DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Iraq

**softy54534** · 01-18-2008, 02:20 PM

If I'm ranting then it is due to statements such as this, which to me shows a complete lack of forethought and little to no understanding of consequences, and thereby exhibits a failure of logic:

Could we please move beyond the words, words words and get own to the real terrifying results of the god-awfully stupid decision to "go in"?

Leaders who think they can "shock & awe" a people into a state of democracy are deluded. And those who follow behind the leaders who make such claims are not much more clear-headed.

Regarding Blair's motivation: One would have to dig into the netherworlds of the leader's head to find out what the motivation might be. I think if one can get beyond the platitudes of Freedom and Democracy and get down to the nitty gritty in the grey matter it would become apparent that some sort of personal aggrandizement is operating ("Look what Good I did for the World"). Unfortunately ego building like that that has nothing to do with the very improtant nation building, which might actually feed the mothers of deposed bureaucrats or educate the children of dead soldiers.

Here we are in 2008. We have MBAs / CEOs running the western world. The state of the finances in the USA shows that many of those folks aren't necessarily the sharpest pencils in the box.

These fools have tried to implement a 10-year plan that just doesn't work. Never could have. Never will.

But surely so much does lie in whether something is completed competently? The question of whether you believed it was right to invade should not really influence what our countries should do now: the likes of Obama seem to think that because they did not support the invasion (in 2002 at least...) that absolves them of any responsibility for the situation now. Surely you would accept that if your country invades another in the name of democacy and freedom, it has an obligation to its people not to leave until that objective is accomplished?

Western air strikes in Kosovo, for which there was pretty much consensual support for showed many of the characteristics of Iraq: US/UK led, even less of a UN Mandate, genocidal dictator... One of the biggest differences was in the execution. Britain had built up a major coalition of support for the attacks so that the lack of a UN Mandate was considered less important and the mission was a success. Iraq has not been so successful but the moral basis behind invasion does not seem hugely different to me...

Shock and awe was a successful military strategy against the Baathist armed forces, it's a bit glib to suggest it was used against the Iraqi people.

I think this is where we disagree. I wish there had been better plans made for nation building, that more resources were put in to the invasion and that more time was taken to encourage a broader coalition (as Blair wanted). But these are all practical concerns which would have probably made the invasion a success but not really changing the morality of the war. Look at Blair's foreign policy up to Iraq and read his 1999 speech in Chicago. I think it's clear he had a worked out doctrine of humanitarian interventionism. I'm sure that is because he thought it would do the world good, by spreading freedom and democracy.

We need to give gratitude to the Brits for making the same stupid mistake that our leaders made when invading Iraq?

Again you lump the practicalities (troop numbers) with the moral question (whether to invade in the first place). As of January 2007, Britain had 30,000 troops deployed abroad and spends more than any country in the world, bar the United States, on defence. Last year, the Chief of Defence staff warned that British forces were "very stretched" and the ex-Chief warned in November that "the forces are at full stretch".

01-18-2008, 02:20 PM	#42
softy54534 Join Date Apr 2007 Posts 5,457 Senior Member	If I'm ranting then it is due to statements such as this, which to me shows a complete lack of forethought and little to no understanding of consequences, and thereby exhibits a failure of logic: Could we please move beyond the words, words words and get own to the real terrifying results of the god-awfully stupid decision to "go in"? Leaders who think they can "shock & awe" a people into a state of democracy are deluded. And those who follow behind the leaders who make such claims are not much more clear-headed. Regarding Blair's motivation: One would have to dig into the netherworlds of the leader's head to find out what the motivation might be. I think if one can get beyond the platitudes of Freedom and Democracy and get down to the nitty gritty in the grey matter it would become apparent that some sort of personal aggrandizement is operating ("Look what Good I did for the World"). Unfortunately ego building like that that has nothing to do with the very improtant nation building, which might actually feed the mothers of deposed bureaucrats or educate the children of dead soldiers. Here we are in 2008. We have MBAs / CEOs running the western world. The state of the finances in the USA shows that many of those folks aren't necessarily the sharpest pencils in the box. These fools have tried to implement a 10-year plan that just doesn't work. Never could have. Never will. But surely so much does lie in whether something is completed competently? The question of whether you believed it was right to invade should not really influence what our countries should do now: the likes of Obama seem to think that because they did not support the invasion (in 2002 at least...) that absolves them of any responsibility for the situation now. Surely you would accept that if your country invades another in the name of democacy and freedom, it has an obligation to its people not to leave until that objective is accomplished? Western air strikes in Kosovo, for which there was pretty much consensual support for showed many of the characteristics of Iraq: US/UK led, even less of a UN Mandate, genocidal dictator... One of the biggest differences was in the execution. Britain had built up a major coalition of support for the attacks so that the lack of a UN Mandate was considered less important and the mission was a success. Iraq has not been so successful but the moral basis behind invasion does not seem hugely different to me... Shock and awe was a successful military strategy against the Baathist armed forces, it's a bit glib to suggest it was used against the Iraqi people. I think this is where we disagree. I wish there had been better plans made for nation building, that more resources were put in to the invasion and that more time was taken to encourage a broader coalition (as Blair wanted). But these are all practical concerns which would have probably made the invasion a success but not really changing the morality of the war. Look at Blair's foreign policy up to Iraq and read his 1999 speech in Chicago. I think it's clear he had a worked out doctrine of humanitarian interventionism. I'm sure that is because he thought it would do the world good, by spreading freedom and democracy. We need to give gratitude to the Brits for making the same stupid mistake that our leaders made when invading Iraq? Again you lump the practicalities (troop numbers) with the moral question (whether to invade in the first place). As of January 2007, Britain had 30,000 troops deployed abroad and spends more than any country in the world, bar the United States, on defence. Last year, the Chief of Defence staff warned that British forces were "very stretched" and the ex-Chief warned in November that "the forces are at full stretch".
	Quote