Hitchens on Moore

[RogerC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by GuruJane


Do you really believe the Iraqis themselves could have overthrown this vile and vicious and FASCIST regime?

Never an option since the US and Brits failed to protect the Shiites and Kurds in their uprising after the Gulf War. To the eternal shame of US/Brits at that time, imo. But I can't recall the pseuds (who'd opposed the Gulf War) making a fuss about it at the time. Do you?

As a result, from their perceived weakness the US gave heart to OBL and his fascists and that emboldened them to plan the series of attacks in the 90s on the World Trade Centre and other US targets (and also attempting to assassinate Bush Senior!) which finally culminated in the 9/11 attack.

So that's why US/Brits had to fight another war to finally get rid of Saddam's FASCIST regime because post 9/11 they could not risk Saddam passing on wmd technology to OBL's Islamofascists.

I think you may have inadvertently hit upon the very sticking point for most opponents of this war. I doubt very much whether the motives for the US entering any war have much to do with the spreading of democracy or regime change for its own sake. Regime change didn't occur to the US after Gulf War I - to the extent that they weren't even bothered honouring their promises to the Shiites and Kurds.

Regime change doesn't really occur to the US now in a place like Zimbabwe, or any of a score of other countries.

The pursuit of Osama Bin Laden and the reconstruction of Afghanistan fell by the wayside in the urgency to knock Saddam Hussein over.

What this all tells us is the when the US doesn't work within a framework such as the UN - in this case it has been quite hostile to the UN - it works purely for the good of the US (which pretty much encompasses the poitical leadership and the businesses that support them), and not the good of the world.

I think it is fair enough to say that the removal of Saddam Hussein is a good thing, but that what the US is doing to Iraq - and the Middle East - is not necessarily good at all. It's done nothing to ease terrorism (may, in fact have given fresh impetus to the movement), hasn't done anything to ease the threat of WMDs.

You have to remember that the same US (same Republican Party, in point of fact) who removed Saddam in 2003 allowed him to remain in 1991. Not by mistake, but because it didn't suit them at that time to do so. They will allow tyrants to rule if there is no advantage to the US in removing them. They are not above backing tyrants if they think it will benefit them.

And Jane, you make this linear connection between a US foreign policy decision post-Iraq in 1991 and the events of 9/11. You're not saying it's the fault of the US are you? I certainly don't agree with that. It may well have been the invasion of Iraq itself that set Al Qaeda on that course. It may be a host of other reasons.

And you know very well that Iraq wouldn't be very high on OBL's shopping list for WMD technology. Much easier to go and grab some of the poorly-guarded Russian stockpiles, I'd say, rather than try it in a country that's been monitored and sanctioned within an inch of its economic life for ten years. Call me crazy...

 

[GuruJane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by RogerC
I think you may have inadvertently hit upon the very sticking point for most opponents of this war. I doubt very much whether the motives for the US entering any war have much to do with the spreading of democracy or regime change for its own sake. Regime change didn't occur to the US after Gulf War I - to the extent that they weren't even bothered honouring their promises to the Shiites and Kurds.

Regime change doesn't really occur to the US now in a place like Zimbabwe, or any of a score of other countries.

The pursuit of Osama Bin Laden and the reconstruction of Afghanistan fell by the wayside in the urgency to knock Saddam Hussein over.

What this all tells us is the when the US doesn't work within a framework such as the UN - in this case it has been quite hostile to the UN - it works purely for the good of the US (which pretty much encompasses the poitical leadership and the businesses that support them), and not the good of the world.

I think it is fair enough to say that the removal of Saddam Hussein is a good thing, but that what the US is doing to Iraq - and the Middle East - is not necessarily good at all. It's done nothing to ease terrorism (may, in fact have given fresh impetus to the movement), hasn't done anything to ease the threat of WMDs.

You have to remember that the same US (same Republican Party, in point of fact) who removed Saddam in 2003 allowed him to remain in 1991. Not by mistake, but because it didn't suit them at that time to do so. They will allow tyrants to rule if there is no advantage to the US in removing them. They are not above backing tyrants if they think it will benefit them.

And Jane, you make this linear connection between a US foreign policy decision post-Iraq in 1991 and the events of 9/11. You're not saying it's the fault of the US are you? I certainly don't agree with that. It may well have been the invasion of Iraq itself that set Al Qaeda on that course. It may be a host of other reasons.

And you know very well that Iraq wouldn't be very high on OBL's shopping list for WMD technology. Much easier to go and grab some of the poorly-guarded Russian stockpiles, I'd say, rather than try it in a country that's been monitored and sanctioned within an inch of its economic life for ten years. Call me crazy...

You are completely ignoring the fact that US policy underwent a SEACHANGE after 9/11.

That's when the Kissinger Doctrine of detente ended, and the doctrine of regime change to liberal democracies began.

The policy of the neocons that is apparently such an anathema to pseud opinion!

Have you noticed that the pseuds on the board would prefer to see the Baathists restored to power in Baghdad than for the Iraqis to have a chance at a democratic government?

 

[demon_dave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by GuruJane
You are completely ignoring the fact that US policy underwent a SEACHANGE after 9/11.

That's when the Kissinger Doctrine of detente ended, and the doctrine of regime change to liberal democracies began.

The policy of the neocons that is apparently such an anathema to pseud opinion!

Have you noticed that the pseuds on the board would prefer to see the Baathists restored to power in Baghdad than for the Iraqis to have a chance at a democratic government?

after reading some of your pathetic excuses for the loony right-wing and continually giving incredible answers to anything put in front of you , I've come to the conclusion you are obsessed with the word 'pseud', you 'doorbitch' are the one and only pseud on these forums, pseudo left, real rightist

 

[GuruJane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by demon_dave
after reading some of your pathetic excuses for the loony right-wing and continually giving incredible answers to anything put in front of you , I've come to the conclusion you are obsessed with the word 'pseud', you 'doorbitch' are the one and only pseud on these forums, pseudo left, real rightist

That's okay. Obviously you know nothing about the Left.

And it seems are incapable of debating.

 

[Lennyfan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by GuruJane
You are completely ignoring the fact that US policy underwent a SEACHANGE after 9/11.

That's when the Kissinger Doctrine of detente ended, and the doctrine of regime change to liberal democracies began.

The policy of the neocons that is apparently such an anathema to pseud opinion!

Gurujane, interesting post

A couple of questions

1) What convinces you that september 11 (no, we do not have our months/days backwards *wink*) was the catalyst for the change in doctrine.

2) Why did the US bother with the weapons on mass distruction when obviously it was about regime change?? Why try to contect Iraq with OBL when they must have had a reasonable guess (heck I'm a uni student and I made the guess) tht there wouldn't be a very strong link at best?

thanks for the discussion so far

 

[OldLion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by GuruJane
You are completely ignoring the fact that US policy underwent a SEACHANGE after 9/11.

That's when the Kissinger Doctrine of detente ended, and the doctrine of regime change to liberal democracies began.

The policy of the neocons that is apparently such an anathema to pseud opinion!

Have you noticed that the pseuds on the board would prefer to see the Baathists restored to power in Baghdad than for the Iraqis to have a chance at a democratic government?

Let's just go thru' this slowly.

1. 9/11 has a massive impact on US.

2. 9/11 perpetrators are identified as Bin Laden and mates.

3. US forces attempt to capture him and his mates in Afghanistan.

4. US forces fail to capture but return Afghanistan to basically warlord rule ( circa 1990's ). Situation ongoing but off the political radar ..

5. US forces build case for 'Gulf War'-like invasion of Iraq based on intelligence. In essence 2 main reasons - WMD primed to go AND links to Bin Laden to tie in with 'war on terror' theme. No one bites this time .

6. US forces win quick victory. A 'no brainer' as they had fought there 10 year previous against the same team, now considerably weakened. ( If I was going to fight anywhere, I'd fight where I'd won. Think of the saving on maps. ).

7. Unfortunately intelligence proves to have been salted by those who would benefit DIRECTLY from regime change ( including Iranians ). They told US forces what they wanted to hear, and the bureaucrats went with the flow, knowing that they would be protected politically if it all went wrong.

8. Democracy declared in Iraq - exit strategy based on new APPOINTED government telling the forces that appointed them when to go - 'the job is finished' definition.

9. So .. let's get back to point 1. The war on terror. Has Al Qaeda been diminished ? Has the terrorist threat been dissipated ? Have any of the causes of this violence been addressed ? I just see a new recruiting ground a la Gaza, and a whole new set of alienating and radicalising images.

In my view the US did what they did because they could - an imperial instinct. The statement - if you're not with us , you're against us - is obviously undemocratic. So it's a call to arms. But it's strategy on the run - they're are playing it off the pitch and spinning it on a daily basis. This is so redolent of the Vietnam dilema - an appointed government asking the appointees to do whatever. What would you have done strategically in 1968 ? Was this all a part of the global fight against communism ? What was achieved there ? If the US were honest about their intensions the responses could be more clearer - you say it's all about regime change. So what about Cuba ? And if it is about regime change, and they know who they are, doesn't this mean that 'they' will arm up to the hilt ? Do you REALLY think the US would have gone into Iraq if they thought that they could be hit by mass destruction within 30 minutes ? Now that WOULD have been stupid and deserving of censure.

You also state that Saddam would never have been overthrown internally. You ignore Iran - they overthrew their repressive regime with heavy losses over many years. The difference was that the opposition received NO help from foreign powers, and so was uncompromised. And you bemoan the fact that the Gulf War left Saddam in power. Why was that, do you think ? A conspiracy ?Anything to do with the devil you know ?

The real issue for us here is the corruption of the bureaucratic process, where the 'advice' given is only that which is palatible to the political masters and any dissidents are shouted down and hounded out. In a 'war', this will be a fatal weakness. As a student of history, you would know about the 'Singapore Defence'. The ideological belief in this strategy , and the ridicule of any questioning as 'unpatriotic' , left us totally defenceless and it was only the courage of the soldiers in New Guinea and bold political actions that provided any hope. And you can't compare the 'terrorist threat' to the actual invasion of our country.

Be careful what you wish for ....

 

[GuruJane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by OldLion
Let's just go thru' this slowly.

1. 9/11 has a massive impact on US.

1A. After the President finally makes it back to the Capitol, and the VP finally crawls out of the the bunker, and the Defence Secretary has helped carried out the last of the bodies from the Pentagon ...

they have a meeting and someone says "We seem to have a problem with our past policies re the Middle East."

And someone else says "Maybe we should be turning them into liberal democracies like us as those pesky neo cons have been telling us for 25 years now? "

And someone else says "Can anybody tell me why Saddam Hussein is still there?. I mean, didn't we beat him in 1991 or did I miss something?"

2. 9/11 perpetrators are identified as Bin Laden and mates.

3. US forces attempt to capture him and his mates in Afghanistan.

4. US forces fail to capture but return Afghanistan to basically warlord rule ( circa 1990's ). Situation ongoing but off the political radar ..

4A. No. The Afghan chiefs hold an ancient meeting. Elect a president.

Democracy takes fledgling roots.

And millions of refugees RETURN to Afghanistan.

The number of people wanting to FLEE Afghanistan dries up.

5. US forces build case for 'Gulf War'-like invasion of Iraq based on intelligence. In essence 2 main reasons - WMD primed to go AND links to Bin Laden to tie in with 'war on terror' theme. No one bites this time .

5A. The United States decides that it will remove Saddam and the Baathist regime by whatever means its going to take, and replace that regime with a democracy and an open market and access to information technology. THEN and only then, they "build" the case to get another UN Resolution.

6. US forces win quick victory. A 'no brainer' as they had fought there 10 year previous against the same team, now considerably weakened. ( If I was going to fight anywhere, I'd fight where I'd won. Think of the saving on maps. )

.

6A. What they don't allow for is the very rapidity of the victory means they haven't killed enough Baathists who continue to fight the war by using guerilla tactics.

The US/Coalition makes the mistake of NOT OCCUPYING the country ENOUGH leading to a pathetic security situation.

7. Unfortunately intelligence proves to have been salted by those who would benefit DIRECTLY from regime change ( including Iranians ). They told US forces what they wanted to hear, and the bureaucrats went with the flow, knowing that they would be protected politically if it all went wrong.

7A. Who cares?. Saddam and the Baathists have GONE. That's all that the guys and gal wanted. Also all that the non Baathist Iraqis wanted.

The only people who care are those who DIDN'T want the Baathists removed.

8. Democracy declared in Iraq - exit strategy based on new APPOINTED government telling the forces that appointed them when to go - 'the job is finished' definition.

8A. Millions of Iraqi refugees return to Iraq, and the number of people wanting to flee dries up overnight.

9. So .. let's get back to point 1. The war on terror. Has Al Qaeda been diminished ? Has the terrorist threat been dissipated ? Have any of the causes of this violence been addressed ? I just see a new recruiting ground a la Gaza, and a whole new set of alienating and radicalising images.

In my view the US did what they did because they could - an imperial instinct. The statement - if you're not with us , you're against us - is obviously undemocratic. So it's a call to arms. But it's strategy on the run - they're are playing it off the pitch and spinning it on a daily basis. This is so redolent of the Vietnam dilema - an appointed government asking the appointees to do whatever. What would you have done strategically in 1968 ? Was this all a part of the global fight against communism ? What was achieved there ? If the US were honest about their intensions the responses could be more clearer - you say it's all about regime change. So what about Cuba ? And if it is about regime change, and they know who they are, doesn't this mean that 'they' will arm up to the hilt ? Do you REALLY think the US would have gone into Iraq if they thought that they could be hit by mass destruction within 30 minutes ?

But that's exactly WHY they acted against Saddam. Before he could get that capacity or pass it on to someone else. Don't you realise that?

You also state that Saddam would never have been overthrown internally. You ignore Iran - they overthrew their repressive regime with heavy losses over many years.

Are you seriously comparing the regime of the Shah of Iran with SADDAM and the BAATHISTS in Iraq?

I mean ... what can I say? This is severe delusion.

The difference was that the opposition received NO help from foreign powers, and so was uncompromised. And you bemoan the fact that the Gulf War left Saddam in power. Why was that, do you think ? A conspiracy ?Anything to do with the devil you know ?

Oh come on. The Gulf War was fought under a UN mandate. If the US had gone on to remove Saddam they would have been acting outside the mandate and would have lost the support of their allies.

When Saddam broke the ceasefire and put down the Kurd and Shiite uprising the US couldn't have politically cranked up again to invade even if it wanted to ..

There was no CONSENSUS at the time. And the advice the US gov was getting was that it could bring down Saddam by backing the opposition groups or acting covertly.

That advice turned out to be wrong, but that is a hindsight argument.

The real issue for us here is the corruption of the bureaucratic process, where the 'advice' given is only that which is palatible to the political masters and any dissidents are shouted down and hounded out. In a 'war', this will be a fatal weakness. As a student of history, you would know about the 'Singapore Defence'. The ideological belief in this strategy , and the ridicule of any questioning as 'unpatriotic' , left us totally defenceless and it was only the courage of the soldiers in New Guinea and bold political actions that provided any hope. And you can't compare the 'terrorist threat' to the actual invasion of our country.

Be careful what you wish for ....

Saddam and the Baathists have gone.

Iraq has a chance at a democracy.

Iraqis don't flee the country any more.

Iraqi refugees are flooding back HOME.

You are no longer murdered or executed in Iraq if you want to have access to information.

Iraq has a free press for the first time in living memory. And an open economy.

And YOU say "Be careful of what you wish for"

Tell me how you live, Old Lion? Do you live under repression, totalitarianism ... hmmmmm?

 

[demon_dave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by GuruJane
That's okay. Obviously you know nothing about the Left.

And it seems are incapable of debating.

I've read many of your 'debates' and to get into verbal diarrhoea with closed minds is tiresome

 

[OldLion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Originally posted by GuruJane
..they have a meeting and someone says "We seem to have a problem with our past policies re the Middle East."

I think it was on the agenda BEFORE 9/11 !!

4A. Democracy takes fledgling roots.And millions of refugees RETURN to Afghanistan.

Way too naive a view - done and dusted you reckon ? When you use the word 'millions', this exaggeration puts other statements at risk. Have you been there ? A charming society torn to shreds over 25 years. Same with Kashmir.

6A. What they don't allow for is the very rapidity of the victory means they haven't killed enough Baathists who continue to fight the war by using guerilla tactics.

You've made that one up. A power vacuum, plus foriegn occupation will create opportunities that will be seized by force. Don't dismiss self-interest and ambition.

8A. Millions of Iraqi refugees return to Iraq, and the number of people wanting to flee dries up overnight.

Again, the word millions. That is twaddle. Iraq is a middle class country, not Afghani tribesmen. They have been reduced to penuary by a succession of wars , sanctions and corruption.

But that's exactly WHY they acted against Saddam. Before he could get that capacity or pass it on to someone else. Don't you realise that?

So THAT"S why they did it. It just happened to coincide with 9/11.
Why didn't they come out and say that ? What was all that stuff about WMD ? It's called the proof of the above statement. Don't you have a problem with erroneous intelligence ? I do, big time. My security may depend on it.

Are you seriously comparing the regime of the Shah of Iran with SADDAM and the BAATHISTS in Iraq? I mean ... what can I say? This is severe delusion.

Do you remember the Shah's state ? It was full oppression in spades - tanks vs unarmed civilians etc. Again, having been a witness to their struggle and the courage shown over many years by the people, you belittle their instincts for freedom. Don't tell me you supported him ? The US misinterpretation of the Iranian revolution is one of the major reasons for the rise of Iraq. Look where that got us.

Oh come on. The Gulf War was fought under a UN mandate. If the US had gone on to remove Saddam they would have been acting outside the mandate and would have lost the support of their allies.

The US had the whip hand - they could have done anything.

The US chose to invade Iraq because they could. Also you'd be naive not to put oil into the mix. The US view of freedom is freedom to do business - open markets bring the purifying forces of the market - opportunity and copetition - and from this, other institutions grow. Wealth creation will see to this. Rich people and aspiring rich want the rule of law. Witness the evolving 'growth' of Russia. Any subsequent inequalities can be managed. Pax America is the solution. Certaily for America - what's the point of being the most powerful nation on earth if you can't use it to secure the good life for your citizens. The problem is overt corruption.

As a true Leftist, you might not agree with this but history would suggest that if you give everyone a stake in the society, they won't want to destroy it.

I'm all for the removal of totalitarian regimes but am wary of the corruption that imperial sentiments can have on our society. If we act like imperialists and not choose a concensus route ( however difficult ) , we cannot be surprised by violent opposition. And if that violence visits you, welcome to realpolitik. I don't want to get killed due to someone else's suppositions and inaccurate intelligence.