When IS it colonialism/when is it liberation?or why do we oppose Iraq war?

[Cats Against Frist]

I've been thinking about this for some time -- how the foreign policies of the parties are so fucked up - political re-alignment and all. It seems that large factions of Democrats (outside the DLC, of course) opposed the Iraq war. However, Democrats have, historically, lent their support to war and liberation efforts. If I'm not mistaken -- didn't Democrats start Vietnam? And if I'm also not mistaken, Jimmy Carter had his fingers in both Middle East and Latin American shenanigans. And then there was Bill Clinton's Balkan stuff.

I ask this question for a couple of reasons. One, I am stunned that I have no real answer to the "so how come you supported Clinton's sending troops to Yugoslavia and not Bush sending troops to Iraq?"

First, even though I didn't necessarily support that, because I had no clue that it was happening, being high on the pyrotechnic rap explosion and Corona and buffalo wings that was the "roaring 90s."

Second -- I know there's a divide here on DU about whether Wes Clark is a war criminal -- with some of his staunchest defenders the most serious of the Bush detractors.

Now, before anyone accuses me of anything -- I full well know how the Military-Industrial complex works and how the "war machine" is an integral part of the economy -- and in the end, it's all about money, right? I know how the GOP operates -- crony capitalism, down and dirty, etc.

And though I don't believe for 2 seconds that the real reason that we invaded Iraq was for "liberation," -- not least of all because the US is going to sell the country off, piece by piece to foreign investors, and that Big Agra has claimed eminent domain over Iraqi seeds that they've used for thousands of years, or that there's more US military bases in Iraq than there are Wal-Marts in Iowa, or that seeing through Bush's attempt to connect Saddam to 9-11 is as easy as spotting the gin blossoms on his cheekbones.

I don't trust the Republicans -- but I've often thought about this -- particularly when I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan the isolationist, and thinking about the "just society" and the fact that intervention and "democratic" expansion has been limited to the right by no means -- Why do we oppose the Iraq war?

I can tell you why I do: the lies, the bravado, the neocons, the fact that we can't have one honest conversation about things in this nation -- that even if Saddam was a brutal dictator, and everything liberal interventionist says that we should have taken him out that the WAY we did it was disgraceful. I'm dismayed that we hide our true motivations (the hegemonics, the resources, the stratego, the war machine-economy linkage, the pork, looking out for number one at all costs) behind this weird-o moral fake Christ and freedom narrative that really clashes with what this is all about -- pure animalistic survival. The contradictions in this are mind blowing. Maybe there's an argument to be made for making sure we have access to Middle Eastern oil. But why are they loathe to admit it -- instead, turning to sentiment, narrative, myth -- anything to get around having to admit it?

What are we ashamed to admit about ourselves?

For some people -- is it just pacifism? What if you're not a pacifist? Surely, if the new Iraqi government works out to anything good (and I'm not optimistic) isn't that a REAL silver lining -- in some way -- not just something to grumble about? If you're a pacifist -- how do you see yourself in the Democratic party? IS the Democratic party the party of pacifism? I don't really think so -- but I'm interested in what others think.

What would have made this a "just" intervention? And for those of you who do believe in taking action when necessary -- why not this action? Because it takes away from the pursuit of al Quaeda? Is it simply a timing issue? Is it simply that Bush and the neocons bungled the occupation? Is it the money?

I'm simply curious as to different opinions on this.

[jojo54]

1. Bush's reasons for this war is what I'm against

We all know they were bullshit reasons. We all know that he had this planned before 9/11 - that was just his stepping stone. We all know that the BFEE is making $$ hand over fist off this war. We all know that this is just revenge for Daddy.

Look at all the torture and murder going on in the Congo. Isn't that as bad or even worse than Hussein? But no, we can't do anything about that 'cause we all know there's NO OIL in the Congo!

Bush never makes mistakes, he just creates them!

[Crunchy Frog]

2. In my opinion "liberation" is an illegitimate

reason for war. There's alot of reasons why I think that. For one thing, there is no single standard which we apply accross the board for who is an evil dictator whose people must be liberated, and who is our good buddy whose human rights violations we'll simply overlook. It always ends up being about clothing our self interest in noble sounding language and it is always hypocritical.

I do think there are some legitimate uses of military force. One of those reasons is to stop one country from committing aggression against another country. I have always felt that the first Gulf War was legitimate for that reason, although I don't agree with all the tactics used, and it may be that there were means other than war to get Saddam out of Kuwait and if so, that would have been preferable to war.

I also think that genocide is a special circumstance that may justify military action. For that reason, I tend to believe that we did the right thing in Kosovo. Genocide is a much bigger deal than simply human rights abuses. I know that arguments have been made in favor of the Iraq invasion on the basis of genocide, but if it happened, it was a good 15 or so years before we invaded. Other ways in which Kosovo differed from Iraq: It was a very limited operation with a limited set of aims. We did not end up with a permanent occupation that had the responsibility for governing the area. We did not remove, or try to remove Milosevic from power. He was removed by his own people in the process of democratic elections.

This is my opinion on the differences. In my opinion, national sovereignty is fairly sacrosanct and should only be violated militarily if there is an urgent situation involving genocide or some other major catastrophe. That was clearly not the case with Iraq.

When you set a precendent for violating national sovereignty on any old whim, you're opening up a huge can of worms IMO. I mean, if we have the right to do it, doesn't everyone else whose powerful enough to get away with it? International law is based on an assumption that nations are soveriegn and have the right to not be invaded.

Historically I'm not sure that Democrats have really been much better about war and peace issues than Republicans. Vietnam is a good example of that. It could be argued that at the time, we believed in the domino theory and that it was urgent to stop Communism from getting a foothold in Southeast Asia. We were also taking over a colonial war from the French, so we weren't really dealing with a sovereign state. However, I regard those as being pretty poor excuses for something that had no actual justification.

The Democratic party has never been the party of pacifism, but the neocons are taking the ideology of war to a whole new level.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the issues you've brought up.

[Cats Against Frist]

9. I agree that we should never intervene or "liberate"

unless the situation is dire. That said, if every situation is subjective -- there are plenty of people who can make convincing cases that Saddam's treatment of his people were genocide and that there was no genocide in Kosovo. And not just freepers -- I've read very passionate arguments for and against the above possibilities, right here on DU.

And I've always struggled to figure out if "Domino Theory" made any sense, or not.

It's just weird. I don't agree with the neocons, but I've just been trying to expand my little circle of ponderance -- and I'm wondering about how and when force is justified. And that if these interventions were REALLY done in an honest way, that was meant to better the people of the nation, instead of just ourselves, if it can be a really good thing.

I'm a libertarian, so I'm opposed to pre-emption, simply because of the idea that we're to stay out of others' affairs. However, when you say that we have a right to "defend" the nation -- how much does that include?

Thank you for responding.

[EFerrari]

3. It should make us all uncomfortable that this intervention

is the remedy for our last intervention -- installing the Ba'the party in the first place.

That brutal dictator was our homey until we decided he wasn't. So, this is clearly not about liberating anything except resources into the pockets of a few Bu$h family friends and their exploiters.

[Cats Against Frist]

10. That's an extraordinarily good point -- and part of the reason that

I'm against this war -- I think this situation falls under the "honest dialogue" part. It is clear that part of this situation is the result of something we already went meddling in, in the first place. We don't admit these things. We don't talk about these things.

I'm wondering who is being protected by this -- what myth? Morally, what would this force us to confront in ourselves? And if the Religious Right can be so callous and hateful to the people in their own nation - what would it matter if they knew what the government was doing. And, if I'm not mistaken, the church has been doing as much "fucking up" of developing nations as the government.

It's this "defenses" thing -- like the defenses of an immature, tortured, VERY much in denial psychological basket case is the spirit of our foreign policy. Who's neurosis is it?

[EFerrari]

13. Easy. Or not, depending on how strong your stomach is.

People want to feel safe, no matter what.

They will buy that at any price, even with their own children, apparently.

So, let them believe they're in danger and bingo, you're king of the hill.

Not saying this with any pleasure at all.

[LdyGuique]

4. There is no one truth about any of this

I believe that we entered Kosovo to stop the genocidal practices of the Serbs, which were well documented and there was world opinion that gathered over the months preceding NATO sending troops in (we were part of a NATO action).

As far as I know, LBJ invented the cause for entering VietNam. It actually started years before. When the French were evicted from VietNam in 1956, it was known that Ho Chi Minh was a communist. Because the US was so anti-communist, Eisenhower forced a partitioning of VietNam -- with all communists or followers of Ho to move north; and forced relocation of all others to the south -- where a dictator/democracy was formed. And, so it went. All of the rhetoric of "domino theory" of communism reaching its tentacles oout to take all of SE Asia.

In fact, it acted as a safety valve of keeping Russia and the US from going toe-to-toe -- Russia supported N. VietNam and the US S. Vietnam. China was supporting Cambodia and N. Korea.

As for Iraq, as far as I can tell from everything I've read, LameDuck had decided to invade Iraq, under the counselling of Ken Rove. Rove believed that if LD were a "war president" that he would get a full 8 years to implement the various neocon political goals, which include the beginning of the end for SS (they do want to eliminate it enitrely) and solidification of globalization, etc. The PNAC website (Project for New American Century) has a full report, which includes language of a PERMANENT military presence in the ME -- to control the oil for American interests.

Neo-liberalism economics which have been growing during the past 25 years is part and parcel of the neocons economic plans for world domination.

It's ugly and complex -- and none of the rhetroic matches the true reasons.

[ComerPerro]

5. It was never about liberation, it was never about the Iraqi people

And, where the hell is bin Laden?

Those are my reasons.

[Dangerman]

7. I agree

This war is a lie from day 1.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Just Don't Think We Should Let Our Contempt For Bush* Blind Us To

the fact that the world is a dangerous place populated by bad actors who harm their own people and would harm others if given the chance....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Subscribe To The Just War Doctrine...

It is a useful checklist to see if military action is justified...

[Disturbed]

11. Bogus reasons.

All of the reasons were bogus.

Why was Iraq invaded?

Because of three things:

1) Iraq being cleared of WMD by the UNMOVIC/UNSCOM meant Desert Storm (when Saddam went off the reservation) was over and sanctions had to be lifted.

2) Iraq had European contracts for their oil.

3) Iraq was going to trade the oil in Euros not petrodollars.

"Remember, Bush/Saud are the same thing. BDM/Vinnel (Carlyle at the time) arm, train, equip man what keeps Saud in power. Saudi crude funds the whole Bush/Saud crew. Iraq suddenly free again to sell its oil, and in Euros not only screws Bush/Saud, but would cripple the US economy along multiple fracture lines.

First and obviously, having the 2nd largest oil reserve of accessible crude come onto the market will drive the value of Saudi crude into the basement. That Iraq would end run the rest of OPEC to make up for a decade of being starved would scatter the cartel members into the winds to fend for themselves. So what is better, to let Iraq crude take out your own operation at the knees or take it over and roll it into the same portfolio.

Second, because Iraq was gonna devalue your own assets in the first place, doing so outside our traditional partner firms and with European (French, Russian, German) firms visions of Chinnese orders means you are not getting a swing at that crude even in the rest of the chain.

Third, and most critical (and actually more "forgivable" in a strange circumpolar way) is that trading in Euros not petrodollars collapse our capital market funding of our debt and deficits, both Governmental budget and general economic. If China (as its demand for oil goes through the roof in the next 10 years) starts trading with Iraq, and the Euro becomes the currency for oil (not to mention it is already on the edge of surpassing the dollar for capital markets anyway base don value as it is) suddenly China has no need to continue to buy our debt. It would get more of a return in Euros, plus it buys oil form Iraq in Euros."
Christian Parenti

[Cats Against Frist]

12. I think it's a good start

but almost everything is still subjective, and you could make an argument that fits into the principles fairly easy, that may or may not be true. For instance, you could argue, as above, that genocide is a "last resort" situation, but to what extent, and when that genocide occured, could be significantly more elusive. I think the same is the case with Iraq and the phantom WMDs.


Do you think that there was any urgency? Seems that with all the people who've died in the Middle East, the situation is seriously fucked up over there, and though I don't believe that we entered on the side of justice, if a more honest assesment came to conclude that something needed to be done, and all efforts were made to do justice to the Iraqis, or whichever citizenry -- would it then be justified, under the same terms.

There is too, this idea that intervention must provide more peace than the previous situation, and I've been hearing how the Shi'a have won big in this election, and could align the country with Iran, possibly contributing to a more perilous post-war situation.

And if the neocons were HONEST about what they are trying to do, which is mostly to assure U.S. access to a dwindling oil supply -- why ISN'T that a good argument. Fried corpses aside, what happens here when the oil runs out?

There is a movie called "The End of Suburbia," which I haven't watched, but that I was watching the previews for, that made me start thinking about all of this. I definitely believe in the sovereignty of nations, but if the case can be made, environmentally, that the air and water are public, on a global scale, could the argument not be made that the oil needs to flow for the benefit of humanity?

I realize there is much more here, including reluctance to use and transfer our energy needs away from those which are powered by fossil fuels -- and though I do believe that there is a lot of cronyism going on, it seems to me that these companies could make a lot MORE money, if they came up with the clean-burning, alternative energy system o the future. Or do they simpy worship at the alter of oil, like it's some kind of fetish?

At any rate, they're sneaky, and they lie -- which is the worst part.

[freddyc]

14. Vietnam

Read Gary Porters book. See the way JFK pasionately argued against the proposed 54 elections in VN as Ho Chi Minh would win. See the way the Dems started a holocaust in asia, by the US govts figures (released 1984) killing 3.8m vietnamese, 800 thousand from Laos and 800 thousand from Cambiodia...5.4m dead.

Its the way the USA has fought democracy around the world...

[EFerrari]

15. Democracy around the world was only collateral damage

We did a lot of posturing and warring to show the Soviet we were serious about our survival. We're doing the same now.

And, it's still the wrong thing to do.

on edit: forgot to remind myself: this is hugely profitable for the BFEE.