Last combat brigade leaves Iraq.

[Dave Gray]

^^ Afghanistan still has active troops in combat.

We were talking about the Iraq troops being gone.

[StL FinFan]

^ There are still troops left there to help train the Iraqi military and police.  There are just no longer combat troops there.

[Phishfan]

I think it's interesting that pretty much EVERYONE now claims they were always against the war.

Sure as hell wasn't like that early on.

Take a look back and see where I stood. I never supported the Iraq war and neither did Dave.

[fyo]

Take a look back and see where I stood. I never supported the Iraq war and neither did Dave.

My statement was a general observation, not directed at any individual.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Take a look back and see where I stood. I never supported the Iraq war and neither did Dave.

Board only goes back to Aug 2003.  War began in March of 2003.  Bush declared victory in May 2003.  I was among those whose opinion of the war changed in June/July 2003 when the evidence came out that George W. Bush had lied to the American public. 

So one can not really go back and see where you stood.  Not that I don't believe you, just saying that verification is impossible. 

I freely admit I have waffled.  Blix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush. 

[JVides]

I was actually for it, and am not ashamed to admit it.  

First, I believe we should be in the business of rooting out tyranny.  I think that, as powerful as we are, we should be a force of good in the world.  Leaders that mass-murder their own should be removed from power (forcibly, if necessary).  Any argument to the contrary is, in my view, sheer national cowardice in the face of a moral obligation to assist those who cannot assist themselves.  We shake our heads at what goes on, in, say, Darfur (or, more to the point, to the Kurds in Iraq), and say "if only someone could help those poor people...".  Well, we could help those people!  Anyway, I know this is a deeply unpopular view of things, as no one likes being called a coward, so I will end it there.

Second, I believe Bush Jr. and his people viewed Iraq as a chance to make lasting change in the Middle East by engaging in nation building of the one country with enough going for it (economically) to one day become a pillar, or model, of democratic life in the Middle East.  This was clearly not executed correctly, but it is tantalizing to think of what may be if Iraq successfully navigates the next 20 to 50 years to become a working democracy that helps to stabilize the region.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I was actually for it, and am not ashamed to admit it. 

First, I believe we should be in the business of rooting out tyranny.  I think that, as powerful as we are, we should be a force of good in the world.  Leaders that mass-murder their own should be removed from power (forcibly, if necessary).  Any argument to the contrary is, in my view, sheer national cowardice in the face of a moral obligation to assist those who cannot assist themselves.  We shake our heads at what goes on, in, say, Darfur (or, more to the point, to the Kurds in Iraq), and say "if only someone could help those poor people...".  Well, we could help those people!  Anyway, I know this is a deeply unpopular view of things, as no one likes being called a coward, so I will end it there.

Fine make that case, BEFORE the war.  Lying about WMD and then playing the humanitarian angle after the truth about the fraud come out is wrong.   And if we care about the humanitarian rights, than Darfur is a higher priority.  The human rights abuses in Darfur are significantly greater than the exaggerated reports about the Kurds.  Protecting human rights might be a valid reason to go to war, it was the basis of our failed incursion into Somalia.   But it is the only time the country has gone to war for human rights reason. 

Second, I believe Bush Jr. and his people viewed Iraq as a chance to make lasting change in the Middle East by engaging in nation building of the one country with enough going for it (economically) to one day become a pillar, or model, of democratic life in the Middle East.  This was clearly not executed correctly, but it is tantalizing to think of what may be if Iraq successfully navigates the next 20 to 50 years to become a working democracy that helps to stabilize the region.

I hope you are right, but I think the Bills have a better chance at going 19-0 this season, than Iraq has of becoming a long term stable democracy. 

[Sunstroke]

First, I believe we should be in the business of rooting out tyranny.  I think that, as powerful as we are, we should be a force of good in the world.

A couple of thoughts on this, and please don't mistake this as me being against or for anything...just rambling aloud here:

* Are we applying our own ideas of what is good and what isn't good?
     * Isn't our national determination of good dictated by the tenets of Christianity?
     * Wouldn't it be majorly presumptuous to apply Christian standards of "good" to non-Christian countries?
     * What part of "we want the oil under your country" gets placed under the "doing good" heading?

* Other countries are powerful as well...should we necessarily shoulder the entire burden of being the world's moral hallway monitor?

[Phishfan]

My statement was a general observation, not directed at any individual.

Aha, my bad. I just assumed it was about the comments in the thread.

[Phishfan]

I was actually for it, and am not ashamed to admit it.  

First, I believe we should be in the business of rooting out tyranny.  I think that, as powerful as we are, we should be a force of good in the world.  Leaders that mass-murder their own should be removed from power (forcibly, if necessary).  Any argument to the contrary is, in my view, sheer national cowardice in the face of a moral obligation to assist those who cannot assist themselves.  We shake our heads at what goes on, in, say, Darfur (or, more to the point, to the Kurds in Iraq), and say "if only someone could help those poor people...".  Well, we could help those people!  Anyway, I know this is a deeply unpopular view of things, as no one likes being called a coward, so I will end it there.

Second, I believe Bush Jr. and his people viewed Iraq as a chance to make lasting change in the Middle East by engaging in nation building of the one country with enough going for it (economically) to one day become a pillar, or model, of democratic life in the Middle East.  This was clearly not executed correctly, but it is tantalizing to think of what may be if Iraq successfully navigates the next 20 to 50 years to become a working democracy that helps to stabilize the region.

If that is your position, fine. But you need to be beating the drum of invading more countries because there are several others out there (and I haven't heard you beat that drum).

[JVides]

To Hoodie:

No argument there.

To Sunstroke:

By good, I mean making sure your own government isn't trying to kill you, or standing idly by while someone else does.  I don't mean to make them good little Christians, by any stretch of the imagination.

As for other countries being powerful as well, I agree that they should also be involved.  Ideally, action to weed out a despot would be a multi-national undertaking.  The problem is that national cowardice isn't just our disease.  The UN doesn't get behind many military resolutions.  Africa gets abandoned, constantly.  It took so much for them to even get involved in the Bosnia / Serbia "ethnic cleansing"...basically, waiting on everyone else to offer up assistance is like watching middle school boys and girls stand at either side of a gym during a school dance (archaic reference?).  Someone's gotta have the balls to get the dance started.

[JVides]

If that is your position, fine. But you need to be beating the drum of invading more countries because there are several others out there (and I haven't heard you beat that drum).

I do beat that drum.  Constantly.  Were you to gravedig back to the RunToWin days, you'd see I've always proposed that we should be in the business of basically ending the existence of these brutal "leaders", in many lands, because we should feel morally obligated to do so.

[fyo]

A couple of thoughts on this, and please don't mistake this as me being against or for anything...just rambling aloud here:

* Are we applying our own ideas of what is good and what isn't good?
     * Isn't our national determination of good dictated by the tenets of Christianity?
     * Wouldn't it be majorly presumptuous to apply Christian standards of "good" to non-Christian countries?
     * What part of "we want the oil under your country" gets placed under the "doing good" heading?

Since we're only talking about tyrants committing genocide, I don't think the finer points of religious morality come into the mix. Some things are clearly EVIL, regardless of ones religious beliefs.

* Other countries are powerful as well...should we necessarily shoulder the entire burden of being the world's moral hallway monitor?

The burden isn't even the problem, IMHO, it's the politics of deciding HOW to accomplish the nation building in the first place and WHAT to install afterwards. This is also where religion comes into the equation, but democracy pretty much takes care of that, if you're willing to allow the democracy the ability to abolish itself.

And, just to express my own stance on the issue, I believe we are all (regardless of religion, nationality, whatever) morally obligated to step in when something like genocide occurs (whether it be the gassing of Jews or Kurds, the massacre of Bosnians in Srebrenica, alternate mass-killings of Tutsis and Hutus (by the other) in Rwanda and Burundi, the Sudanese-backed Janjaweed killings of ethnic Africans, or any number of other examples in recent history).

There's always the question of what the cost is, how likely one is to succeed, etc. and I do recognize that those factors need to be included when deciding on a course of action. Still, just standing idly by doesn't seem acceptable.

[Dave Gray]

^ Genocide blows.

But I'm concerned with the "you break it, you buy it" that comes with invasion.  I think that stopping genocide (which we didn't do anyway) is all fine and good, but you have to make sure that you can restore order and that infrastructure and government are functional so that it's not just prolonged suffering.

[JVides]

^^^That should not be a reason to not step in, however.  I wouldn't not give someone the heimlich for fear of breaking his ribs, you know?

As ugly as it has been, Iraq may someday prove to be a model, of sorts, of how this should be done  (my severe happy goggles are on, I admit).  The fighting got messy.  Getting the government on its feet was and continues to be difficult and expensive.  If it works out, though, that country could be the bedrock upon which future democracies are founded.