Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I still have absolutely no idea exactly what our reason was for invading Iraq. It was an astonishingly stupid thing to do. What better explanation is there of the war - that George and Dick just wanted a war? That it helped them win an election?

So, no, I don't think it was the reason, but I have no alternative that can convince someone who believes this to the contrary. Do you?

In no particular order....

1. Effort to ensure that a country with a major potential to produce oil was controlled by a government friendly to the US.

2. W's daddy issues, in wanting to "finish the job" that he incorrectly saw his father as "failing" to finish (as opposed to "prudently choosing" not to finish).

3. Someone actually believed that neocon bullshit -- y'know, that Saddam was the domino, and that if we toppled him them peace, democracy flowers and blowjobs would break out everywhere. (aka, "The government is incompetent to handle any task, except bringing democracy to the Middle East within 30 days").

4. In the panic that followed 9/11, people actually bought into the "WMD" stuff, and honestly believed it.


Beyond that, it's very hard to see that a military operation that including Muslim soldiers (they are allowed in the US forces, right?), that installed Muslim government, and that strengthened two fundamentalist Muslim regimes (Iran and Saudi Arabia), in one case by removing a long-time enemy and in the other by doing that plus allowing more Shiite power and influence, was a "war on Islam." So even if someone can't come up with a reason (like you can't), I don't see going to the "it's a war on Islam" unless the person is just committed to seeing everything as a war on Islam.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

In no particular order....

1. Effort to ensure that a country with a major potential to produce oil was controlled by a government friendly to the US.

2. W's daddy issues, in wanting to "finish the job" that he incorrectly saw his father as "failing" to finish (as opposed to "prudently choosing" not to finish).

3. Someone actually believed that neocon bullshit -- y'know, that Saddam was the domino, and that if we toppled him them peace, democracy flowers and blowjobs would break out everywhere. (aka, "The government is incompetent to handle any task, except bringing democracy to the Middle East within 30 days").

4. In the panic that followed 9/11, people actually bought into the "WMD" stuff, and honestly believed it.


Beyond that, it's very hard to see that a military operation that including Muslim soldiers (they are allowed in the US forces, right?), that installed Muslim government, and that strengthened two fundamentalist Muslim regimes (Iran and Saudi Arabia), in one case by removing a long-time enemy and in the other by doing that plus allowing more Shiite power and influence, was a "war on Islam." So even if someone can't come up with a reason (like you can't), I don't see going to the "it's a war on Islam" unless the person is just committed to seeing everything as a war on Islam.

No daddy issues, no WMD (pretext, entirely). The War in Iraq was a device to control a strategic base for operations in the middle east. And one that would provide a decent enough amount of oil to pay for itself, and then some.

I was also a message - "this is what we do to dictators who refuse to toe our line."

Things didn't work out as planned.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

600 years ago?

Come on, Christians get all of 19th and 20th century western imperialism to their name, to say nothing of fascism.

Even if you just glance around the Middle East over the last couple decades, Christians get to lay claim to Sabra and Shatila.

Oh, and not a few people in the Middle East will attribute our invasion of Iraq to religious violence; our use of the Qur'an in various torture techniques really doesn't help here.

The Horror. The Horror.

(I'll meet you in the middle. There is no god. No reason for any rational man to dislike another based on religion, ethnicity, or race. Now let's all have a Laphroaig and toast our mortality.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Prediction: within two presidencies, we will have a President who refers to the Islamic Republic of Iran as an ally.

Only if we're lucky.

I'm afraid we're more likely, regardless of whether Hillary or Jeb is in power, to wind up in more proxy wars with Iran.

It's tragic. We're so much more like the Iranian population than our Congress would ever believe, or allow us to believe.

We stay in bed with Wahhabists in SA while a more secular state of millions who want more freedom are made our enemy. Oh yeah-- SA has all that oil...

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Only if we're lucky.

I'm afraid we're more likely, regardless of whether Hillary or Jeb is in power, to wind up in more proxy wars with Iran.

It's tragic. We're so much more like the Iranian population than our Congress would ever believe, or allow us to believe.

We stay in bed with Wahhabists in SA while a more secular state of millions who want more freedom are made our enemy. Oh yeah-- SA has all that oil...

Iran was our ally until GGG and Ty's 'rents elected Jimmy Carter president.

of course the Shah was a terrible ruler who killed his people? And Sadaam was........?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Iran was our ally until GGG and Ty's 'rents elected Jimmy Carter president.

The Shah was going down regardless. Once his army decided not to shoot protestors, the Peacock Throne was history. And had the election gone differently, there was nothing that Jerry Ford (who had a hard enough time sending the Marines into Cambodia to rescue a Navy crew in 1975, thanks very much Mr. Nixon - do you think military action to support a bloody despot - even a friendly one with oil - in Mesopotamia would play well in America circa 1978?) or even Ronald Reagan could have done that would have changed that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

do you think military action to support a bloody despot - even a friendly one with oil - in Mesopotamia would play well in America circa 1978?) or even Ronald Reagan could have done that would have changed that.

RR might well have supported the Shah. And it was not the fall of Sadaam that created the concept of Islamic governed countries, despite ggg's big brain,

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I suppose not. But consider how many of them are living pretty much the same way they were 600 years ago, and see the rest of the world moving along. They need some way to rationalize it.

That's more you rationalizing it.

I get it. Really, I see the argument, "But Christians did it way back when..."

But that was forever ago. I'm hardly offering anything revelatory to note, "We're a bit bit divorced from those dark ages... just a bit."

It's no defense to assert you're addressing an ancient grievance, or acting as elders had. All that does is drive the the needle from "Sociopath" to "Surprisingly Dumb Sociopath."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Iran was our ally until GGG and Ty's 'rents elected Jimmy Carter president.

of course the Shah was a terrible ruler who killed his people? And Sadaam was........?

If you take from this bit of history that our mistake was not supporting the Shah longer, there is nothing that can be done to help you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Only if we're lucky.

I'm afraid we're more likely, regardless of whether Hillary or Jeb is in power, to wind up in more proxy wars with Iran.

It's tragic. We're so much more like the Iranian population than our Congress would ever believe, or allow us to believe.

We stay in bed with Wahhabists in SA while a more secular state of millions who want more freedom are made our enemy. Oh yeah-- SA has all that oil...

Last nights events in Yemen may well suggest you are right, but I think that "more like the Iranian population" factor will eventually play out on both sides. And they do still have some oil....

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No daddy issues, no WMD (pretext, entirely). The War in Iraq was a device to control a strategic base for operations in the middle east. And one that would provide a decent enough amount of oil to pay for itself, and then some.

I was also a message - "this is what we do to dictators who refuse to toe our line."

Things didn't work out as planned.

Bingo. The best defense to us as bellicose religious bigots is probably that we were just being incompetent imperialists.

And if we're arguing with someone who is suspicious of this, who thinks maybe the most powerful country in the world couldn't be so stupid or incompetent, who points out we were getting the oil and pretty much everything else we wanted before the invasion, we can just point out that we would, of course, invade any other oil country that didn't roll over like a puppy when we came in the room, like if socialists took over Venezuela or something ...

Or maybe it's best for us to just try to change the subject if this particular conversation comes up. Or go back to the Daddy issues.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

In no particular order....

1. Effort to ensure that a country with a major potential to produce oil was controlled by a government friendly to the US.

2. W's daddy issues, in wanting to "finish the job" that he incorrectly saw his father as "failing" to finish (as opposed to "prudently choosing" not to finish).

3. Someone actually believed that neocon bullshit -- y'know, that Saddam was the domino, and that if we toppled him them peace, democracy flowers and blowjobs would break out everywhere. (aka, "The government is incompetent to handle any task, except bringing democracy to the Middle East within 30 days").

4. In the panic that followed 9/11, people actually bought into the "WMD" stuff, and honestly believed it.


Beyond that, it's very hard to see that a military operation that including Muslim soldiers (they are allowed in the US forces, right?), that installed Muslim government, and that strengthened two fundamentalist Muslim regimes (Iran and Saudi Arabia), in one case by removing a long-time enemy and in the other by doing that plus allowing more Shiite power and influence, was a "war on Islam." So even if someone can't come up with a reason (like you can't), I don't see going to the "it's a war on Islam" unless the person is just committed to seeing everything as a war on Islam.

By the time you hit number 4, you really stop trying, don't you? That one's just sort of "yeah, we're stupid and crazy", isn't it? I hope you were laughing as you wrote those.

Yes, there is a tendency for many in the Middle East in particular to explain an awful lot of European and American behavior as a war on Islam. There was an interesting article in the Washington Post on how Saudi Arabia is using this to parry Swedish criticism of its human rights record. A lot of clips from the west talking about how awful Islam is as a religion don't really help the cause.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Only if we're lucky.

I'm afraid we're more likely, regardless of whether Hillary or Jeb is in power, to wind up in more proxy wars with Iran.

Well, see, the thing about GGG's prediction is that if it come true, it's a good thing that we've come a long way on a relationship with a long time enemy. But it also implies that the rest of the region is an even bigger shit show than it's been over the last 40 years.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By the time you hit number 4, you really stop trying, don't you? That one's just sort of "yeah, we're stupid and crazy", isn't it? I hope you were laughing as you wrote those.

Yes, there is a tendency for many in the Middle East in particular to explain an awful lot of European and American behavior as a war on Islam. There was an interesting article in the Washington Post on how Saudi Arabia is using this to parry Swedish criticism of its human rights record. A lot of clips from the west talking about how awful Islam is as a religion don't really help the cause.

Might have something to do with the nearly a millennium of calls for and attempts to reclaim the holy land from Muslims as well.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By the time you hit number 4, you really stop trying, don't you? That one's just sort of "yeah, we're stupid and crazy", isn't it? I hope you were laughing as you wrote those.

Nope. I recognize, first, that things are rarely as monolithic as we want them to be. W had certain reasons and rationales (including his tendency and need to demonstrate "resolve"), Rummy and Cheney had others, Condi and Powell had more, and people who voted in Congress had more. So when I talk about "reasons" I'm talking about reasons that various people involved in the decision had. This wasn't a unilateral decision by one person who overrode contrary opinions from his close advisors.

And I fundamentally have trouble with the notion that no one in the administration, let along Congress, actually believed the WMD rationale. It was bogus, it was highly paranoid, but to suggest -- as you do -- that it was pure fiction that no one ever actually believed? I guess I lack that level of arrogance.