Iraq = Vietnam

[kimmy]

If I recall, the Carter Doctrine referred to the threat of the Soviets obtaining an outlet on the Indian Ocean by first taking Afghanistan and then Pakistan. I'm not sure what it has to say about the situation now, and I have never given much attention to what Carter said or says. He's the Joe Clark of American politics.

As to a permanent presence in the region, the US has a base at Diego Garcia. It also has a trusted ally in Israel.

Well, I certainly had to look up the Carter doctrine, but what it appears to have been, to me at least, was a pledge to use military force to prevent any foreign power from establishing a military presence in the middle east. Which was actually only another formulation of an FDR statement that "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States."

I don't (and I'm sure nobody else is either) claim Carter to have been any sort of mastermind or architect of US geopolitics. I think the reason it was cited by Kuzadd in the earlier discussion is that it is a concrete embodiment of a long-standing US policy that access to Middle East oil is something they're willing to fight to preserve.

I for one never claimed that Iraq was involved in the September 2001 attacks,

...and yet you seem to be arguing that this was a response to 9/11?

The Iraq invasion occurred after a series of attacks against US interests culminating in the spectacular attacks in September 2001. I have been to New York City on several occasions since then and the change in the skyline is something that affects Americans in a way that, frankly, I am surprised is not shared by more foreigners. Two large buildings are gone.

The US had to respond.

How is a response, if Iraq was not involved?

nor has there been any evidence presented confirming such a link. I happen to believe that it stretches credulity to say that Saddam or Assad never had any contact with bin Laden but I have no evidence for my belief. IIRC, Colin Powell did not justify the invasion of Iraq by reference to al-Qaeda.

I'm not sure what sort of "contact" one would assume Saddam to have had with Bin Laden. In one tape, after Saddam's overthrow and capture, Bin Laden blasts Saddam as, essentially, a US puppet who got what he deserved. That certainly doesn't sound very positive. As well, I have read that when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to bring 10,000 of his own men to come defend Saudi Arabia so that the Kingdom would not have to call the infidels for help.

And last but not least, while Bin Laden was/is a devoted Islamist, Saddam seems to have been a rather secular style of thug.

Other than that they're both "bad guys", what have they really got in common?

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

I agree that August1991's comments may lead one (many more than one, really) to believe that the invasion of Iraq was part of the response to the WTC attacks. However, most of the world was aghast at the invasion of Iraq, because the wishful WMD threat and UN inspections were escalated solely by the US and UK into a 'regime change'. A notion at which other world leaders balked. I recall Jean Chretien saying something like:"Reginme change, what regime change? We never said anything about regime change..."

[bush_cheney2004]

How is a response, if Iraq was not involved?

Indeed, like asking: why send Americans to die in Europe, when only Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

[kimmy]

I could see that analogy fitting... if the USA had gone and occupied Brazil in response to Pearl Harbour...

-k

[M.Dancer]

Indeed, like asking: why send Americans to die in Europe, when only Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Because Hitler invited the US to the party when He gave a formal declaration of war on America.

[jdobbin]

Because Hitler invited the US to the party when He gave a formal declaration of war on America.

Now, that is funny. I can't believe that other poster made that argument about sending troops to Europe. A declaration of war is kind of an invitation to a fight.

I can't recall Iraq declaring war immediately after September 11.

Edited August 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

Now, that is funny. I can't even believe that argument was made.

I'm missing something.....

[jdobbin]

I'm missing something.....

I was referring to your well thought out response about why the U.S. felt it had to go to Europe even though it was Japan that attacked it. heh

I can't believe that someone thought the U.S. should have only gone to war with Japan even though Italy and Germany had declared war on them as well.

Edited August 28, 2007 by jdobbin

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear jdobbin,

can't believe that someone thought the U.S. should have only gone to war with Japan even though Italy and Germany had declared war on them as well.

Most of America felt that way. Germany and Italy declared war on the US out of treaty obligation to Japan, while the USA was isolationist and wanted no part of a European/Asian war.

[jdobbin]

Most of America felt that way. Germany and Italy declared war on the US out of treaty obligation to Japan, while the USA was isolationist and wanted no part of a European/Asian war.

I'm sure there was no confusion though about why troops and military resources were devoted to the Europe after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Italy and Germany declared war.

As far as this is related to Iraq, there was no alliance with al Qaeda. There was no declaration of war against the U.S. There was no link between Iraq and the attack on September 11.

And yet some Republicans try to link to the two.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure there was no confusion though about why troops and military resources were devoted to the Europe after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Italy and Germany declared war.

As far as this is related to Iraq, there was no alliance with al Qaeda. There was no declaration of war against the U.S. There was no link between Iraq and the attack on September 11.

There needn't have been one, since a state of war would still exist from the surrender instruments of Gulf War I when breached by Saddam.

But playing the game further, what was Canada's excuse for joining the European fray after Poland was invaded other than obeying King George? When was Canada attacked or declaration of war issued against it?

And yet some Republicans try to link to the two.

As did some Democrats...so what? It was US policy to pound Iraq long before Al Qaeda came to the fore....long before 9/11.

Edited August 29, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[M.Dancer]

But playing the game further, what was Canada's excuse for joining the European fray after Poland was invaded other than obeying King George?

Moral High Ground. The UK, France, Australia and New Zealand decalred war on September 3rd

Canada declared war on September 10th. The week previously a German sunbmarine torpedoes an unarmed civilian passenger ship, sinking it. 200 of the passengers were Canadian.

[jdobbin]

Moral High Ground. The UK, France, Australia and New Zealand decalred war on September 3rd

Canada declared war on September 10th. The week previously a German sunbmarine torpedoes an unarmed civilian passenger ship, sinking it. 200 of the passengers were Canadian.

Thank you. I was going to bring up that point.

The debate in Parliament listed numerous reasons for going to war from the sinking of the ship to Mackenzie King's discussion in 1939 with Hitler that if it came to a war in Europe that Canada would side with France and Britain.

That, and the fact that Germany invaded Poland, was enough justification for joining War War II.

I don't recall Iraq having started another invasion when the order was given to invade it. I agreed when Bush began pressuring Iraq on weapons of mass destruction but became concerned that he was only going to be satisfied with occupation and regime change. I had been in total agreement with Cheney's appraisal in 1994 of why invading Iraq was going to be bad.

Edited August 29, 2007 by jdobbin

[Black Dog]

I rally don't understand bc2004's obsession with linking Canada to the various murderous policies of the U.S.A. Like, congratulations, buddy, you found our deep dark secret. *golf clap*

[bush_cheney2004]

I rally don't understand bc2004's obsession with linking Canada to the various murderous policies of the U.S.A. Like, congratulations, buddy, you found our deep dark secret. *golf clap*

I don't have to link anything that isn't already apparent for all to see. Canada has never really "invaded" anybody without such complicity, as it lacks the means and will to do so.

[bush_cheney2004]

The debate in Parliament listed numerous reasons for going to war from the sinking of the ship to Mackenzie King's discussion in 1939 with Hitler that if it came to a war in Europe that Canada would side with France and Britain.

The Americans had their "debate" as well over Iraq.....every bit as meaningful as Parliament's "principled" and "independent" (one week later) stand against Germany. This would be the second Iraq War....Canada suffered nary a casualty in either.

[Black Dog]

I don't have to link anything that isn't already apparent for all to see. Canada has never really "invaded" anybody without such complicity, as it lacks the means and will to do so.

That's my point: all you do is state what should be blindingly obvious, yet you treat it like its a big revelation and "gotcha!" moment.

Typically, discussion with you (particularily regarding Iraq) go like this*:

Poster A: "Boy, those Bush administration clowns sure screwed up Iraq, huh?"

bush_cheney2004: "Blah blah blah Clinton blah blah Desert Fox blah blah Canada blah Kosovo blurgh bombs! Ha! Ha!"

*dramatization

[bush_cheney2004]

That's my point: all you do is state what should be blindingly obvious, yet you treat it like its a big revelation and "gotcha!" moment.

Typically, discussion with you (particularily regarding Iraq) go like this*:

Poster A: "Boy, those Bush administration clowns sure screwed up Iraq, huh?"

bush_cheney2004: "Blah blah blah Clinton blah blah Desert Fox blah blah Canada blah Kosovo blurgh bombs! Ha! Ha!"

And "the Bush administration" invaded Iraq ("disaster") is more of a revelation? It would seem that my "blah blah blah" is at least the equal of yours. Some of the "posters" don't even know their own nation's history. I am providing a public service...LOL!

You are not, to wit: "A spelling flame? From you? Bitch, please."

Edited August 30, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[moderateamericain]

The Tet offensive, while being a military defeat for the VC and NVA, was also a moral defeat for the US. The origins of the loss of will to fight can be traced directly to Tet.

In that sense, the Tet offensive was a decisive victory.

The funny part about the Tet offensive is that militarily we crushed quite a few of the attackers. I was actually reading about this and the casualties for the NVA were about 10 times ours. But your right in the sense of moral we lost.

[Black Dog]

And "the Bush administration" invaded Iraq ("disaster") is more of a revelation? It would seem that my "blah blah blah" is at least the equal of yours. Some of the "posters" don't even know their own nation's history. I am providing a public service...LOL!

How tedious.