A very important Question

[akiboy]

I have a very important question to all Americans.

Most of you want your troops to leave Iraq. I read the newspapers and follow polls and i notice that most Americans want Bush to quit Iraq.
Bush is always the "Most hated man" or the "Most hated personality" blah , blah....

My question is:- Why did the AMerican people allow Bush to invade Baghdad in the first place ? Wasen't the US led invasion destined to protect present and future American interests in the Gulf and not put American lives at stake ?


I know that this topic has been discussed a 1000 times on USMB but till now there is no clear cut answer. Most Americans want the troops back but your so called "warmongering" President (This isn't my view but the views of most people around the globe who keenly follow the politics and affairs of the only superpower in the world) wont call the soldiers back home.

ANother surprise was Bush's re election. I mean I just don't understand the American sentiments. First you vigorously protest against the man who led your troops to war and then re - elect him.

This might sound a very common question but:-

What do the AMerican people actually expect from their President on Iraq and AFghanistan ?

I still have no clear cut answer to the above posed question and thus I have written this post.

AKshay

 

[dilloduck]

I have a very important question to all Americans.

Most of you want your troops to leave Iraq. I read the newspapers and follow polls and i notice that most Americans want Bush to quit Iraq.
Bush is always the "Most hated man" or the "Most hated personality" blah , blah....

My question is:- Why did the AMerican people allow Bush to invade Baghdad in the first place ? Wasen't the US led invasion destined to protect present and future American interests in the Gulf and not put American lives at stake ?


I know that this topic has been discussed a 1000 times on USMB but till now there is no clear cut answer. Most Americans want the troops back but your so called "warmongering" President (This isn't my view but the views of most people around the globe who keenly follow the politics and affairs of the only superpower in the world) wont call the soldiers back home.

ANother surprise was Bush's re election. I mean I just don't understand the American sentiments. First you vigorously protest against the man who led your troops to war and then re - elect him.

This might sound a very common question but:-

What do the AMerican people actually expect from their President on Iraq and AFghanistan ?

I still have no clear cut answer to the above posed question and thus I have written this post.

AKshay

Don't believe in the media stories. They do not reflect the truth. Private ownership of media leads to attempts by owners to pursue thier own agenda.

 

[CockySOB]

Don't believe in the media stories. They do not reflect the truth. Private ownership of media leads to attempts by owners to pursue thier own agenda.

In some cases we find the mainstream media pursuing its own socio-political agenda, but usually it boils down to a simple truth: conflict sells. So the media prefers to focus only on conflict and other sensational stories in an effort to "scoop" their competition and garner the valuable viewers.

 

[dilloduck]

In some cases we find the mainstream media pursuing its own socio-political agenda, but usually it boils down to a simple truth: conflict sells. So the media prefers to focus only on conflict and other sensational stories in an effort to "scoop" their competition and garner the valuable viewers.

You might go as far to say that the media purposely foments conflict for profit.

 

[CockySOB]

You might go as far to say that the media purposely foments conflict for profit.

Absolutely!

 

[akiboy]

Don't believe in the media stories. They do not reflect the truth. Private ownership of media leads to attempts by owners to pursue thier own agenda.

I am not only talking about the American media but the media of other countries as well. Eg:- Britain , Other pro-American countries , India etc.

And secondly all the stuff that the media write about Bush and his invasion of Iraq is hogwash ? And I still haven't understood the American mind on Iraq and Bush's invasion.

 

[Kagom]

I am not only talking about the American media but the media of other countries as well. Eg:- Britain , Other pro-American countries , India etc.

And secondly all the stuff that the media write about Bush and his invasion of Iraq is hogwash ? And I still haven't understood the American mind on Iraq and Bush's invasion.

And you probably never will. There are people like me who believe that if Bush had given a different answer than what he gave, the war in Iraq would've been supported. And then there are the people who just are against it because Bush is Republican. The list goes on.

 

[trobinett]

And then there are people, that are just plain STUPID.

Others, that are appeasers, others still in the French mold, they raise the surrender flag at every opportunity.

You've got to realize, America is a different country than it was fifty years ago, made up of a different type of person.

There is a growing population of instant gratification people, that have taken over the media, and many other walks of life. Combine THEM with the folks, that salute the flag, that fly's for those, that feel they are NEVER at fault, that its ALWAYS someone else's responsibility, that life is a video game, and war's are fought on X-Box's, with no casualties.

Don't look to the United States to bail anyone's bacon out, we're much to busy fighting among ourselves.

Its enough to make an old veteran cry.

 

[liberalogic]

I have a very important question to all Americans.

Most of you want your troops to leave Iraq. I read the newspapers and follow polls and i notice that most Americans want Bush to quit Iraq.
Bush is always the "Most hated man" or the "Most hated personality" blah , blah....

My question is:- Why did the AMerican people allow Bush to invade Baghdad in the first place ? Wasen't the US led invasion destined to protect present and future American interests in the Gulf and not put American lives at stake ?


I know that this topic has been discussed a 1000 times on USMB but till now there is no clear cut answer. Most Americans want the troops back but your so called "warmongering" President (This isn't my view but the views of most people around the globe who keenly follow the politics and affairs of the only superpower in the world) wont call the soldiers back home.

ANother surprise was Bush's re election. I mean I just don't understand the American sentiments. First you vigorously protest against the man who led your troops to war and then re - elect him.

This might sound a very common question but:-

What do the AMerican people actually expect from their President on Iraq and AFghanistan ?

I still have no clear cut answer to the above posed question and thus I have written this post.

AKshay

In order to understand why Americans initially supported the war in Iraq, you need to understand the way the war was initially presented some 4 years ago.

At that point, we all felt vulnerable after the attacks on 9/11 and felt the need to retaliate one way or another. If you review the press conferences that Bush gave prior to the Iraq War, the entire WMD issue takes center stage. All you heard for those few months was that Saddam had weapons and he was going to use them. He preyed on our fears and led us into war and most congressmen bought it and voted for it (many of whom could not risk the chance of being labeled "unpatriotic" because we have a fetish with that word in this country whenever someone disagrees with a pro-war stance). It's sad that so many lives have to be lost in the name of politics.

Bush's reelection, if you look to the 2004 results, boiled down to two factors: moral values and the war on terror. Sadly (in, of course my opinion), this country is fairly conservative as a whole. Most Americans wet themselves when they hear gay marriage and alternatives to the nuclear family. Bush, without any shred of doubt, supports the traditional, judeo-christian values along with many of those who voted for him.

While he has fucked up Iraq big time, it wasn't as bad in 2004. His resolve to continue and emerge victorious in the war was seen as a positive characteristic at the time...he wasn't going to "cut and run." People respected that and saw John Kerry as a loose cannon who really had no plan, or at least one that they could understand. Bush was straightforward with his goals and also, he unfairly tarnished John Kerry's military record. That's pretty much why he was reelected.

I hope that makes some sort of sense to you...you kinda had to be in this country at the time to truly make sense of the whole thing.

 

[dilloduck]

In order to understand why Americans initially supported the war in Iraq, you need to understand the way the war was initially presented some 4 years ago.

At that point, we all felt vulnerable after the attacks on 9/11 and felt the need to retaliate one way or another. If you review the press conferences that Bush gave prior to the Iraq War, the entire WMD issue takes center stage. All you heard for those few months was that Saddam had weapons and he was going to use them. He preyed on our fears and led us into war and most congressmen bought it and voted for it (many of whom could not risk the chance of being labeled "unpatriotic" because we have a fetish with that word in this country whenever someone disagrees with a pro-war stance). It's sad that so many lives have to be lost in the name of politics.

Bush's reelection, if you look to the 2004 results, boiled down to two factors: moral values and the war on terror. Sadly (in, of course my opinion), this country is fairly conservative as a whole. Most Americans wet themselves when they hear gay marriage and alternatives to the nuclear family. Bush, without any shred of doubt, supports the traditional, judeo-christian values along with many of those who voted for him.

While he has fucked up Iraq big time, it wasn't as bad in 2004. His resolve to continue and emerge victorious in the war was seen as a positive characteristic at the time...he wasn't going to "cut and run." People respected that and saw John Kerry as a loose cannon who really had no plan, or at least one that they could understand. Bush was straightforward with his goals and also, he unfairly tarnished John Kerry's military record. That's pretty much why he was reelected.

I hope that makes some sort of sense to you...you kinda had to be in this country at the time to truly make sense of the whole thing.

A picky but possibly a telltale point. You state

felt the need to retaliate one way or another.

I think this interpretation is erroneous . I think many who supported military intervention did NOT see it as a retaliation as much as they saw it as the US finally engaging in the inevitable war. Our enemies had NO intention in resolving anything through diplomacy. They still don't. They can't even resolve thie OWN religious differences peacefully.
The United States has given the Iraqis every opportunity to live free from the totalitarian oppression of Saddam. They won't and the destabilizing effect of thier neighbors isn't helping any.
Blaming the Bush administration for the Sunni, Shia, Ba'athist hatred is silly.

 

[trobinett]

A picky but possibly a telltale point. You state

I think this interpretation is erroneous . I think many who supported military intervention did NOT see it as a retaliation as much as they saw it as the US finally engaging in the inevitable war. Our enemies had NO intention in resolving anything through diplomacy. They still don't. They can't even resolve thie OWN religious differences peacefully.
The United States has given the Iraqis every opportunity to live free from the totalitarian oppression of Saddam. They won't and the destabilizing effect of thier neighbors isn't helping any.
Blaming the Bush administration for the Sunni, Shia, Ba'athist hatred is silly.

Well, there's that too.....

 

[mattskramer]

I have a very important question to all Americans.

Most of you want your troops to leave Iraq. I read the newspapers and follow polls and i notice that most Americans want Bush to quit Iraq.
Bush is always the "Most hated man" or the "Most hated personality" blah , blah....

My question is:- Why did the AMerican people allow Bush to invade Baghdad in the first place ? Wasen't the US led invasion destined to protect present and future American interests in the Gulf and not put American lives at stake ?


I know that this topic has been discussed a 1000 times on USMB but till now there is no clear cut answer. Most Americans want the troops back but your so called "warmongering" President (This isn't my view but the views of most people around the globe who keenly follow the politics and affairs of the only superpower in the world) wont call the soldiers back home.

ANother surprise was Bush's re election. I mean I just don't understand the American sentiments. First you vigorously protest against the man who led your troops to war and then re - elect him.

This might sound a very common question but:-

What do the AMerican people actually expect from their President on Iraq and AFghanistan ?

I still have no clear cut answer to the above posed question and thus I have written this post.

AKshay

There are many reasons for the war. Some of the reasons turned out to be based on incorrect information. Some are thought to be good reasons and some are thought to be bad reasons. Here is a small list:

It was thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to America.

It was thought that Iraq had close ties to Al Queda and to the Taliban.

It was thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It was thought that Iraq did not obey the UN.

It was thought that Bush Jr. had a personal vendetta against Saddam for attempts made against Bush Sr’s life.

It was thought that we had strong interest in influencing the oil supply and price. Having power and influence in the Middle East would help in this regard.

We need a military presence in Iraq in order to influence Iran and other surrounding nations – (Ex: imperialism).

To impose/provide “freedom” and democracy for the people in Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

There are many reasons for the war. Some of the reasons turned out to be based on incorrect information. Some are thought to be good reasons and some are thought to be bad reasons. Here is a small list:

It was thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to America.

It was thought that Iraq had close ties to Al Queda and to the Taliban.

It was thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It was thought that Iraq did not obey the UN.

It was thought that Bush Jr. had a personal vendetta against Saddam for attempts made against Bush Sr’s life.

It was thought that we had strong interest in influencing the oil supply and price. Having power and influence in the Middle East would help in this regard.

We need a military presence in Iraq in order to influence Iran and other surrounding nations – (Ex: imperialism).

To impose/provide “freedom” and democracy for the people in Iraq.

How about:
It was thought that is was a good idea to continue to kick Islamo-fascists in the ass and Iraq was the next logical step.

 

[ekrem]

There are many reasons for the war. Some of the reasons turned out to be based on incorrect information. Some are thought to be good reasons and some are thought to be bad reasons. Here is a small list:

It was thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to America.

It was thought that Iraq had close ties to Al Queda and to the Taliban.

It was thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It was thought that Iraq did not obey the UN.

It was thought that Bush Jr. had a personal vendetta against Saddam for attempts made against Bush Sr’s life.

It was thought that we had strong interest in influencing the oil supply and price. Having power and influence in the Middle East would help in this regard.

We need a military presence in Iraq in order to influence Iran and other surrounding nations – (Ex: imperialism).

To impose/provide “freedom” and democracy for the people in Iraq.

I absolutely agree. And i as a foreigner think, that normal american psychology supported the war in the beginning as well because of these reasons you stated.

It was thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to America.
It was thought that Iraq had close ties to Al Queda and to the Taliban.
It was thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Because this was what you should believe, and you actually believed.
But the truth was and everybody knew that except US people who should had to be made this believing from the highest authorities of your government and strategists, that Saddam was neither a threat anymore after Operation desert storm.
Nor that Saddam had WMD in such a way that it posseses a risk to 11/9 shocked US people. Remember Hans Blix ? I also believe, that these stories of "Saddam with his finger on the red button"-stories caused non-agreement in foreign intelligence agencies. Such as Turkish intelligence.
I mean other nations do have much worse killing equippment, including the US' or states like Egypt, Belarus and many many other. The list is very long.

But the most tragic thing, and here is the point, that US people believed in absurd stories, that Saddam had a connection to Taliban or Al-Qaeda. And that these stories were even produced by US government and so US people believed without questioning these stories. Just follow, the nation stands behind his president.
Saddam was secularist and only in late 90s, were the Iraq's population was really in a bad shape because of sanctions, Saddam switched to Islamic propaganda, to keep some sort of control to the population.

Don't get me wrong, if in Turkey there would be a terror assault that kills about 3.000 lives by one event, and our Prime Ministry says that Greece was it, although this story represents not the truth, Turkish people would support invadeing Greece also. Without questioning these "facts" that our government gives us regarding Greece.

In the end, USA had plans regarding
- the broader Mid-East including North-Africa
- its ressources
- the grasp of emerging powers to these ressources like China
and so on. And the 9/11 event was the trigger, the president could be sure US people will support all actions to retaliate against these "bastards".

But things do not always come as predicted, would it have gone solely to USA wishfull thinking and the world was a computer simulation solely running on before fixed parameters, the USA would have been now invaded some countries additional to Iraq.
You know, the Lighthouse of democracy in the dark and the US who spreads democracy to these countries connected paralell with hard interests of USA.
How this era will be reviewed in some generations is for historians and not the real question which now faces us.
USA government did what it did, Bush was reelected for what he did and terrorism in the world has grown, and the world is not that safe anymore, especially with regional war if the USA takes wrong decisions on Iraq.

MAybe now somepeople, mainly Neocons will now say f***-off, but i did not mentioned Afghanistan, as this was also not stated by Akiboy.
Would the USA had continued to be trustworthy, and destruction of Afghanistan was justified, many problems USA would have been spared off.
But now USA is in some deep trouble. Digging its own hole in Iraq for the last years.
And others watching of how the USA will get out of these own digged hole, without the region exploding.

By the way, happy new year, to all of you.

 

[liberalogic]

A picky but possibly a telltale point. You state

I think this interpretation is erroneous . I think many who supported military intervention did NOT see it as a retaliation as much as they saw it as the US finally engaging in the inevitable war. Our enemies had NO intention in resolving anything through diplomacy. They still don't. They can't even resolve thie OWN religious differences peacefully.

Retaliation is kind of a fair word. It was said that he harbored the terrorists who attacked us. But more than that it was a pre-emptive attack. The problem is that Iraq was not the next logical step considering we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan.

The United States has given the Iraqis every opportunity to live free from the totalitarian oppression of Saddam. They won't and the destabilizing effect of thier neighbors isn't helping any.
Blaming the Bush administration for the Sunni, Shia, Ba'athist hatred is silly.

True, they can't work their shit out. But we, by invading the country, allowed all of this rage to escalate to a civil war. Democracy does not always work, especially when you have a group of individuals who are devout religious nuts. Yes, Saddam was a terrible man, but ruling with an iron fist seems to be the only way to hold the country down. So Bush is responsible for the Civil War that broke out...he should've had a better idea of what the consequences of an invasion would be.

 

[dilloduck]

Retaliation is kind of a fair word. It was said that he harbored the terrorists who attacked us. But more than that it was a pre-emptive attack. The problem is that Iraq was not the next logical step considering we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan.

A lot of things were said and until about 50 or so people come clean ( don't hold your breath ) and tell us all he nitty griity details I don't think we will ever know the real reason. Usually there is a BIG difference between how the war is sold and why we really are fighting. Is there some rule about not fighting in two countries at the same time?

True, they can't work their shit out. But we, by invading the country, allowed all of this rage to escalate to a civil war. Democracy does not always work, especially when you have a group of individuals who are devout religious nuts. Yes, Saddam was a terrible man, but ruling with an iron fist seems to be the only way to hold the country down. So Bush is responsible for the Civil War that broke out...he should've had a better idea of what the consequences of an invasion would be.

Iraqis can't be held responsible for what they do? This kind of apologist "logic"
is lunacy. If we consider them to be that stupid or childish then we sure as hell better not leave.

 

[liberalogic]

A lot of things were said and until about 50 or so people come clean ( don't hold your breath ) and tell us all he nitty griity details I don't think we will ever know the real reason. Usually there is a BIG difference between how the war is sold and why we really are fighting.

That's such a true statement and I completely agree. But doesn't that bother you? Because it sure as hell bothers me. And this isn't just a Bush thing, it's how all presidents, democrat and republican, have conducted foreign policy. During Wilson's presidency, we invaded Haiti. Why? Because we wanted to expand our capitalist network in a region where we could easily exert power. It just so happens that the Iraq thing got out of control, which is why we tend to question its premise more and more.

Is there some rule about not fighting in two countries at the same time?

I would think so. Common sense tells me that it's better to finish off the real enemy, with all necessary resources, rather than jump to the fake enemy. We've spent so much money in Iraq and we've spread our troops thin there when they should've come out of Afghanistan with Bin Laden's head before any other military decisions were made.

Iraqis can't be held responsible for what they do? This kind of apologist "logic"
is lunacy. If we consider them to be that stupid or childish then we sure as hell better not leave.

I agree...we shouldn't leave right now. We broke, we have to fix it. But imagine another country invading the U.S. and changing the entire government and allowing lawlessness to ensue. Any sense of stability was shattered with our entrance into Iraq.

Granted, just like I think the right wing religious conservatives in this country are nuts, I hold the same for them (well, they're a bit nuttier). Regardless, though, we invaded their country, we should at least have the decency to understand the culture and adequately hypothesize the repercussions of our invasion. Whether or not we think they're childish makes no difference; we're there and we need to deal with it realistically and not just think we can spread freedom dust and make everyone happy.

 

[Annie]

I agree...we shouldn't leave right now. We broke, we have to fix it. But imagine another country invading the U.S. and changing the entire government and allowing lawlessness to ensue. Any sense of stability was shattered with our entrance into Iraq.

Granted, just like I think the right wing religious conservatives in this country are nuts, I hold the same for them (well, they're a bit nuttier). Regardless, though, we invaded their country, we should at least have the decency to understand the culture and adequately hypothesize the repercussions of our invasion. Whether or not we think they're childish makes no difference; we're there and we need to deal with it realistically and not just think we can spread freedom dust and make everyone happy.

So what is your solutions? How do you see their culture and what is your hypothesis regarding the invasion? How do you see 'the spread of freedom dust and making everyone happy?'

 

[liberalogic]

So what is your solutions? How do you see their culture and what is your hypothesis regarding the invasion? How do you see 'the spread of freedom dust and making everyone happy?'

I'm saying that the President and his colleagues, since they decided to wage a war, should have been adequately prepared to deal with the consequences including the religious turmoil that was unleashed. If they would've given that more thought, maybe we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in today.

The spreading of "Freedom dust" means that we just walked in there and thought that we could declare freedom and everyone would be happy. Freedom cannot always be the answer, especially when a group of people is ill-prepared to deal with it.

 

[dilloduck]

That's such a true statement and I completely agree. But doesn't that bother you? Because it sure as hell bothers me. And this isn't just a Bush thing, it's how all presidents, democrat and republican, have conducted foreign policy. During Wilson's presidency, we invaded Haiti. Why? Because we wanted to expand our capitalist network in a region where we could easily exert power. It just so happens that the Iraq thing got out of control, which is why we tend to question its premise more and more.

What bothers me even more is that both parties are owned. Partsian politics only serves as a distraction. There are a lot of premises that need to be questioned from an objecive viewpoint rather than a partisan one.

I would think so. Common sense tells me that it's better to finish off the real enemy, with all necessary resources, rather than jump to the fake enemy. We've spent so much money in Iraq and we've spread our troops thin there when they should've come out of Afghanistan with Bin Laden's head before any other military decisions were made.

I question your premise that al quaeda and bin laden are the only real enemies. Was Saddam shooting at our aircraft because he was our friend? What do you think he would have done with a captured pilot?

I agree...we shouldn't leave right now. We broke, we have to fix it. But imagine another country invading the U.S. and changing the entire government and allowing lawlessness to ensue. Any sense of stability was shattered with our entrance into Iraq.

I never expected it to be cakewalk. In fact I as even told that the WOT was going to be a long and costly one.

Granted, just like I think the right wing religious conservatives in this country are nuts, I hold the same for them (well, they're a bit nuttier). Regardless, though, we invaded their country, we should at least have the decency to understand the culture and adequately hypothesize the repercussions of our invasion. Whether or not we think they're childish makes no difference; we're there and we need to deal with it realistically and not just think we can spread freedom dust and make everyone happy.

We are bending over backwards to accomodate thier culture. Probably more than any invadng army ever has. How do you treat suicidal fanantics decently? We sure as hell didn't teach em how to do that nor cause them to engage in tribal feuds.