Comments on: Iraq http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/ Pride goeth before a fall. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:34:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Justin http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-5478 Justin Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:20:10 +0000 http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-5478 So you admit that the invasion of Iraq was irrational? Why should we do anything in foreign policy that serves no rational interest? The U.S. had already demonstrated its "power" in Afghanistan and had the world's support and sympathy. Invading an oil-rich nation in the heart of the Arab/Muslim world, and doing so virtually unilaterally, has damaged not only our credibility but also our image to those millions of young Muslims in the world who hear Osama bin Laden calling the U.S., in effect, an "evil empire." You're operating under a series of assumptions about what the motivations for invading Iraq were, most of which are mistaken. Iraq was not a response to 9/11 on the part of the U.S. government in the sense that you're thinking - that was Afghanistan. It may have been justified by invoking 9/11, but it was not a reaction to it whatsoever. OK, and I just read where you said to expel all Muslims from the country - this is getting a bit crazy. I agree with Mitch, we do need to return to the traditional U.S. position of neutrality and stop the empire-building. And it is crucial, crucial, to keep in mind that it is on the Republican side today that you have the empire-builders, the supporters of the Imperial Presidency. The spirit of a more humble foreign policy is alive, but only OUTSIDE the Republican party. As you can see with Ron Paul, he is being marginalized and practically pushed out of the race by orthodox Republicans. Hmmmm...why is it so important that they silence him? Because his rhetoric punctures the Republican noise machine "bubble" where they never hear fundamentally opposing views that point out the madness they have embarked on. If we want a humble foreign policy, Ron Paul is a good choice on the Republican side. Problem is, he will never get through their primary because the base has become so extreme. We would be better served by an Obama, Dodd, or Gore candidacy than anything else. So you admit that the invasion of Iraq was irrational? Why should we do anything in foreign policy that serves no rational interest? The U.S. had already demonstrated its “power” in Afghanistan and had the world’s support and sympathy. Invading an oil-rich nation in the heart of the Arab/Muslim world, and doing so virtually unilaterally, has damaged not only our credibility but also our image to those millions of young Muslims in the world who hear Osama bin Laden calling the U.S., in effect, an “evil empire.”

You’re operating under a series of assumptions about what the motivations for invading Iraq were, most of which are mistaken. Iraq was not a response to 9/11 on the part of the U.S. government in the sense that you’re thinking - that was Afghanistan. It may have been justified by invoking 9/11, but it was not a reaction to it whatsoever. OK, and I just read where you said to expel all Muslims from the country - this is getting a bit crazy.

I agree with Mitch, we do need to return to the traditional U.S. position of neutrality and stop the empire-building. And it is crucial, crucial, to keep in mind that it is on the Republican side today that you have the empire-builders, the supporters of the Imperial Presidency. The spirit of a more humble foreign policy is alive, but only OUTSIDE the Republican party. As you can see with Ron Paul, he is being marginalized and practically pushed out of the race by orthodox Republicans. Hmmmm…why is it so important that they silence him? Because his rhetoric punctures the Republican noise machine “bubble” where they never hear fundamentally opposing views that point out the madness they have embarked on.

If we want a humble foreign policy, Ron Paul is a good choice on the Republican side. Problem is, he will never get through their primary because the base has become so extreme. We would be better served by an Obama, Dodd, or Gore candidacy than anything else.

]]> By: Mitch/Redoubt10 http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2353 Mitch/Redoubt10 Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:06:27 +0000 http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2353 We need to return to the policy regarding the MidEast of the 1950s: no arms for Israel, and neither for its adversaries. The private defense industry can go hang themselves - or should they be hanged?? We need to return to the policy regarding the MidEast of the 1950s: no arms for Israel, and neither for its adversaries. The private defense industry can go hang themselves - or should they be hanged??

]]> By: you're an idiot http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2351 you're an idiot Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:26:40 +0000 http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2351 wow, you're a stupid @#$%. you should re-enlist, you'd be valuable in clearing IED's so the soldiers who aren't already brain damaged might make it out alive. [Never let it be said that the blog censors negative feedback.  Not planning on re-enlisting at my age, sorry.  ---Ed.] wow, you’re a stupid @#$%. you should re-enlist, you’d be valuable in clearing IED’s so the soldiers who aren’t already brain damaged might make it out alive.

[Never let it be said that the blog censors negative feedback.  Not planning on re-enlisting at my age, sorry.  —Ed.]

]]> By: nhel70 http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2350 nhel70 Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:54:10 +0000 http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2350 We cant leve Iraq until Osama is caught We cant leve Iraq until Osama is caught

]]> By: Howard J. Harrison http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2349 Howard J. Harrison Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:37:00 +0000 http://econnat.us/2007/08/iraq/#comment-2349 I would add one comment which does not really belong in the article proper, regarding Kurdistan. Americans should not cynically oppose the dream of the Kurds to have their own nation-state. Neither should we naively support it. We should let the Kurds alone. We are often reminded that Turkey will not stand for an independent Kurdistan. This may be, but even if so, how much better do the Kurds know it than we? The Turks are not our foes but neither really are they our friends. Americans do not share, nor should we support, Turkey's program to suppress Kurdish national ambitions. If the Kurds will fight themselves to establish their own nation, then we should not stand in their way. In fact, it is probable that an independent Kurdistan would make rather more reliable a friend to the United States than would a whole Turkey. All things considered, Kurdish national ambitions are something we should gently encourage, inasmuch as we take any position on them at all. <em>HJH</em> I would add one comment which does not really belong in the article proper, regarding Kurdistan. Americans should not cynically oppose the dream of the Kurds to have their own nation-state. Neither should we naively support it. We should let the Kurds alone.

We are often reminded that Turkey will not stand for an independent Kurdistan. This may be, but even if so, how much better do the Kurds know it than we? The Turks are not our foes but neither really are they our friends. Americans do not share, nor should we support, Turkey’s program to suppress Kurdish national ambitions. If the Kurds will fight themselves to establish their own nation, then we should not stand in their way.

In fact, it is probable that an independent Kurdistan would make rather more reliable a friend to the United States than would a whole Turkey. All things considered, Kurdish national ambitions are something we should gently encourage, inasmuch as we take any position on them at all.

HJH

]]>