Iraq: WSWD? What Should have George W. Done?

[seventil]

As I typed the description of the topic, I realized how crazy it sounded even saying it. To compare the decisions of Bush to Jesus is comical to most, serious to some and not a laughing matter to a few.

Over a bottle of wine (or three) recently I discussed this topic with a fellow Christian friend of mine. It was our conclusion that:

In regards to the Iraq War:

After the 9/11 attack, if George W. would have practiced real Christianity (turning the other cheek, loving your enemy as yourself) he would have made more of an impression on the world.

Think of it: a heartfelt telecast where George says: "Obama, please stop killing Americans. We're angry right now- but we're hating the sin, not you. We aren't going to try and kill you. We are praying for you, and we ask that you stop trying to terrorize us."

The response in America probably would have been terrible. He might have got shot, even. Emotion was so high in American then that people wanted VENGEANCE. (This is a flaw in our society character, but is to be expected). Yeah, people would be mad. Maybe rioting. However, 5 years in the future (like now) people would probably be much, much happier with the war and everything that's been done.

So, questions for debate:

What would have been the world or US reaction to a pacifist solution to the current Iraq War?

Could this ever happen? Would America allow a pacifist solution to a scenario like this?

Is it Biblically justified to do what we're doing in Iraq currently?

[MagusYanam]

But I must admit that I agree it was in US interest to not allow Saddam to sell oil for euros. Unfortunately our actions have been so poor the effect has been quite the opposite.

Then that should have been the way the war was framed.

If this is the case, the war's cause was obscured from the American public. Therefore, in addition to being pre-emptive, it was not executed under a just cause by a legitimate authority (the authority in this case being the American public). Therefore, even by Augustinian standards, this could not possibly be called a 'just war'.

[Vladd44]

Then that should have been the way the war was framed.

If fought at all, agreed.

I am not trying to justify this war, I was opposed to it since it's inception. But IF I am right as to our reason for going being the artificial inflation of the value of our money by the oil market being exclusively the us dollar then I understand and agree that we had to do something.

However I am not in the habit of accepting that an action is good or justified simply because inaction sucked. Inaction would have been preferable to the result of our poorly planned incursion.

[MagusYanam]

I am not trying to justify this war, I was opposed to it since it's inception. But IF I am right as to our reason for going being the artificial inflation of the value of our money by the oil market being exclusively the us dollar then I understand and agree that we had to do something.

However I am not in the habit of accepting that an action is good or justified simply because inaction sucked. Inaction would have been preferable to the result of our poorly planned incursion.

Okay, I misunderstood you there; you said that you 'opposed' it, in the past tense, and that you 'still oppose the way it was operated', and I made the assumption that you now support the war but oppose its implementation. Sorry about that.

[Vladd44]

Okay, I misunderstood you there; you said that you 'opposed' it, in the past tense, and that you 'still oppose the way it was operated', and I made the assumption that you now support the war but oppose its implementation. Sorry about that.

The fault would be mine. Without a doubt there is a lack of complete cohesion in my opinion on the Iraq War.

I never bought the WMD story when it was the rationale for going into Iraq, this caused me to consider the entire war crap at the time. But when I realized it was not in US interest to allow Iraq to pursue an oil for euro agenda, I had already seen my government completely screw the pooch.

We are rapidly approaching Peak oil production (If we havent already crossed the threshold), the world is not prepared for this event, IMO energy wars are inevitable. An active policy of conservation combined with active efforts to wean us off the oil nipple could help mitigate this coming disaster, but I rarely expect politicians to see past the next election cycle.

The current fiasco of a war we find ourselves embroiled has not helped matters in the least. We have alienated more of the world than ever before, stretched our military to the breaking point and most importantly weakened our position in the world.

Instead of causing other countries to think twice about going to the euro, our inept decision making in Iraq has had the opposite effect. This has emboldened Iran and Venezuela to consider the transition to the euro as well.

Do I support this war? No.
Would I have held my nose and supported a competent war against Iraq if it had not been under false pretenses? Now that is where the squirming begins. As distasteful as it is, the US Government's job is to act in the interest of the USA.

As I drive around using my internal combustion engine, buying goods brought to market by petroleum products and survive in a world dependent on the world energy market I must accept that I am the product of an economy that has been built on the concept of cheap energy.

I would prefer an alternative, but until then, I am stuck with having to accept the coming energy wars, principles and ethics be damned.

[Easyrider]

The current fiasco of a war we find ourselves embroiled has not helped matters in the least. We have alienated more of the world than ever before, stretched our military to the breaking point and most importantly weakened our position in the world.

Who cares if we're not well thought of by other doormat nations who have no sense of history, and who normally sit back while more Adolph Hitlers rise to power and do nothing about it? By the time they decide to act (if at all) tyrrants are at the gates and all hell has already broken loose and even more people die.

The United States has a significant interest in a stable and democratic Iraq. For one thing, a stable Iraq is not an open breeding ground for terrorism. With democratic Afghanistan on the other side, fundamentalist Iran finds itself sandwiched between two fledging democracies. That tends to put a damper, if only a limited one, on Irans voracious appetite for the export of arms and terrorism. Second, it is becoming increasingly apparent in many Iraqi communities that neither the Sunnis or Shiites are particularly enamored with the blood-thirsty totalitarianism of Al Queda and Taliban fundamentalists. More and more, Iraqi citizens are either turning these extremists in to coalition forces or taking these thugs to task themselves at the muzzle point of an AK-47. The United States would have another partner in freedom. Once people have a taste of freedom, totalitarianism becomes an affront to the human spirit.

But the main question for Harry Reid, John Murtha, and the other quitters is, what happens in Iraq and the region should the U.S. prematurely depart? If you think Iraq is a bloodbath now, just wait and see what happens next. The Killing Fields will be back with a vengeance. With Iran backing Al Sadr or other like-minded murderers, the Iraqi government would likely disintegrate within a matter of weeks. Anyone who ever backed coalition forces would be hunted down like the Jews under Adolph Hitler. The lucky ones who do survive would find themselves in fundamentalist "reeducation" camps until their views coincided with those of their supremacist slave masters. Nor would the Kurds escape. Their way of life is over too. Once that holocaust ends, and it will go on for quite some time, then you are left with pro-terrorist nations Iran, Iraq, and Syria dominating the Middle East, and very likely the Persian Gulf. Who then will be next? And there will be a "next." Very likely, Saudi Arabia and, most certainly, Israel. Then any Arab or Muslim country with a non-fundamentalist government. The whole region would become a breeding ground for the export of terror and fundamentalism.

And then the vicious circle of far-left liberal statesmanship will become complete. They will once again go back to the impotent U.N. for assistance. Calls for sanctions will once more abound. More senators and statesmen will give blustery speeches. And more long-winded rhetoric and half-baked condemnations will again be meted out, first at Bush and the U.S. for letting this happen, and then at anyone else left standing. This time, though, theyll be showing up at the U.N. on their bicycles, because Middle East oil will be at a serious premium, if available at all. And thats as far as it will all go. Thats as far as it ever goes with them. Once the liberals are done at the U.N. - after all the calls for sanctions and bleeding-heart admonitions to play nice are duly pontificated; after their patented appeasement resolutions are passed, and after the bad guys still havent budged one inch - its over. Finis. End of story. Thats all there is from the libs - there isnt any more. Not even a lethal dose of viagara could get them to stand tall then. All thats left is for them to go home, wring their hands, and wait for Osama and Company to eventually come calling. And they will. You can count on it.

[Vladd44]

Who cares if we're not well thought of by other doormat nations who have no sense of history

If you honestly believe this, your more deluded than I thought, we live in a world economy.

And no sense of history? Quick History lesson for you, There were no WMD in Iraq.

and who normally sit back while more Adolph Hitlers rise to power and do nothing about it?

Godwins Law in practice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law.

Once again, quick history lesson for you again. Now that we have been on the ground in Iraq we do know one thing. Sanctions had broken (and had kept broken) the Iraqi ability to wage a war of aggression.

The United States has a significant interest in a stable and democratic Iraq.

Yes we do, unfortunately our interference has further destabilized not only Iraq, but the power balance of the entire region. It suited US interest to have a sunni controlled region right next to the shia Iran. Now we have made life much better for Iran and given control of Iraq to the Shia.

For one thing, a stable Iraq is not an open breeding ground for terrorism.

Pre-invasion : Roadside IEDs a day = 0.
Post invasion : Roadside IEDs a day = ?.

We have destabilized Iraq, and without partitioning Iraq into three different sovereigns I don't think we will begin to see a stabilization.

With democratic Afghanistan on the other side, fundamentalist Iran finds itself sandwiched between two fledging democracies.

Fox news saying it just doesn't make it so. What we have are two failures at democracy sitting as shining examples of US intervention.

That tends to put a damper, if only a limited one, on Irans voracious appetite for the export of arms and terrorism.

Do you honestly see this happening? Or is this something that will be the result in the long term?

Second, it is becoming increasingly apparent in many Iraqi communities that neither the Sunnis or Shiites are particularly enamored with the blood-thirsty totalitarianism of Al Queda and Taliban fundamentalists. More and more, Iraqi citizens are either turning these extremists in to coalition forces or taking these thugs to task themselves at the muzzle point of an AK-47.

Agreed. But for me it is no surprise that people do not want this chaos in their neighborhoods or cities.

Before the invasion there was no Taliban or Al-Quaeda in Iraq. It is disingenuous to imply we went to Iraq for those purposes. They followed us there, not the other way around.

But the main question for Harry Reid, John Murtha, and the other quitters is, what happens in Iraq and the region should the U.S. prematurely depart? If you think Iraq is a bloodbath now, just wait and see what happens next. The Killing Fields will be back with a vengeance.

I personally do not see a silver lining around the Iraq fiasco cloud. If things continues as they are, I would expect our puppet regime to fall by the end of next year. After this happens I can only imagine the result.

Our troops are a lightening rod, there is no doubt we are the primary unit maintaining order in the country, but our being there is part of the dividing line.

We can't leave until things are stable, and our presence is a significant destabilizing force. A bit of a catch-22 to say the least, but isn't it a bit hypocritical to bemoan the potential for disaster after we leave, when none of this would have happened if we had not gone in the first place?

Anyone who ever backed coalition forces would be hunted down like the Jews under Adolph Hitler.

What if someone invaded the USA? Inevitably there would be collaborators, wouldn't you want their heads on a stick?

Nor would the Kurds escape. Their way of life is over too. Once that holocaust ends, and it will go on for quite some time, then you are left with pro-terrorist nations Iran, Iraq, and Syria dominating the Middle East, and very likely the Persian Gulf. Who then will be next? And there will be a "next." Very likely, Saudi Arabia and, most certainly, Israel.

Keep preaching man. Your only showing what a piss poor position the pathetic execution of this war has put us in. You Keep ignoring the fact that Saddam was hated by Syria and Iran. That he was a stumbling block in their way.

You keep painting nightmare scenarios, unfortunately most of them I consider legitimate. But you continue to overlook how we got here. Our invasion has been the key for the rise in terrorism in Iraq as well as the rise of the shia in Iraq and their ties with Iran.

We have also weakened the position of our "friends" in the region. It does not suit US interests to have put the Saudi Govt in such a weak position as we have through undermining the entire region. If it goes we could be looking at an extreme increase in petroleum prices in very rapid order.

And then the vicious circle of far-left liberal statesmanship will become complete.

FFS. We have been watching a right wing circle come to completion, not left.
1. We go to Iraq to fight terrorism.
2. Terrorists come to Iraq to fight us.
3. Then we say we can't leave, there are terrorists here.
4. Terrorists keep coming because we are there.

Get the picture?

Calls for sanctions will once more abound.

Like the ones that worked to keep Saddam under control for better than a decade?

All thats left is for them to go home, wring their hands, and wait for Osama and Company to eventually come calling. And they will. You can count on it.

It always astounds me how narrow the vision of some can be. Personally I fail to understand how fear can drive people to do the things they do. As distasteful as I find getting a building blown up, I would prefer to see it happen annually than to give up my freedom in a failed effort to be safe.

The Bush mentality has played perfectly into the hands of our enemies. We have shown ourselves to be fearful children who spend our time reacting to every event with fear and awe.

Instead reaching out to people and building consensus with more moderate influences, we have only made their job more difficult and swayed Islamic opinion further against us.

[opus49]

Quick History lesson for you, There were no WMD in Iraq.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4996218

Well technically, there "were" WMD in Iraq. In fact, Saddam used them against Iran and his own people. But I suspect you meant to say that there were no WMD in Iraq when the U.S. invaded. It's an important distinction.

Somewhere along the way, the fact that Iraq possessed and utilized WMD has been dismissed. To this day, nobody can adequately explain what happened to large portions of Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

...and swayed Islamic opinion further against us.

Yeah, before this war we never had a problem with any Islamists.

[Vladd44]

But I suspect you meant to say that there were no WMD in Iraq when the U.S. invaded.

No I was talking about the fact there were no WMD in Iraq when the Babylonians were in power.

Yeah, before this war we never had a problem with any Islamists.

...and swayed Islamic opinion further against us.

[opus49]

...and swayed Islamic opinion further against us.

What part of being the Great Satan is ambiguous?

So, are we still at risk for swaying them even further? Perhaps right now they only really want to kill us. But if we piss them off any further, they will really, really want to kill us?

[Vladd44]

What part of being the Great Satan is ambiguous?

It is false to imply that all muslims consider us the great satan. Instead of trying to be civil, how about joining the not using gross exaggeration group?