US Supports Democracy?

problem is Oil was a major reason for our invasion, as cheap oil helps both Bush's pocketbook and the politics of the Republicans, because everyone, or seemingly everyone, loves cheap oil,

If that truly was the reason as you seem to think it is, then where is it? The cheap oil that is.

If that truly was the reason as you seem to think it is, then where is it? The cheap oil that is.

Is that the only part of the article you read?

No I read your *entire* article. However you made a blanket statement that is erroronius and I'm calling you on it. Can you answer the question or not?

"Further, we placed Saddam into power". ---Sandy2

Yes, we did, and for the millionth time I repeat this, we also took him out. We cleaned up our own mess. Or maybe you missed that part.
I, too, would like to see those cheap oil prices you claim were the reason for our going into Iraq. Gas here is over 2.15 a gallon.
If we support dictators, it is very, very likely that they have some "pro-American" or "anti-American enemies" stance that we require of them. It would be very stupid, not to mention counter-productive, of us to support anti-American dictators (for that we have Jimmy Carter and his foundation, anyway)
As it stands now, India has little to do with our war in Afghanistan, while Pakistan provides not just assistance but bases and supplies. That's why we support them. Same reason we supported Saddam and the Baathists...it was the Cold War, and they were anti-Red. Also, in the early 80s, he was embroiled in a war with Iran, our sworn enemy.

Our "hard stance" for democracy "throughout the world" in World War I didn't do much for the Russians, though, did it? And that "hard stance" weakened enough in the years after to allow for the rise of one of the most horrifying dictatorships ever known.
In fact, in order to fight that dictatorship, we allied ourselves with and aided the USSR, a dictatorship that had, to that point, killed over 40 million of its own people.

You do what you have to in this world. If that means supporting and allying with governments whose practices you find abhorrent, that's what it means.

Sandy, have heart. You're not going to win this one with these guys. Without anything to add to the argument, I just wanted to lend my support to you. again.

Sandy, have heart. You're not going to win this one with these guys

You're right...she's not.

If that truly was the reason as you seem to think it is, then where is it? The cheap oil that is.

The cheap oil is being bought by American companies and passed onto the consumer with greatly inflated profits. Nothing like helping out your friends.

The exporting democracy put-on is for national consumption and isn't really taken very seriously outside of North America. You have no idea how many drone-hawks use that line when all other arguments fail. It makes people think something good is being done and that somehow makes the death and carnage worth it. I'm going to teach you people here something right now and it's important so I'd appreciate your full attention please. *ahem* US foreign policy on Cuba in the 50's was that Cuba was Russia's paid thug under the Communist tentacles. When Communism collapsed and Cuba was free of the Communist Russian threat there should have been some sort of diplomatic effort on the part of the US to bring Cuba into its sphere, you know, since they were free of the Communist Russian tentacles and all. But the US drone population went from chanting "we hate communists" to "we love democracy" literally overnight, and the intellectual classes never blinked once. Never missed as beat. And as Chomsky said, the high level discussions about Cuba being how much of a threat and what can be done to counter this threat goes on as if it were serious. It can't possibly be serious. Like when Kennedy asked the President of Mexico for support against Cuba the mexican president said "I'd like to help you but if I went on tv and told the country Cuba was a threat 40 million Mexicans would die laughing".
Andways, same thing in Iraq. It went from "we're scared of Hussein and his WMD" to "We're bringing democracy to the Middle East". Load a tripe.

If that truly was the reason as you seem to think it is, then where is it? The cheap oil that is. The cheap oil is being bought by American companies and passed onto the consumer with greatly inflated profits. Nothing like helping out your friends.

Got any proof? Or is it only your opinion?

*boggle* I barely know where to start.


Since Japan and Germany are successful, it must have been greed that made us "impose" Democracy there? They aren't just partners, they are avid competitors. It would be silly to say that we made them economic powerhouses out of greed. They made THEMSELVES economic powerhouses because they had the freedom to do so.

Oil was not a reason for the Iraqi invasion, as evidenced by our complete and total lack of benefit. I think it is cute when people like Sandy pretend that it is all skeery coverup stuff, when in reality if it was just the oil we wanted we could have made Iraq a parking lot and taken all the oil we wanted. Many lives have been lost doing just the opposite, but Sandy has her petty political bullshit to persue, so respecting them is no priority.

The "democratic Iranian government" we overthrew in 1953 was Mohammed Mossadegh, who had forced the ruling Shah to turn over complete military and governmental control to him. He then nationalized almost everything, and imposed collective farming and governmental land ownership.

Is that guy what you would consider... democratic?

THe statement that the US "placed Saddam into power" is patently false. Sandy probably even knows this, though I feel sorry for her if not...

As for Pakistan and India there are abuses on both sides, and we support BOTH of them as far as their own behavior will permit. If we didn't Sandy would be here bitching about our lack of diplomacy.

Since... as always... bitching is the point, and the facts are secondary.

About not supporting India ...

Hell, sandy, do you even google the stuff people rattle off to you at DU or wherever you get this stuff? Or do you just swallow it and forget that it is hearsay?

THe statement that the US "placed Saddam into power"

Welll...we helped the Baathists to power....Saddam kind of came with them, and we supported him when his star rose.

Lets take a look at the changing reasons for Bush going to war in Iraq:

Iraq was a threat to the U S.

We could not wait for the smoking gun for it might be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities.

failure to obey UN resolutions

Saddam was an evil dictator

To get the oil (not said by Bush)

the most recent - spreading democracy theory


each time a rationale did not hold up for going to war, we changed the reason.

The cheap oil is being bought by American companies and passed onto the consumer with greatly inflated profits. Nothing like helping out your friends.

---whoman99

Last I checked, the oil we're buying was up to about 55 to 60 bucks a barrel. Is that cheap? I agree with Baker and dr....you're just a Bush-basher with an chip on your shoulder, an opinion and no backing.
I got it! How about if we start drilling in our national parks and use that oil to bring down the price of gas? Would you consider that an option?

How about requiring better gas mileage and investing in the development of alternate energy supplies?

The problem is Oil was a major reason for our invasion, as cheap oil helps both Bush's pocketbook and the politics of the Republicans, because everyone, or seemingly everyone, loves cheap oil, even at the cost of human lives.

To get the oil (not said by Bush)

The sooner you people get over your "oil war" conspiracies, the sooner people will take what you say seriously.

I do not know what was in the mind of George W. but I do believe that if he had gone to Congress and said I want authorization to invade Iraq so they can have free elections, he would have been told, NO! For any of you bloggers who believe the Congress would've approved going into Iraq if the reason were to hold elections I have some great oceanfront property in Montana at the bargain price of $20 a square foot for you!

I have some great oceanfront property in Montana at the bargain price of $20 a square foot for you!

I might just buy that oceanfront property in Montana at that price. Who gives a shit how far it is from the beach? That's a steal!
And besides, if all the global warming nuts are right, give it a few years, and who knows.....maybe it really WOULD be oceanfront property!

I do not know what was in the mind of George W. but I do believe that if he had gone to Congress and said I want authorization to invade Iraq so they can have free elections, he would have been told, NO!

This is true, but maybe he was just following the lead of Lyndon Johnson, who wanted to go into Vietnam, but had no real reason until a pissant little North Vietnamese gunboat attacked a US destroyer.
Perhaps not the best example in this argument, I know, but my point is that somtimes to get what you want you have to present other reasons.
We know it wasn't cheaper oil he wanted.
What else could it have been? I've said before that I think he wanted to clean up the mess the UN wouldn't let his father take care of, something both sides of the fence agreed should have been done in 1991.
At the time we invaded, all and sundry seemed sure (and had been for years, because of intellignece they all had agreed was on target) that the WMDs were a looming threat that had to be neutralized. When that was proven not to be the case, however (as has been said time and time again on these forums), those on the Democratic team forgot their concerns and started the Bush-bashing.

Yes, there probably are hidden agendas....there usualy are in these cases, in fact, but so what? If we are successful in this, Iraq can join our club and be a truly free nation for the first time their history, and what can possibly be wrong with that?

If there is a similarity with Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam it merely points to the fact that George W. Bush hasn't learned from history. We were told that if South Vietnam fell the domino theory was going to destroy all of that area and it would go communist. Not only was that untrue but we put ourselves in the middle of a Civil War that the United States population did not support.

The base issue here is was the president truthful about his reasons for invading Iraq? I don't think you can make a case for that premise given his current rational and if we can not believe our president on something as basic as going to war, we have a real problem in our democracy.

The base issue here is was the president truthful about his reasons for invading Iraq? I don't think you can make a case for that premise given his current rational and if we can not believe our president on something as basic as going to war, we have a real problem in our democracy.

Then you don't understand politics....with virtually every law that is passed, for example, riders are often added at the last minute. These are then squeaked into law under the vote, very often without the knowledge of the people, or even of those actually voting on them.
The result is the same as what you described above...those supporting the riders get what they want without actually explaining the whys, hows and wherefores of what they want; yet, we all believe that the vote was only for the bill as it was originally presented.
The underlying mechanics of politics lie in subterfuge and manipulation of the system. A cynical view, I know, but a truthful one.

South Vietnam was not a true democracy when we went in, and we did nothing to ensure the growth of a healthy, stable democratic government while there; we continued to support the dictatorship. (and therein lies the difference, and how Bush HAS learned from the past)
This caused the people South Vietnam to become more or less ambivalent to the reasons why we were fighting for them. So, if they lost, one dictatorship would be replaced with another. So what?
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but the people of Iraq are on, or are increasingly coming to, our side. The police and military forces are growing, despite the mortal danger that is present from the insurgents, who, more and more, are targeting Iraqis instead of just the foreign "invaders".

I understand politicians lie but to have a president of United States go before Congress and the American people what the rationale to go to war that is untrue cannot be explained away by saying it's politics as usual. There is nothing more fundamental than going to war with respect to the responsibilities of the president United States.

The cheap oil is being bought by American companies and passed onto the consumer with greatly inflated profits. Nothing like helping out your friends.

This is a patently false statement. Oil production and refining are both at capacity with ever-increasing demand. This is what is causing the increase in price.

While I agree that oil was a motivation for the Iraq war -- you all at least have to admit that the Bushies told us oil would pay for the invasion and reconstruction -- it hasn't worked out as planned because the infrastructure in Iraq was worse than expected plus insurgents have made life hell for oil workers. So 'cheap oil' isn't going to happen, sorry.

The "democratic Iranian government" we overthrew in 1953 was Mohammed Mossadegh, who had forced the ruling Shah to turn over complete military and governmental control to him. He then nationalized almost everything, and imposed collective farming and governmental land ownership.

I gotta agree with this one. While the US puppet Pahlavi was a corrupt and misguided leader, characterizing Mossadegh's government as "democratic" is stretching the point past credibility. Mossadegh was most likely involved with the assassination of Haji-Ali Razmara who was elected prime minister in 1950.

Mossadegh's socialist programs plunged Iran into massive debt, and his policies and ties to communist factions pretty much rule out a "democratic" designation. I don't think US involvement in his overthrow was right, but it was a case of either having a Soviet puppet in Mossadegh or a US puppet in Pahlavi. A rock and a hard place, if you will.

The same can be said of the US support of bin Laden and Hussein. Hindsight is 20/20, and I disagree with a lot of what the US did in the 80s with these guys, but I've got to admit that there WAS a point to it all.

Geez, I'm sounding all moderate. I need to go read some Noam Chomsky and watch "Roger and Me" or something...

Cheers.

I understand politicians lie but to have a president of United States go before Congress and the American people what the rationale to go to war that is untrue cannot be explained away by saying it's politics as usual. There is nothing more fundamental than going to war with respect to the responsibilities of the president United States.

I agree with this, but this entire argument is academic.
We don't know what his reasons really were or why he felt that way. Look, COL, we went to war because a majority on BOTH sides of the aisle agreed that the WMDs had to be taken care of. They all agreed on their existence, and their threat.
They're not there (which doesn't really mean anything; they could just as easily have been trucked into Syria); okay...

Plan B: We're trying to make it right by the people of Iraq by toppling their dictator (which SHOULD have been done YEARS ago, but wasn't), giving them democracy and its standard of living, in return for demolishing their country for seemingly nothing, and also as repayment for helping into power those that oppressed them for so long. Shame on us.

Hindsight is 20/20, and I disagree with a lot of what the US did in the 80s with these guys, but I've got to admit that there WAS a point to it all.

WOW!!!!!!...is this Myrrander???? Hello! Hello, McFly! Anybody home? I'm knocked out!
Moderate indeed. There may be hope for redemption in you yet, you (formerly) hopeless pinko commie Sumbitch.

Things that seem like a good idea at the time often do come back to bite you in the ass in the long run. It's a fact of life, and especially of international relations.

I admit that the intelligence was not great but the intelligence did tell Mr. Bush that there were no nuclear weapons. Even if Saddam had chemical or Bio weapons, it was not a threat to the United States. If we attacked every country that have had chemical and biological weapons, we would be at war all over the world. This is not an academic argument it's a very real issue as to why the United States went to war and what the Congress and the American people were told by our president. If the president really had in his mind giving the Iraqi people an opportunity to vote when he went to war, that is the reason he should have given to the Congress and the American people not that we were in danger of being attacked by Saddam Hussein.