RE: President Bush The Smarter Has Passed Away
December 2, 2018 at 10:48 am
(This post was last modified: December 2, 2018 at 10:52 am by Cherub786.)
(December 2, 2018 at 10:29 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The simple problem with blaming Bush, Sr. with not taking out Iraq is that doing so would not have been a just war and would have compromised our aims in the region and elsewhere by setting a precedent that the U.S. was willing to shamelessly engage in conquest and imperialism for unjustifiable reasons. A precedent that would have had far reaching and damaging consequences. Bush, Jr. realized this. That's why he manufactured the charge of harboring WMDs in violation of UN agreements and violating the no-fly zone. Bush, Jr. attempted to give a war on Iraq the legitimacy that it would have lacked under Bush, Sr. To say that Bush, Sr. was a failure for not engaging in an unjust war is simply short sighted thinking, concentrating only on the immediate goal of regime change in Iraq, and ignoring the consequences of engaging in such without adequate moral justification. It is not only immoral, it is bad policy.
Why did the US, under Bush Sr., encourage an internal revolt in Iraq with the aim of overthrowing Saddam?
It has nothing to do with imperialism or conquest. Once free, Iraq auctioned and contracted its oil to the Chinese.
WMDs and oil were just a pretext. The real reason was to get rid of a dictator like Saddam. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters and that's all the justification needed.
When troops were already on the ground in Kuwait, it was just a matter of crossing the border and heading north a few miles to Baghdad. Bush Senior made a blunder just admit it.
Instead, we allowed Iraq a full decade to regroup and try to recover. That partly explains why the insurgency during the Second Gulf War was so intense. The Baathists were preparing for it and had increasingly militarized the Sunni triangle. They knew they could never defend against the Americans in a conventional war, which is why they didn't even try in 2003.
(December 2, 2018 at 10:44 am)Brian37 Wrote:(December 2, 2018 at 10:23 am)Cherub786 Wrote: First of all, overthrowing doesn't always require a full on military invasion. Intelligence and stealth can do a lot too. Remember how the CIA overthrew a leftist govt. in Iran circa 1953. And similarly, the CIA did great work in Mesoamerica in containing leftist militias from taking over several states there. The greatest adversaries are Russia and China. As long as these 2 states are relatively stable at home they will pose a threat and expand their influence. You need a new project to destabilize them both from the inside eventually leading to the collapse of those regimes like how the USSR collapsed.
There is no such thing as a "leftist" government. I am a liberal, I value the protection of pluralism. I am sick of the bullshit slur that all closed societies are "leftist". No, they are conservative. Iran does not value political or religious pluralism. They are a one party CONSERVATIVE theocracy.
China is also A CONSERVATIVE STATE. It values blind loyalty to ONE PARTY. That is hardly a value of openness and pluralism.
And what Reagan did with "tear down that wall" had nothing to do with the GOP starting the age of failed trickle down economics. From a social perspective in pushing an open society in Germany and Russia, he was right. But that does not mean what he did locally here with economics worked.
"Capitalism" is not a form of government. China allows the private sector too, it is why when you go to Walmart you see 99% of the labels on products "made in China". They are a one party conservative AUTHORITARIAN capitalist country. The Saudi Royal Family also are a RICH family who owns banks and oil companies. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in General Electric. Fidel Castro died with an estimated personal wealth of $800 million.
What failed with Iran ending up in a theocracy, was our miscalculation that by busting them up it would lead towards a more open society. But that does not make the Iran we have now a liberal country, to claim it is is absolute bullshit.
Again, "liberal" does not mean closed, it means "open".
Dude stop trying to redefine political terms. This isn't about the liberal conservative binary. That binary is for people with a simple minded approach to politics.