Iraq and a test for intellectual honesty

Remove all ads!

Here's a quick test to gauge your own intellectual honesty. As the quetions are too long for the poll mask this form must do. Just 'circle' Yes or No after each question:

</font>

1. Do you still believe Bush's claim that Iraq was a "direct threat" to America? Y / N
2. Before Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, did you ever say, "You know, honey, we really need to free those poor people in Iraq?" Y / N
3. With anti-Saddam Shi’ites now joining Sunnis in fighting U.S.-led occupation forces, do you still believe Bush when he says "terrorists" and "Saddam loyalists" are behind the resistance, and not nationalists? Y / N
4. With Iraqis now attacking Americans at a rate of 60 ambushes a day, do you still buy Bush's argument that Americans have to stay in Iraq to protect Iraqis, that we're the answer to the security problem and not the source of it? Y / N
5. Were any "terrorists" killing Americans in Iraq before Bush invaded Iraq? Y / N
6. Was capturing Saddam more urgent to the war on terrorism than capturing Osama bin Laden, as the president sold it? Y / N

If you answered Yes to all of the above, you support the war simply to support Bush.

IMO the GOP is too heavily invested in Bush the younger and so the "My party - right or wrong!" menthality prevails (a little bit like "Führer befiehl, wir folgen!" - braindead ideologies are pretty much alike). The GOP's problem is that there is no alternative to Bush and so they stick with their moron because they don't have a better plan.

And that in a time when even the conservatives themselves are increasingly critical. Just consider the advice a former foreign policy aide to conservative giant Sen. Jesse Helms gave last month

Darn, that treacherous commie joined the democrats over night!

 

No on all accounts, but i never thought otherwise. I never understood why Bush and Blair thought it was necessary to fool the world with false information, and hide their true reasons to invade Iraq, it would have been fine with me anyway. Unless of course they truly believed those stories themselves, which can only mean that they have been fooled themselves by their own intelligence agencies.

 

The only one I answered Yes to was #2, but I opposed the war because: i) that wasn't the reason put forward by the Administration, and ii) the war didn't have widespread international support.

Having said that - Ragusa, did you just make these questions up yourself, including the implication of answering Yes to all of them, or did you get them from a, err, less biased source?

 

... I got them from a more biased source I think but then, they are good questions, aren't they?

 

No to all. But then, I'm very anti-Bush even before the war started...so...

 

Something close to yes on #2. I really thought the international community should do something permanent to Saddam's regime before Gulf Wars Episode II.

I disbelieved Bush from the very beginning, but my distrust predated GWII. After Kosovo and associated lies, I stopped believing the US administration on anything.

I don't believe in any organised resistance of Saddam loyalists.

I don't know about any terrorist attacks on Americans in Iraq before the war.

I suppose it might not be the best idea to withdraw foreign armies from Iraq altogether at this moment.

However, US and UK troops should be withdrawn so soon as possible and not so soon as a sufficiently pro-American regime is installed. The world has had it with CIA-backed regimes.

Saddam was no direct threat to America and had no ties with Osama. Osama had more ties with the CIA dating back in decades than with Saddam.

I was quite surprised when Dubya elected to blame Saddam for 9/11 and his logic instantly struck me as nonsense.

[ May 29, 2004, 19:12: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Yes to three. This is because I've understood from several letters that my cousin, Jesse, who is in Iraq, that many of the enemies that the Coalition forces are combatting come from outside of Iraq. Therefore the term "nationalist" is a misnomer.

 

A resounding NO to all of the above.

 

And now for something completely different

1. Do you believe that islamic funamentalism and terrorism pose a direct threat to western (not just American) society? Y or N

2. Before Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, did you ever say "Somebody better do something about terrorism since *****footing around and trying to appease them sure hasn't worked" Y or N

3. With foreign nationals joining Saddam loyalists in the fighting in Iraq are you not happier that our professional soldiers can kill them all on their soil rather than have to do it on Western soil? Y or N

4. With Iraqis now attacking Americans at a rate of 60 ambushes a day once again aren't you glad that it is happening over there as opposed to New York or Madrid? Y or N

5. Considering the lack of furor about the beheading of a U.S. civilian isn't it appaling that the press is still focused on naked prisoners? Y or N

6. So far we have dug up one scumbag from his hole. Doesn't it make you feel better knowing that we have professionals that are searching for the rest of them? Y or N

If you answered Yes to all of the above than you should congratulate yourself for not being delusional.

IMO the people who answer No to the above questions rely so much on their distate for either the United States or President Bush (or maybe even both) that they must use it to keep them warm at night.

If history has proven anything it has shown that a policy of appeasement will never work. What is that old poem about Nazi Germany "When they came for me there was nobody left to speak for me?"

 

Time to test my intellectual honesty...

Do you still believe Bush's claim that Iraq was a "direct threat" to America? Y / N

Define "direct". Would Hussein have launched an amphibious assault on Miami? Duh, no. But would he have imperiled the world's main source of its central resource to military and economic strength; funneled money and weaponry to terrorists, and even harbored them; defied global WMD constraints and passed on the technology like fellow WMDers Islamabad, Pyongyang, and Tripoli; and locked the US into stationing jihad-magnet troops in Saudi Arabia? Of course - he'd already done so in the '80s and '90s, why not the 21st century too? Of all the places in the world, in 2003 Iraq posed the greatest threat to US - and global - interests.

Before Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, did you ever say, "You know, honey, we really need to free those poor people in Iraq?" Y / N

Embittered leftists said it for a decade, griping about how UN sanctions were starving tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. If only we removed the sanctions, then the UN would stop starving children and Hussein could go back to doing it himself. Let's see - according to the usual toll, at least 35,000 Iraqi civilians would've died in 2003 and 2004 under the UN sanctions regime. Wonder how many have starved since the invasion? Note that a refugee crisis never erupted after the invasion, contrary to all (including my own) expectations - compared to Darfur, where a million have been displaced even after a supposed ceasefire.

With anti-Saddam Shi’ites now joining Sunnis in fighting U.S.-led occupation forces, do you still believe Bush when he says "terrorists" and "Saddam loyalists" are behind the resistance, and not nationalists? Y / N

It's not an either-or. Palestinian terrorists are nationalist, but that doesn't mean that they can be dealt with like traditional nationalists who can be appeased with a li'l extra autonomy. A terrorist can claim a hundred motivations - nationalism, Ba'athist loyalty, and religion among them - but they still are terrorists, still act like terrorists, and still must be dealt with as terrorists.

With Iraqis now attacking Americans at a rate of 60 ambushes a day, do you still buy Bush's argument that Americans have to stay in Iraq to protect Iraqis, that we're the answer to the security problem and not the source of it? Y / N

...?!? What a silly question. When the Allies marched into Germany after WW2, the Germans turned their wrath on the Allied troopers. Was it wrong to "buy Roosevelt's argument" that Americans were staying in Germany to protect German Jews and democrats against their fellow Germans? Would the Germans have been better off if the Allies had swept into Berlin and then immediately left, leaving reconstructed Nazis and Soviets to take over? Oh, but wait - we DO know the answer to that question. It's answered in the cataclysmic difference between Allied-managed West Germany and Soviet-mangled East Germany. And it would be re-answered in our generation if we left Iraqis to tear each other apart, or be torn apart by their neighbors.

The real value to your question is that, at current death rates, apparently it takes 100 ambushes to kill one American. Not a bad ratio.

Follow-on question: With American criminals attacking American policemen in American cities at a rate of 600 ambushes a day, do you still buy the statist argument that police are required to protect Americans, that police are the answer to the security problem and not the source of it? - or do anarchists have it right, and a total authority withdrawal is the answer to all violence?

Were any "terrorists" killing Americans in Iraq before Bush invaded Iraq? Y / N

Nope. See answer to question #1. Bush never claimed that terrorists were slaughtering Americans in Iraq because THERE WEREN'T ANY in Iraq. Except maybe pilots working the no-fly-zones, a few stray aid workers, and the occasional human shield.

Was capturing Saddam more urgent to the war on terrorism than capturing Osama bin Laden, as the president sold it? Y / N

The tracks are parallel. Would we have been more likely to catch bin Laden if we hadn't invaded Iraq? Maybe...if we dropped 100,000 troops into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and westernmost China (bet we'd get UN support for that)...used those troops to hijack Pakistan's government...and poured the Iraqi reconstruction money into building up opium-enriched Afghanistan. And that's assuming bin Laden wouldn't flee to Africa (as he did before) or the Middle East. Oh, but that still would've left the UN sanctions in place in Iraq, the jihad-provoking troops in Saudi Arabia, and Hussein with the opportunity to develop WMD.

The more important question is: was capturing Saddam more urgent to American interests than capturing Osama bin Laden? And would releasing Hussein from his cage to recreate his Ba'athist paradise have made it more likely that we would catch bin Laden?

...so, do I pass the test?

 

And how many wounded? Would you be willing to see your own son come home with one leg missing? or may be both? No matter how much one tries to sanitize this war, the attempts are futile, because most Americans really do know that war is messy business. Vietnam taught us that.

Yes, and the dead prisoners packed in ice also got some attention!

And there it is! If you don't agree with Shurb and his cronies then you are no kind of American. I have never seen a more anti-American statement than that. Thanks for proving the "dishonest" part of the argument.

 

I guess I should clarify.

In my opinion any American that can honestly answer no to all of my questions hates President Bush and doesn't care about anything else. They may love America and may even be patriots. The hatred of America part of my quote was for non-United States Citizens.

 

TGS,
a way to say 6x yes I preseume? I take it you mean what you say so let me reply to each point you make:

No. You sure that you have understood what Al Quaeda is about? I'm pretty sure that the US have been attacked by Bin Laden not for what they are as a country but for what they do - and there their support of the Saudi regime is most important - the US are the only reason the Saudis are still in power.
Looking at the news it should become clearer to understand that - Saudi-Arabia is the only place where westerners, especially Americans are killed regularly by Islamists - it basically is a country in civil war. Saudi Arabia actually is the only country in the Arab world since Algeria to have a real islamist insurgency.
Ever wondered why there were so many Saudis among the 911 goons? Bin Laden couldn't care less about America - if they weren't supporting the in his eyes fallen "keepers of the holy sites" in Mekka and Medina. Bin Laden first of all wants to topple the saudi regime - and attacked the US only to make them withdraw support for them to allow him to easier attack the saudis. Attack your enemies ally to weaken your enemy. You never got the idea that for an islamist Mekka and Medina are somewhat more important than the US? Nevermind.
Of course it is easier to howl and lament about the clash of the cultures, but that's just utter nonsense that leads to nothing but a braindead war-mode - as conflict is unavoidable anyway, so why hesitate shooting? Why humane treatment in prisons? Why bother about civillian casualties as we are at war with islam itself? That are a few of the many reasons why I think the 'clash of the culture' folks are choosing the receipe for disaster for the sake of simplicity. "Swell! Eventually a theory that allows me to rationalise my hate for Arabs!"

It is not about appeasing them. The point is more if the war on Iraq was a proper response. And it wasn't.
The US were attacked by Bin Laden, and now boast having caught Saddam. Hmm. Faced with a non-state actor, the US attacked a third party, a state, one that as everyone now knows hadn't anything to do with 911 (except when you're a crackpot named Laurie Myrloie and can't drop that shoe). That is a little bit like as if the US, after Pearl Harbor, had attacked ... Mexico.
And, like it or not, the invasion of Iraq has made the world less safe. US reputation and credibility are at it's nadir, as I point out later in the 'metrics' part, they US don't have really improved their security with the invasion of Iraq.

You can't seriously believe that you fight 'terror' in Iraq only to not have to fight it at home, that's hilarious. Just a point about Al Quaeda, Rumsfeld once uttered something about the US not having the 'metrics' to judge wether they do win the war on terror or not. As a matter of fact they do have such 'metrics'.
Al Quaeda committed some major five bombings in the period from 1993 to 2001 - and some 19 in the two years since 911. So, the 'metrics' hint on the US in fact loosing the war on terror big deal in the delusion that as long as you keep on beating someone you're safe. Now, do you feel safer already knowing the US kills a lot of Arabs in Iraq - a formerly very secular country that was no threat to anyone but Iran?

So you really think that the US are fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq? Well, even if so, it was the US invasion that made it possible - Iraq was known for it's secular rule and Saddam would have never accepted a challenge to his power by islamists. That is why they were crushed on sight under his rule.
The US imposed chaos may have fundamentally changed things, but then, fighting a war where you generated an enemy yourself in first place - by attacking - doesn't seem to me like a brilliant strategy for success in the war on terror.

Well, first of all it seems the poor bloke wasn't beheaded alive, if that's a comfort for you. Then, so what? The world focuses not so much on that the prisoners were naked but on the fact that the US, which likes to preach human rights, freedom and liberty finds it adequate to maltreat helpless people in a systhematic way, killing a few of them - you know, it's the killing and putting on ice part that is goes, so I hope, beyond a "fraternity prank'.
I'm usure if you're aware if it, but it's a difference if some street thugs kill a civilian, and make a gruesome show of it, and when a 'morally superior' superpower on warpath against evildoers organises concentration camps and relies on torture as a rule for HUMINT. No one would have been surprised if it had been, say, Ugandan troops ...

The US hunt for Al Qaeda took a detour for Iraq. You can't tell me, considering the US shortage of troops atm, and the prospect of a long presence there - that the US war on terror went on undisturbed by the invasion of Iraq - so, whoever they hunt in Iraq, they likely are the wrong guys. Saddam and his goons sure were crooks, but after 911 I'd think there might be some other priorities, like going for the actual perpetrators. Instead Bush went on a crusade to reshape the Middle East - chasing after the mirage of a desktop warrior's academic domino theory. The theory backfired big deal, but hush, it's not that the US have made mistakes in Iraq - blame the foreign fighters that 'flood' the country and undermine the glorious US progress No, not really, they can't serve as an excuse for the US screw-up.

 

I know this is a little , but I find it oddly disturbing that whether Nick Berg was still alive at the moment of his decapitation, or had previously been snuffed by some other means, somehow mitigates the murderous guilt of his captors.

Are we supposed to be comforted by the fact that his corpse was decapitated...when it was still his corpse...that became as such at the hands of terrorist criminals who make shark attacks look clean and decent?

Oh, and Rags...I did a lot better on Snook's test

 

Well, that is appreciated, because I was wondering how that one came from a gentleman such as you, Snook. This is not about Shrub, but about the country and what is in the best interest of all Americans. IMO, this war has not made us safer, but has put us at greater risk.

You may be familiar with this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

General Zinni doesn't have to prove his patriotic credentials to anyone, nor his love for his country:

Here's it in a nutshell why some of us believe this war has only put us at more risk:

Here's one of Zinni's more direct comments:

 

TGS,
the "hate America" part is ridiculous. It is that I liked America much more when it was still ruled by Bush Sr., even Clinton. IMO Bush and his crew steered the ship on a very wrong course, one that I find deeply disturbing and highly dangerous. Would it be just about some hillbillies and their moron half brothers srewing up a country of the importance of, say, Lichtenstein I couldn't care less, but what Bush does has a global impact, and till now that has been quite a devastating one.

I'm currently pondering on joining the German Atlantic Society, dedicated to the transatlantic relations. So, in a nutshell, I don't see why me being a German saying 6x No to your questions labels me a US hater TGS, that doesn't make sense, not at all. That's the easy way out.

When you expect the US-Euro relationships to improve again that has to be a two sided effort - just expecting the rest of the world to follow Bush blindly asks a little to much. You know, a friend who tells you when you make a mistake is more valuable than a claqeur, though maybe half as convenient.

 

Question three is a bit too complicated really. I am of the opinion that the resistance in Iraq is a mottled pack of a little bit of everything. I do think that the major driving force is nationalism and resentment of the occupying force but that doesnt rule out that there are old Baathist and some foreign elements over there as well.

I would also like to say that I find this silly talk about "appeasment" to be highly offensive. Who exactly are we who dont follow the great and glorious George II appeasing really? Am I appeasing terrorists just because I advocate a way to fighting terrorists which might actually reduce terrorism? It is those who support current US regime who are the appeasers if anyone and as we are already into the nazi stuff this talk about "clashes of civilizations" and even a war against islam as I have seen people talk about elsewhere reminds me atleast about how the nazis talked about the jews and others they didnt like. Arab terrorist have done many an evil thing but I am sure there were a few rotten eggs among the jews in Germany as well for Hitler to lift up as examples of all jews.

I also wonder where you have found this lack of an outrage of the beheading of that poor bloke? A vile thing indeed but the guy willingly went in alone in a warzone and nasty things happens there. Also as have been pointed out, no one has ever claimed that those who fight the US in Iraq are jolly good chaps who walks elderly ladies across the streets and read stories for children in hospitals. It is just the US who labels itself in that way.

 

That's interesting. Have you got a source on that ? I wasn't aware, that the Germans did resist with guerilla war-fare against allied troops. As far as I know, they even deserted so they could be captured by allied troops instead of Russians, that where a little bit angered by the attempt to wipe them from the face of the earth and being put into gas-chambers. He, he, I think before they capitulated, they even suggested to the British and Americans to join forces against the Russians. Wouldn't Churchill have liked it ? Anyway, there are many differences between then and now, imho, completly not comparable. But this time, the occupied aren't saved from the Russians and this time, the occupier isn't dependent on the huns to keep the Russians at bay.

Berlin, allies ? Wasn't Berlin taken by the Russians ?

 

A small little bit on the speedy reconstructions of Germany and Japan, two role-models often cited by neocons. That is highly misleading. First of all, Germany, when it capitulated had a democratic tradition going back till 1848, and since 1871 it was a consitutional republic with quite an active parliament. We didn't start from a scratch with rebuilding a democracy, we only had a 15 year darkage. Not so, Iraq never had a true democracy ever and considering the time it took for the west to develop such structures it is highly naive to expect something like that to happen in Iraq per decree, over the barrel of a gun.

And as for the reconstruction: Germany and Japan were rebuilt by Germans and Japanese respectiveley. We have a term dubbed " Trümmerfauen", the rubble-weman, for the ladies who did the clean-up of the destroyed cities while their men were PsOW. We made it ourselves, and rightfully this generation is fiercely proud on their achievement and sacrifice.

No Halliburton there - Germans and Japanese got the money from the Marshall plan and used their chances to rebuild their country themselves - for mutual profit. They had a perspective for a new start. That's why it worked so well. And that laid the foundation for the, believe it or not, ongoing friendship with the US.

The Bush Jr. approach toward Iraq is fundamentally different - the US in Iraq fail to take the Iraqis serious unless they start shooting. The only perspective for Iraq is an ongoing US tutelage. The Iraqis barely had (and they still don't have) a say in their own affairs, reconstruction included.
In Iraq the US denied the Iraqis to handle their reconstruction, with a very much aloft CPA giving the contracts to cronies - resulting in delays due to lack of knowledge of the technology, lack of culture, or simply the lack of know how - or because of cases of not-built-here - when factories and spare parts were from non-coalition partners - well, silly fo the Iraqis we want to help (he-he) but that means no reconstruction - how about a totally new US made factory?

One can say with a boulder of truth that as much as the 'liberation' of Iraq wasn't about WMD or liberation - or the Iraqis anyway - and that the reconstruction never was about reconstruction.

 

There was the Werewolf guerilla organization. It was created by Himmler in the November of 1944, when everybody except Hitler knew that the end was coming. The organization were consisted of members of SS and Hitlerjugend and they were trained by SS. Their guerilla activity, which lasted until early 1947, ranged from mining roads and sniping allied or soviet soldiers to assasinations of Germans who worked with the allies.