Republicans and Democrats - on Iraq

[BC_chick]

CNN had an interesting side-by-side comparison of the Democratic debates on Iraq followed by the Republican debates on the subject. A stark contrast, and the most evident contrast, between the two parties was the hindsight factor.

Whether they were acknowledging their "mistake" (John Edwards) or blaming the duplicity of the Bush administration (Hillary Clinton), pretty much all the Democrat candidates indicated that in hindsight, they believe going in to Iraq was a mistake. Of course, Obama was the one exception who did not need to explain his Iraq stance given his nay vote on the subject.

By contrast, the Republican candidates all expressed support for the mission even though they were critical of the handling of the war. Guilliani and McCain both believed that Saddam was a threat to the world and the US, and that his removal was essential in fighting terror. They were, however, highly critical of the way the war has been handled since.

I know this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, but I did find it interesting that there was such a difference of opinions on the two sides of the political spectrum.

Edited: Any comments on how you perceive the war in hindsight? For example, did anyone change their mind along the way as some Democrat candidates did? Are there any that still defend the war as the Republican candidates do?

[Mad_Michael]

CNN had an interesting side-by-side comparison of the Democratic debates on Iraq followed by the Republican debates on the subject. A stark contrast, and the most evident contrast, between the two parties was the hindsight factor.

Whether they were acknowledging their "mistake" (John Edwards) or blaming the duplicity of the Bush administration (Hillary Clinton), pretty much all the Democrat candidates indicated that in hindsight, they believe going in to Iraq was a mistake. Of course, Obama was the one exception who did not need to explain his Iraq stance given his nay vote on the subject.

By contrast, the Republican candidates all expressed support for the mission even though they were critical of the handling of the war. Guilliani and McCain both believed that Saddam was a threat to the world and the US, and that his removal was essential in fighting terror. They were, however, highly critical of the way the war has been handled since.

I know this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, but I did find it interesting that there was such a difference of opinions on the two sides of the political spectrum.

Any comments?

Yes. It is the nature of US primaries.

The primary process is heavily biased by partisan extremists.

To win the Republican primary, one must cater to the hard-right & religious-right faction of the Republican party. The Republican party hard-core partisans still think GW Bush walks on water and the invasion of Iraq was a mission from God. Thus, all Republican candidates for President must pander to this crowd.

To win the Democratic primary, one must cater to the hard-left, union activists and peacenik factions of the Democratic party. These hard-core partisans were opposed to the Iraq war from day one. Thus, all Democratic candidates for President must pander to this crowd.

Really rather predictable actually. Needless to say, this process seriously harms both party's ability to get a candidate that can actually appeal to the majority in a general election.

[Mad_Michael]

I might add that the "hindsight" argument is full of crap. The flaw is in the plan not the execution.

Yes, the execution was botched, but the original plan is still toxic. One just can't unilaterally invade foreign countries for sport.

That's the point. No amount of 'thorough' execution is going to change that.

One cannot impose democracy from outside by military fiat. Anyone who thinks you can do it, well, I have some property in Florida they might be interested in...

[BC_chick]

Thanks Michael for your contribution.

Having read your first post, I regret being so vague in my asking for comments. Of course, I would agree that the opinions were anything but unpredictable and that they are a reflection of the party's extreme base.

I was asking for commentary more so on the opinions themselves - as you did in your second post. I assumed that most people would fall in to the first category (polls reveal that even most Americans now believe the war was a mistake), so I wanted above all to hear from people who still defend the war.

I will change the wording of my original post to reflect that.

[BC_chick]

I might add that the "hindsight" argument is full of crap. The flaw is in the plan not the execution.

Yes, the execution was botched, but the original plan is still toxic. One just can't unilaterally invade foreign countries for sport.

That's the point. No amount of 'thorough' execution is going to change that.

One cannot impose democracy from outside by military fiat. Anyone who thinks you can do it, well, I have some property in Florida they might be interested in...

Yes, I agree. Only Obama can take the moral high-ground on this one. There were a number of candidates who claimed to have not read a crucial report (I can't remember the name of the report, sorry) before casting their vote. As though that justifies their vote somehow???

Which is worse: admitting that you voted on something you didn't fully understand - which ended up costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives - or saying that you still support a failed mission with which most Americans disagree?

[Figleaf]

It was worse than a mistake, it was a fraud.

[jazzer]

I'll add crime.

[bush_cheney2004]

One cannot impose democracy from outside by military fiat. Anyone who thinks you can do it, well, I have some property in Florida they might be interested in...

Wrong...see post WW2 Japan. The military "imposers" are still there.

[geoffrey]

One cannot impose democracy from outside by military fiat. Anyone who thinks you can do it, well, I have some property in Florida they might be interested in...

You mean Castro isn't a democratic leader?!? Could have fooled Trudeau.

Ok, that wasn't fair. Your right on this one, I can't think of any examples of success.

And I can think of 100 countries that need democracy and a good ass kicking before Iraq ever did anyways.

Yes, I agree. Only Obama can take the moral high-ground on this one. There were a number of candidates who claimed to have not read a crucial report (I can't remember the name of the report, sorry) before casting their vote. As though that justifies their vote somehow???

That's about the worse excuse ever. Sounds like the Paul Martin "I didn't know" excuse. Being negligent with your authority is just as bad IMO as committing the wrongdoing yourself. If you don't know, don't vote. It's rather reckless to do otherwise.

Don't these people have even a staffer to summarize the bills? Or do they just go vote on stuff that has catchy titles?

Which is worse: admitting that you voted on something you didn't fully understand - which ended up costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives - or saying that you still support a failed mission with which most Americans disagree?

Most disagree now. It wasn't always that way.

It was worse than a mistake, it was a fraud.

Perhaps. I don't see the immediate benefit though so nah. I'm not buying it.

I'll add crime.

Definitely not. The US was upholding the UN resolutions that were illegal breached by Saddam, by the UN definition they were in the right. No UN countries wanted to hold Saddam's feet to the fire like they should have.

One easily forgets that if Saddam played by the rules going in, there would never have been ANY justification for a war. When your an aggresive power, and you start kicking out neutral weapons inspectors, your asking for it.

So ya, you might think it's a crime, but it's not. You won't find any reputable international law source that agrees with the Cindy Sheehan approach.

I didn't support the Iraq war, never did and don't now, but I understand those that did. Saddam was violating international law and being very bold about it. These people need to be put in their place.

[BC_chick]

One cannot impose democracy from outside by military fiat. Anyone who thinks you can do it, well, I have some property in Florida they might be interested in...

You mean Castro isn't a democratic leader?!? Could have fooled Trudeau.

Ok, that wasn't fair. Your right on this one, I can't think of any examples of success.

And I can think of 100 countries that need democracy and a good ass kicking before Iraq ever did anyways.

I didn't write that quote, it was Michael.

And I don't necessarily agree with either of you. Japan was one of those rare exceptions where there was success. However, in a Muslim country leery of the Big Satan... no, I agree that the chances of success are slim to none.

[Liam]

I'm probably a Democrat, but I voted "right decision, poorly handled" (or whatever the middle one was).

For me, the ultimate issue (both then and now) was whether or not the UN was going to continue to issue resolution after resolution without the intent of backing them up or enforcing them. Did that mean war was necessary? I don't know, but I think the threat of war was probably necessary in Saddam's case.

I got furious with the administration when WMDs were never turned up and became apoplectic with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and upon hearing stories of soldiers' lacking body armor, etc. Nation-building was never a primary argument advanced by Bush.

My issue with the Iraq war is that it was so entirely botched by Bush and his cronies that it has made the US even less secure. The war in Iraq was fought on the cheap and with far too few boots on the ground. No one did their homework or did any post-war planning. The war took the focus off al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The administration used the war for domestic political purposes and set up the battlefield of Iraq as the definitional battle in the entire war on terror. Failure there means a win by the people who... who... who hate our freedom (yeah, that's it!). The war was fought so as to increase the hatred of the US globally and in the Islamic world, in particular. The war has now served as a major training ground for militants who wish to export jihad globally. The war severed the US from its traditional allies, who up till then, were still mostly "with us" and "against them".

I think the threat of war against Saddam was the only real outcome of the UN resolution scheme, but I entirely disagree with the manner in which this war has been waged.

[Mad_Michael]

And I don't necessarily agree with either of you. Japan was one of those rare exceptions where there was success. However, in a Muslim country leery of the Big Satan... no, I agree that the chances of success are slim to none.

Japan's system may have been called a 'democracy' between 1946 and say 1980 but it wasn't. One party rule, operating according to the old feudal system? That ain't democracy.

Japan is indeed tranforming itself into a real democracy. They still aren't there yet.

And the Japanese began the transformation themselves, pre-WW2.

[Mad_Michael]

I'm probably a Democrat, but I voted "right decision, poorly handled" (or whatever the middle one was).

For me, the ultimate issue (both then and now) was whether or not the UN was going to continue to issue resolution after resolution without the intent of backing them up or enforcing them. Did that mean war was necessary? I don't know, but I think the threat of war was probably necessary in Saddam's case.

I got furious with the administration when WMDs were never turned up and became apoplectic with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and upon hearing stories of soldiers' lacking body armor, etc. Nation-building was never a primary argument advanced by Bush.

If the decision was "the right one" then the UN and WMD's are irrelevant to the issue.

And objecting to the abuses at Abu Ghraib is spurious. If you want to invade and occupy a foreign country with a majority Muslim population, Abu Ghraib is part of the equation. You can't have one without the other - yet you said the invasion was a good idea. Abu Ghraib is a necessary component of imperialist occupation forces.

My issue with the Iraq war is that it was so entirely botched by Bush and his cronies that it has made the US even less secure. The war in Iraq was fought on the cheap and with far too few boots on the ground. No one did their homework or did any post-war planning. The war took the focus off al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The administration used the war for domestic political purposes and set up the battlefield of Iraq as the definitional battle in the entire war on terror. Failure there means a win by the people who... who... who hate our freedom (yeah, that's it!). The war was fought so as to increase the hatred of the US globally and in the Islamic world, in particular. The war has now served as a major training ground for militants who wish to export jihad globally. The war severed the US from its traditional allies, who up till then, were still mostly "with us" and "against them".

No.

You could have doubled the size of the US invasion force and put it under the command of General Patton, Lee or Grant and you would still be reading about the quagmire in Iraq right now.

The US invasion was swiftly executed without any substantial opposition. How can double the troops improve on this?

It was the peace that didn't come is where the US screwed up.

I think the threat of war against Saddam was the only real outcome of the UN resolution scheme, but I entirely disagree with the manner in which this war has been waged.

Ergo, I consider you a danger to the human race. It is only a matter of time before you are going to think it is a good plan to go invade some other foreign nation with a majority Muslim population.

Your opinions are dangerous ones.

There is no good reason for killing people who caused you no harm.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'll add crime.

Crime? Unilaterally invade? Fraud?

I think you guys need to revisit your understanding of crime and punishment.

This would be the crime, guys.

Since the UN has no enforcement teeth, the coalition of the willing took matters into their own hands and clearly enforced 1441.

[AndrewL]

I'll add crime.

Crime? Unilaterally invade? Fraud?

I think you guys need to revisit your understanding of crime and punishment.

This would be the crime, guys.

Since the UN has no enforcement teeth, the coalition of the willing took matters into their own hands and clearly enforced 1441.

Except Saddam fully complied with resolution 1441 after it was passed in the UNSC.

Andrew

[Chrissy1979]

Hmm, who has more credibility? UN Secretary-General or anonymous internet poster?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

[JerrySeinfeld]

Hmm, who has more credibility? UN Secretary-General or anonymous internet poster?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

Think of it this way: the UN is run by thugs and human rights abusers. So, to answer your question as to who has more credibility, the UN Secretary General or an Anonymous internet poster, it's a toss up.

[Black Dog]

Wrong...see post WW2 Japan. The military "imposers" are still there.

Bad example.

The question, anyway, is not "when has a successful democracy been imposed from without". The question is "when has a foreign military power successfully defeated a domestic insurgency." The answer is: virtually never.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Wrong...see post WW2 Japan. The military "imposers" are still there.

Bad example.

The question, anyway, is not "when has a successful democracy been imposed from without". The question is "when has a foreign military power successfully defeated a domestic insurgency." The answer is: virtually never.

We need to keep on it - despite the negative nellies out there who can't wait to lose "George Bush's war".

It's an irrational hatred of GW bush is really what this opposition is all about. admit it.

[Figleaf]

...My issue with the Iraq war is that it was so entirely botched by Bush and his cronies that it has made the US even less secure. The war in Iraq was fought on the cheap and with far too few boots on the ground. No one did their homework or did any post-war planning. The war took the focus off al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The administration used the war for domestic political purposes and set up the battlefield of Iraq as the definitional battle in the entire war on terror. Failure there means a win by the people who... who... who hate our freedom (yeah, that's it!). The war was fought so as to increase the hatred of the US globally and in the Islamic world, in particular. The war has now served as a major training ground for militants who wish to export jihad globally. The war severed the US from its traditional allies, who up till then, were still mostly "with us" and "against them". ...

Excellent summary, but now go one step further ... can stupidity and incompetence explain that litany of screw-ups? Or is not it more plausible to consider that the apparent screwups are better explained as calculated Straussian policy leading to war without end?

[bush_cheney2004]

Bad example.

The question, anyway, is not "when has a successful democracy been imposed from without". The question is "when has a foreign military power successfully defeated a domestic insurgency." The answer is: virtually never.

Wrong again....see Cuba's intervention in Angola.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no good reason for killing people who caused you no harm.

There are plenty of good "reasons for killing people who caused you no harm". Criminal law recognizes the many circumstances, and Canada specializes in killing people for human rights (so called Responsibility to Protect"). For the USA, crude oil is a very good reason.

[GostHacked]

I knew that going into Iraq was going to be a bad idea. This was in 2002 when the drums were beat for war. I knew they did not have a nuclear weapons programme anymore and I knew that the war on terror should involve Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Coalition invaded two countries and still cannot find Bin Laden. Connecting Iraq to the 9/11 Al-Queda thing was enough to get support for it as well. We can come back to this thread in another 10 years and the 'Long War' will still be fought in Iraq and the Middle East. A war that can last 10 years, or decades or a war that in your life time might not see an end, tends to make people impatient with the so called 'progress'. Yeah I use to many quotes.

Now that the UN has said the war was illegal, hell, the US congress did not even pass a resolution or actually declare officially 'war' on anything.

Hey Bush-Cheney, regarding to the Cuba/Angola thing. I did some reading. Looks like it was backed by then USSR. Seemed like the USSR called all the shots for that case.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...rt/1984/STP.htm

Just seemed like another proxy war between USSR and the USA at the time. The US was contributing to a 'liberation movement' that the Cubans called 'insurgents'.

Three factions went to war over the right to control Angola in

the wake of the Portuguese coup. The most successful was the Popular

Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), which continues today to

fight the second faction, the Union for the Total Independence of Angola

(UNITA). The third, U.S. supplied and supported, was the National Front

for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA), headed: by Rolden Roberto.

The Soviets and Cubans shared the targets for reaching their

respective objectives to varying degrees. The main targets were the U.S.,

South Africa, Zaire, and the FNLA and UNITA. These factions were

targeted in an attempt to halt direct opposition to the MPLA. In each case,

the use of Cuban troops, either as Soviet proxy forces or acting solely

in Cuban interests, had direct applications on perceptions of the

utility of the intervention.

One of the reasons that the

So the Cubans beat the USA. The USA were funding the 'insurgents'. Pretty interesting stuff.

Now let's look at the 'why' everyone was there.

Angola is one of the wealthiest countries in terms of natural

resources in all of Africa. Its geographical location establishes its

territorial influence over many of the other states in the region. Angola

has abundant mineral resources including large oil deposits. It also

produces diamonds and coffee for export.

Must be some fine coffee.

[Hollus]

Regarding the Iraq War, Dennis Kucinich has the most credibility out of any of the democrat/republican candidates. In 2002 he distributed an analysis of what a war in Iraq would mean for the US and of how the administrations advances to use military force were unsubstantiated. He led the effort in the House that resulted in 125 Democrats voting NO to the Iraq War resolution. He has remained steadfast in his fervent opposition to this illegal war and has introduced articles of impeachment against Vice Pres. Dick Cheney documenting how Cheney fabricated the case for war by manipulating the intelligence process and fixing fualty information.

Unlike the other candidates, Kucinich has consistently voted against funding for the war. I think Obama looks bad in this respect, voting against the war but signing the checks to make it happen.

Regarding the different pull out strategies, I see the main issues pertaining to wheather or not the US will maintain their military bases in the region and to whom the control of oil resources are granted.

[bush_cheney2004]

I knew that going into Iraq was going to be a bad idea. This was in 2002 when the drums were beat for war. I knew they did not have a nuclear weapons programme anymore and I knew that the war on terror should involve Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Coalition invaded two countries and still cannot find Bin Laden. Connecting Iraq to the 9/11 Al-Queda thing was enough to get support for it as well. We can come back to this thread in another 10 years and the 'Long War' will still be fought in Iraq and the Middle East. A war that can last 10 years, or decades or a war that in your life time might not see an end, tends to make people impatient with the so called 'progress'. Yeah I use to many quotes.

Now that the UN has said the war was illegal, hell, the US congress did not even pass a resolution or actually declare officially 'war' on anything.

Hey Bush-Cheney, regarding to the Cuba/Angola thing. I did some reading. Looks like it was backed by then USSR. Seemed like the USSR called all the shots for that case.

Gee, you had all the answers back in 2002? Why didn't you call Hans Blix?

Hint: Doesn't really matter, because the invasion of Iraq was a continuation of US policy going back to 1991, namely, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Who gives a rat's ass what the UN thinks? They said Kosovo (Allied Force) was illegal too. Even intervention in Rwanda would have been illegal...good thing we didn't break the LAW, huh?

BTW, Cuba funded the Angola invasion on its own dime part of the time. The USSR did not call all the shots.