERRORISM is:

1. The Taliban has been removed from of Afghanistan. But apart from Kabul, the Taliban bands and the warlords rule. There, the success bottomilne indicates only the removal of the Taliban but freedom or democracy beyond Kabul remains elusive.

2. Islamic fundamentalist continue to rule the roost in Pakistan with the spate of sectarian violence. The Pakistan Opposition continues to be favourable to AQ so much so they have thwarted efforts to bring Waziristhan under control.

3. Terrorism has abated to a slight degree in Jammu and Kashmir.

4. Visble Terrorist acts continue in the Middle East e.g. Saudi Arabia, Gaza Strip, Lebanon.

5. Terorism continues in South Thailand, Philipines and Indonesia.

6. Terrorism continues in Iraq.

7. Terrorism continues in Chechnya.

8. Terrorist acts in Europe has found expression.

9. The AQ has circumvented the US financial and banking control and restriction by now dealing in gems and precious metals.

10. Osama Bin Laden is elusive as also the others like Omar, Zarqawi.

From the above, it appears that the focus has shifted from international terrorism to localised terrorism, be it in Iraq, Europe, India, Pakistan, Philpines, Thailand, Indonesia et al. In Philipines, the US military advisors are stationed.

However, it must also be said that it is not the US responsibility to wage the 'war on terror' alone even though it is US's brainchild.

Unfortunately, the 'war on terror' has boiled down to individual countries and there is no coordinated campaign against the same or so it appears.

In so far as the US is concerned, the fact that US is embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan is not making headway as desired, indicates an abating of 'steam' to take terrorism head on. Worse, is that the most visible face of terrorism Osama bin laden is not being smoked out, dead or alive nor are his henchmen like Omar and others.

These AQ people are coordinating their 'terror war' are on the borders of Afghnaistan and Pakistan. If Pakistan cannot smoke them out, they must be told that they should allow the US to do so, which the US did once and there was a stink from Pakistan.

There is a requirement of a single authority coordination of the war on terror for it to be effective and not a case of only localised attention.
February 17th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Feb 16, 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
From a purely morally altruistic view point, the invasion of Iraq may [be] improper.
Feb 17 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
Therefore, the Invasion on Iraq is moral


Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
I am neither backtracking nor doing a jig.
I'll leave it for the rest of the forum to decide that for themselves.
February 17th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
Heard of something called 'pulled out of context'?

Must use the full sentence or paragraph to understand what's up.

Eg

Though not correct English:

Leave, not hit.

Leave not, hit.

The interpretation is all in a small thing - a comma!
February 17th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Full text

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
From a purely morally altruistic view point, the invasion of Iraq may appear improper.

Yet, solely from the US national interests, it was not immoral and presumably the national imperatives left no choice.

It is also a fact that most countries have sometime or the other expanded her boundaries for her national interest, which internationally or regionally have not been viewed in favourable light.
February 17th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
But I guess it is all water under the bridge since you agree with me that the invasion of Iraq was the morally correct thing to do.