Why America Went to War with Iraq

**MotoZ** · 06-08-08, 08:35 PM

DON'T WATCH THE VIDEO UNTIL YOU'VE READ THIS POST! OTHERWISE YOUR GENITALIA WILL DRY UP AND FALL OFF!

TTP's forums are our gift of communication to each other. In effect, our forums are barbells for us to build our First Amendment strengths, build our leadership strengths, build our relationships with the opposite sex, build our relationships with each other. But our forum discussions are not the end of anything.

Unlike our games which have a definite beginning and end, our politics has no beginning and no end. Politics is difficult stuff in TTP, let alone in the world.

Below is a speech from a man named Francis Fukuyama. He is a politcal philosopher and I believe he knows, without question, why we went to war in Iraq. But if Francis' video told you the truth, would you listen to it? Would you even take the time to try and listen to it?

...bigdog... says that we went to war because Iraq violated UN Security resolutions. If that was the case, wouldn't George Bush still be humming that tune? Well George Bush isn't humming the U.N. tune. George Bush is focused on the future. And ...bigdogs... arguments are focused on the past.

Think about it. George Bush is humming the tune that is in his head. Don't you do the same when you hum or talk to your friends? You speak your heart, right?

Here's the truth. We went into Iraq to spread democracy and free the Iraqi people. That's what George Bush says because that is the song in his head.

America, vis-a-vis Colin Powell, used the UN as a tool to go forward with a mission. Was ...bigdog... part of that tool? Is he still?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not writing this to bash ...bigdog... To the contrary, I'm writing this because I love ...bigdog... for giving us this gift of communication through gaming. He has given us a playground to exercise our thoughts. I feel it my duty to use the equipment and maintain it so that it can keep its patina of honor. Any less use and it would just be rusty.

http://fora.tv/2007/06/28/Francis_Fu...tory_Revisited

**...bigdog...** · 06-08-08, 09:52 PM

problem with bacon's argument here, is that you can't use pie in the sky "spreading democracy" excuses for going to war. You can't justify a war, and killing people, and bombs, and occupation, and war by saying "well, we did it so they can vote for stuff". Sure, spreading democracy is noble and admirable, but it's not "just war theory". It's nation building, and it's colonial imperialism.

So bigdog isn't stupid, and knows any war started for "spreading democracy" is illegal, and against the charter and rules of the UNSC, and even the laws of the US. We are not imperialists, and we don't like colonialism, and people are free to choose to govern themselves in what ever manner the see fit. And so long as they keep their business within their borders safely and openly.....then it's none of our busines......legally......to go in there and tell them our way is better.

And that's all the "democracy for everyone" argument is saying. "our way is better than your way" is NEVER why you go to war, no matter how good it makes you feel.

So, perhaps it is convenient that the UNSC and relevant resolutions weighed against Iraq and justified/sanctioned/allowed us to go to war LEGALLY and justifably. Perhaps bush and powell are smart enough to know of such a convenience, and "push" that issue as the reasons for going war, with the real "tune in their heads" being the noble endeavour of spreading democracy, equality, and tolerance in the world.

that's what it looks like to me. I dion't care if the "real" reasons by monday morning quarterbacks make sense.....the reasons we went to war are in the UNSC and congressional record. Threats and risks of WMDs by a tyrant who vilolated agreements, treaties, and international obligations.

If colin powell and Bush went to war because they wanted sadaam's secret stash of chocalate cupcakes.....I could care less. So long as it all makes sense on papers filed at the UNSC, then that's what had to be done.

**...bigdog...** · 06-08-08, 09:55 PM

historians......should stick to history. Rather than contempary events, which have yet to become "history". Simple monday morning quarterbacking. Like Scott McClennan........not man enough to voice any of the objections and issues he had at the TIME of the event.......but such a "whistle blower" to come out and do it AFTER THE FACT.

sad state of affairs......but the same old monday morning quarterbacks. I call them bitches. On both sides of the aisle.

Guys like Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews or Bill Oreilly....talking shit about planning and build ups and strategy......if any of them had what it takes, and actually gave a shit, they'd run for office and help make a difference.

they don't do this, because they are missing one, or all of those qualities.

**dex71** · 06-08-08, 10:48 PM

The video was more of a history lesson from a social scientists point of view.He made some interesting points,but I think he glossed over or totaly missed some key points.
First,when he was talking about Europes struggle for democratic liberalization.He talked about how it took France 500 years to reach a modern level,missing the fact that they were not only struggling for democracy,but they were forging a template for it that didn't exist before.According to him,we(the modern world)are expecting less developed nations to do in one generation what it took up to 500 years for other nations.This just isn't true.The template(thanks to 500 years of European struggle) now exists.No nation needs to re-invent the wheel.Look at Japan in the last 60 years.
Second was during the Q/A period when he was talking about the possible end of civilizations.He brought up how global warming could "fry us all",but failed to talk about how devastating( not only to the American economy,but by his own testomony the rest of the worlds economies)jumping to conclusions that don't hold up to the scientific method(or the smell test)could be.Not to hijack this thread into a true/not true man made global warming debate,but the FACT is investing heavily into a theory that hasn't been proven by ANY scientific means could be just as devastating economically and politically.
As for your theory of going to war to spread democracy,I guess yes and no.I think you and bigdog are both right.I belive we went to war for all the reasons bigdog has givin.Iraq was in violation of many serious resolutions voted UNANIMOUSLY by the UNSC.They were not only a threat to the US,but a threat to stable,prosperous nations all over the world.The UN resolutions are not "tools" or "excuses".They are facts.Iraq needed to be dealt with.And they were.
The reason we are trying to spread democracy there is pretty simple.We want the new nation(for lack of a better term)to not only not be a threat to the rest of the world,but be a prosperous and strong example of capitalism and democracy.It is the template we know works.We are not only using the experience that took Europe 500 years to develope,but our own American experience of the last 200 years including the complete rebuilding of Japan in the last 60 years.Its a good template.Worked for Europe,works for us,is working for Japan.The question you answered was not "Why did we go to war with Iraq?",but "How do we want to leave them?".

**Toker** · 06-09-08, 02:21 PM

I had a very extensive conversation with a close buddy of mine in Iraq atm. We've beat this subject to death and even posted it on arfcom, but this sums up my views pretty damn well. Long read and feel free to discuss.

A common & misguided comment on the part of libs, Paul supporters, & other critics of the Iraq operation is that 'Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda, and takes our eye off the 'real war' in Afghanhistan'... Usually this is connected to some comment about not catching Bin Laden...

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth... Afghanistan needed to be dealt with first - in the sense that forcing AQ out would disrupt their tactical abilities in preparation for the 'next stage' (Iraq).... And it is still important that we 'follow through' on our promise to the Afgans in terms of helping them keep their elected government... But they are not, nor have they ever been, the key to defeating AQ.... Iraq is...

So, let's take a look at the 'big picture' on the subject...

First, Bin Laden himself...

Capturing Bin Laden would be a great political event, as far as support for the war is concerned... And it would bring a sense of closure to the victims of his attacks.. But that's about all that would be accomplished... Bin Laden is a figurehead & symbolic leader. If he dies or is captured, he becomes a martyr & is quickly replaced by whoever AQ feels can best carry on in his memory... The long-term military impact? Almost non-existant...

In the same sense that not finding Hitler didn't impact the defeat of Nazisim, not finding Bin Laden will have no impact on the defeat of Al Queda.

Second, the 'Afganhistan Question'...

This one requires a bit more detail, as it's rooted in a fundamental mis-conceptualization of the military situation WRT AQ... Namely the thought that because AQ was using A-stan as a training & staging ground, A-stan must be the 'homeland' of Al Queda...

Folks who advocate focusing on Afghanhistan, or who believe we should have declared war all fall into this trap...

It's understandable - in past 'conventional' wars, the place where you train your forces & where your top leadership resides is usually deep inside your homeland, along with your core supporters & the economic & political support for your war effort, IF you are a nation-state combatant...

In such a case, you have to defend this area because 'all your eggs' are in that basket... You can't abandon it & displace to another country, because it's YOUR country...

BUT here's the problem. Al Queda is NOT a nation-state combatant. They have no borders, no 'country', and do NOT keep all their eggs in one basket...

So their top leadership, their training & staging areas, and their 'support center' can and often are all located in different places... And their leadership & training/staging operations are MOBILE and can easily be moved to 'safe' areas should they be threatened...

The advantage to this is that they do not have to defend the nations that they use for training or leadership positions (places like A-stan) - they can just abandon those after a brief fight, and displace to a new 'host' state (or un-governed/failed territory)....

Chasing them from failed state to failed state does very little damage to their capabilities, and is NOT cost effective for the pursuing power (US)...

Which brings us to the point of all this:

To defeat Al Queda, you first have to get them to stand and fight - not just engage in delaying actions to cover the core elements retreat (See the early days of OEF & our work with the Northern Alliance), but to actually commit forces (such that they have) in 'defense' of something that they cannot afford to 'lose'...

And the way to do this is to attack the region that provides the one component they CANNOT move (their core economic & political support)... That would be the Middle East...

Whereas a failure to defend A-stan can be framed as a 'strategic maneuverl' and a 'defeat' for the US because AQ escaped (NM they ran away, they can always frame it as a 'brilliant maneuver' similar to how Saddam framed ODS in the Arab world)... A failure to defend a ME nation destroys AQ's position as the 'Defender of Islam' and severely damages their cedibility... Further, the establishment of a free Arab republic is a serious obstacle to AQ's end-goal of establishing a Sunni theocracy...

So US troops in Iraq, attempting to help the Iraqis build a free republic is - to Al Queda - about the same as Russian troops in New York, attempting to set up the 'People's Republic of New York' would have been for us in 1950...

They have to stop it or die trying.... Because a failure to do so WILL destroy them...

Thus, Al Queda has committed everything they have to the situation in Iraq (as evidenced by a sharp drop in Al Queda attacks on western targets... Every terror attack NOT RELATED TO IRAQ since 2003 has been either (a) in the Muslim World, or (b) conducted by a non-Queda copy-cat group)... They have tried everything from attempting to start a Muslim-on-Muslim civil war by bombing Muslim shrines, to physically attempting to establish Islamic theocracy in parts of Iraq... Failing at both, they have resorted to attempting to terrorize Iraqis into supporting them, or at least rejecting us - hoping for a Vietnam-style scenario where the US gets 'tired' and abandons the Iraqi campaign, giving them the 'victory' they need to preserve their reputation & thus their viability as an organization...

They are failing at that too, and destroying themselves in the process - in fact, their desparation has produced an unintended side-bonus: Not only are they being shown as impotent & unable to 'defend' Iraq, but their methods are alienating not just Iraqis but Arabs in general...

Rather than being seen as 'liberators' fighting the corrupt regimes of the ME, their willingness to kill, rape & torture fellow Muslims has given folks a view of what life under Al Queda's utopia would be like... And that vision is being rejected... This is the core of the civil revolt in Iraq - the people do not want to trade one tyrant (Saddam) for another (Queda)...

But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation...

**Toker** · 06-09-08, 02:23 PM

Decent 25 page read. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=663821&page=1

If you are a arfcom member, feel free to message Dave, and tell him Toke sent ya...

**jakt** · 06-09-08, 04:20 PM

Yet another reason I like Texas Team Players, the Texan mentality.

Just for shits and giggles, has it come across anyone the strategical importance Iraq is? The sheer fact that Iraq is placed smack in the middle of the Middle East, is enough reason for me to have a US presence in Iraq. Especially due to the fact that it borders Iran.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

If colin powell and Bush went to war because they wanted sadaam's secret stash of chocalate cupcakes.....I could care less. So long as it all makes sense on papers filed at the UNSC, then that's what had to be done.

WORD! lmao

**jabberwock** · 06-09-08, 08:34 PM

The example of Japan should go back 154 years now... Not all of that is democratic. The last 60 doesn't do Japanese advancement nearly enough credit.

Thanks for the reading guys... Some good stuff.

**...bigdog...** · 06-09-08, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by jakt

Yet another reason I like Texas Team Players, the Texan mentality.

Just for shits and giggles, has it come across anyone the strategical importance Iraq is? The sheer fact that Iraq is placed smack in the middle of the Middle East, is enough reason for me to have a US presence in Iraq. Especially due to the fact that it borders Iran.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

If colin powell and Bush went to war because they wanted sadaam's secret stash of chocalate cupcakes.....I could care less. So long as it all makes sense on papers filed at the UNSC, then that's what had to be done.

WORD! lmao

and even this reason......which is of course a militarily and strategically perfect reason to "take over" or go to war with a country........still could not be used as the justification leading to the war. Makes sense, and it's a good argument......but it's illegal to take land and attack countries for their strategic importance to the greater good.

material breach of the UNSC. That's it.

**Wurzzzz** · 06-10-08, 12:36 AM

Interesting video. I'm taking Anthropology 300: Cultural Change and Development right now so this is quite interesting given the subject matter that my class has covered over the past 2 weeks. Fukuyama's theories seem rooted in the same logic that my ANTH prof's lectures are. I'm actually going to ask my prof about Fukuyama and his book tomorrow.

Thanks for the intellectual stimulation bacon. TTP is always providing stuff like this to keep me thinking. Helps balance out the mind numbing from playing too many video games. :P