Would more events like this change your perceptions about the Iraq war...

We were told that the justification for invading Iraq was that it was in possession of vast quantities of biological, chemical and nuclear materials. Therefore it posed a grave and immediate threat.

We were told that another justification for invading Iraq was that Iraq was financing al-Qaida terrorists and would undoubtedly equip them with these weapons for use against targets in the west. Therefore we must invade Iraq to prevent these plots from maturing.

If the threshold for invading other countries is that they have repressive or dictatorial governments, then the USA has systematically been creating, arming, financing and supporting repressive and dictatorial governments for over five decades. Using this justification, the USA has been engaged in a pattern of abuse so egregious that it, more than the many dictators it has propped up, should be seen as the biggest threrat to democracy in the wortld adn ought immediately to be invaded.

NB: The Ba'ath party in Iraq gained power in a coup financed by the CIA. Saddam was the first vice president of Iraq under the junta the USA imposed on Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was strengthened immensely by technical and material support from the USA. If he is a horrific bastard and a inhuman monster, the USA can take full credit for placing him in power and for ensuring his continued existance.

So, no. Such scenes do not change my mind. I am, however, glad for any innocent Iraqis who survive this war unhurt. They are not to blame for the shortcomings of their national government. No doubt they're glad to toss that criminal off their backs. My question is: why did we put him there?

Frankly, I think one of the possible good side-effects of all this could be the loss of respect the U.S. will/should suffer. I think the perception that we can and should do whatever we please has been harmful both to the world and ourselves, and in the long run it'd be better for everyone if we were knocked down a peg and lost some of our influence. Obviously that's not an uncomplicated good, and losing allies is never a good thing, but I'd like to think we're capable of learning from our mistakes, and that we may take a more active interest in our foreign policies in the future.

None of that makes me see the war any differently, really, but it sounds like Ned is asking more, "Do you see possible good coming from this" than "Do things like this make you support the war."

I don't imagine that these questions, which can only be answered by the Iraqis themselves, will have been considered much by those who will shortly take control of Baghdad. It appears that the current objective is simply to get there and raise the Stars and Stripes.

The big elephant in the room has and will continue to be Israel unless a significant Arab country turns democratic (and thus, friendly to Westerners.) You would think that several thousands of years of warring in that region over religion would wisen up the powers that be, but alas, Bush has waded into something that is almost certain to fail on many fronts. The problems in the Middle East are cultural and so many generations deep that it is unlikely that anything will change for at least several more generations. And in the meantime, lots and lots of people are going to die.

It is a little sad to think that someone around here is actually hoping for the US to lose respect. "Knock us down a peg?" Yeah, while we're getting knocked down a peg, let's just start withdrawing from the world on all fronts and taking our money with us. But when we're gone, who is going to be left to pay the bills and try to present a somewhat stabilizing force in the world? France and Germany? Saudia Arabia? Argentina? Russia? China? Congo? Is the EU suddenly going to form a competent militia?

The responsibility of the US on the world's stage is enormous. Could a dose of humility be in order? Sure. But I'm not really sure how losing respect for the US is going to make the world a better place.

Uh, Hstencil, we've been engaged in a variety of interventions and direct prop-ups of other governments in our own hemisphere for well over a hundred years. Like it or not, this is not new, and ultimately given the legacy of the Cold War neither is the scale in terms of worldwide influence and battlefields. Believing that somehow there was a line just now crossed in the last two years is incredibly ahistorical.

THE FUCKING PRESIDENT WON THE ELECTION.

But it's okay to be pissed about pre-emptive war and all.

And essentially this IS what I am asking, yes. I would prefer some sort of long-term good than a short one, of course, and I'm not really seeing that at all. But there is a certain fait accompli now at work here (related in part to the protest thread discussion) -- now that things HAVE happened and barring a big surprise the assault will continue and more than likely succeed [the fact that it looks like Israel won't be drawn into things now given the capture of those two airfields/complexes in western Iraq is actually a large relief], what if anything now can be/should be done? Is there anything, ANYTHING to take from this in terms of thinking what's going to happen on the ground there and more to the point what people there thought of it all?

If you want to look at it solely from the US domestic political point of view that this may have now motivated you to vote and act more than before, great. But a notable danger in the debate over this whole thing has been all the constant stereotyping, everywhere (thus that ridiculous 'hired killers' dismissal of the folks in the military and its triumphalist 'move the pawns and pretend they're not people' opposite). A potentially uncomfortable stereotyping -- maybe not the worst, maybe not the most crucial -- is this: when the people we potentially see as only and solely the victims of unalloyed aggression on the part of the US are, in those areas now conquered, seen welcoming the troops in and all, then how do you adjust your message, and how do you deal with that fact in the debate? It isn't over yet, of course, and hstencil and Aimless among others have offered up good reasons as to why what has been seen hasn't changed their minds. But let's look ahead and think a bit:

If -- again, IF -- the US grand strategy works, Baghdad falls/Hussein is removed without having to turn the capital city into a block-by-block hellhole and there's some sort of outbreak of wild celebration at his fall, potentially combined with more welcome for the US troops than might have been expected, then beware a Bush administration able to take the coverage of that, turn around and say, in more boastful terms than you could have ever thought possible, "Did we EVER tell you so," to all its opponents, domestic and overseas. The US political strategy -- not necessarily the military, but the benefits are clear -- is aiming for this so hard it hurts, and this is a reality anyone sick of the administration had better wake up to, because it might happen. It might not, and there are many, many reasons while this golden goal might not be achieved, or as Gatinha says the situation might fall apart shortly after its achievement (the rumors over Turkey sending in troops to northern Iraq/Kurd territory is initial proof of that problem alone). But I wouldn't immediately rule this potential reality out, because you might then -- as ArfArf says -- have to find yourself agreeing that a right thing was done -- that slippery and openly Realpolitik concept of 'regime change,' but possibly one with immediate and tangible benefits for those there who survive this horrid business -- for an endless amount of wrong reasons. It could be one hell of a bitter pill to swallow if you're not ready for it, even in part.

Something random and unrelated directly to this that has crossed my mind and made me wonder a bit: if I were Hussein (or whoever is in charge of the regime's functioning), I'd be trying to aim for talking about massive civilian deaths after all that firestorm bombing in Baghdad. There is nothing on their part to lose by doing so and the public statements on the course of the war so far from their spokesmen are hardly consistent with reality anyway. Instead, their numbers by their own account are three dead and two hundred wounded. Curious and I don't know what to make of it.

keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better

76% of Americans support the war. Whether the President was elected or not.

yeah like I say, keep telling yourself that, it makes for pithy thought-bites

I sense tis propaganda: in trying to keep up the country's morale, those numbers simply sound better. The trick is to keep the Iraqi citizens believing they can't lose. The wounded can be healed to fight on; the dead cannot (obvious, I know).

God forbid the US military only killed THREE iraqi civilians, that doesn't support the peace movement at all! It must be WRONG and a LIE.

And on the other hand, pithy or not, this is a democracy, and the 'American Will' seems to not give much of a shit what 350K NYers think. Oh what a fucked up world it is.

I also love how people are shitting on CNN for popularizing the war and being a US propaganda machine; I flip it on today and see nothing but protest coverage, footage of Iraqis in hospitals and some guys loading bodies onto a truck. Whoops!

http://www.fatwreck.com/merch/152.4.gif

such a figure would be startling in britain though (i work in a quite conservative place, and there are only 2 pro war people in my building that i can think of. respect for america is astonishingly low even among people sympathetic to the war). i think australia and new zealand support is higher than british support. i guess support throughout the rest of europe and the world is even lower than in britain

the only things i can think of that would lower support in america for the war would be, realisation that this is going to hit them in the pocket. america is surely going to foot the lions share of the bill for this, thats gotta hurt, especially with the proposed tax cuts. i think britain is more accepting of the fact that things have to be paid for by raised taxes, and also through soldiers deaths maybe.

so yeah in britain i would say the view of america is what millar said, that the people there like this war, but that is tempered by a certain facetiousness of "well, duh, they're americans, of course they like war"

That's really all that's on CNN today? Holy shit, why didn't somebody tell me?

Hah. That must be why there are so many competing versions of it. I mean, should I believe Doris Goodwin or whomever she ripped off, or should I take someone else more seriously? Give me a break. History books are loaded with opinion and varying perspectives. Hell, the four Gospels are different versions of allegedly the same dude. Oh wait--you already don't believe the facts of the election as they've been written--that Bush won.

The government lies all the time. No wonder--it's made up of humans, who have always put self-preservation before truth.

I'll agree with you on the pre-emptive strike front, but that ultimately seems more like a mere window-dressing in the long run -- or if you like, a new justification for action that didn't necessarily represent that great a break from the past.

Ned, you're right to a degree about that, although I do think the "pre-emptive doctrine" put forward by the Bush administration is much, much different from our other conflicts. And I don't think a comparison to the Cold War is apt at all, since that was a war solely in name (and military budgets), but not in actual engagement.

i'm all for the protesting, i just think yr talkin crazy talk. you seem to have a hard time accepting the possibility that this is indeed a very conservative country. keep in mind that you live in what many would consider a global mecca of liberalism.

and i don't have a problem with you questioning the accuracy of the polls, but you can't disprove them with speculation. you'd have to do your own unbiased, statistically sound polling. something you won't be able to do at a peace rally. that's all i'm saying.

Not everyone at the protest feels the same way. I want the war to be won and Saddam to be deposed, I am just upset at the way the Bush administration changes justifications every minute and bullies our allies. I doubt that the Trotskyites and "Revolutionary Communists" I saw yesterday would agree with me; after all I'm a registered Democrat and they're for "world socialism" or some such nonsense. That said, if you don't think that people out doing something for a cause indicates more committment (however misguided) to the issues than just answering a few questions on the phone (with no way for the question-asker to know if, say, the respondent is lying or not), then I really feel sorry for you.

i'm all for the protesting, i just think yr talkin crazy talk. you seem to have a hard time accepting the possibility that this is indeed a very conservative country. keep in mind that you live in what many would consider a global mecca of liberalism.

Don't fucking lecture me. I grew up in the South, okay? And I've been a lot of other places in the world, including China, so I know and appreciate the freedoms that we have in America, and I DO appreciate and respect those who fight and die so I have the freedom to march. I just don't like the way this administration's hubris and arrogance. These are the same people that tried to delegitimize Clinton's administration from the minute he was elected (not that Clinton didn't give them plenty of ammo to do so), and when their boy gets in through dubious means, all of a sudden he's got a "mandate." Sorry, I don't think so.

The truth is, most Americans don't fucking care. What I didn't mention before is that I mostly saw people, before joining the parade route, shopping.

Today's news of the captured American soldiers (and their subsequent public humiliation by the Iraqis) and "pockets of resistance" makes me think that this war is going to be much longer than anyone realizes.

also, making sure that all who protest are registered to vote in their proper county for 04 election. (which gives me an idea)

Listen. I don't know who you hang out with. Perhaps you only hang out with a handful of completely leftist types. There is no "so-called support" in this country. There is "actual support" in this country. Even living in the supposed liberalism mecca of the US or whatever NYC was called upthread, most people I know support this war. I don't even like to discuss it with my friends because I do not and they have all made statements to the effect of, "About time, if I was president at 9/11 the entire Middle East would be gone". These are statements from normally totally liberal human beings. We aren't talking Christian rightists, anti-abortion zealots, Bush supporters, anything. People who I had previously found to be very rational people, all of a sudden gone blood thirsty insane. And that's not even mentioning the people who are all for it because they think it'll fix the economy...

I see absolutely no sign whatsoever that these polls are completely off base. There is a very vocal anti-war rally in this country, yes. But they sure as hell are not the majority. Whether or not you agree with the majority is your business but every war has had its objectors, pointing to them and saying "See? Look!" isn't really proving much of anything.

Quite honestly, I don't think we should be in this war, and I don't think we should've been in the first Gulf War because that just assisted the chain of events that led to this nonsense today. But not liking the war isn't going to lead me to rn around claiming there's limited support in this country for it.

I don't know why I'm arguing with you because it'll just make you lose your shit, cos you've done that on every single war-related thread so far, but I just think this is a glaringly wrong argument that I couldn't ignore.

America are the Romans, just admit it because ignoring the fact hurts your argument.

Big Fucking Deal.

Clinton didn't even get a majority of voters to vote for him either time. Either did Bush II, obviously. And Gore wouldn't have even if he would have won his home state, Clinton's home state, AND Florida. Who gives a shit about what the majority "thinks" about some issue, even war? Certainly not Congress, who thinks polls are only useful when it serves their own marketing campaigns. So many dumbass people cling to the incorrect idea that the US is a democracy anyway, as if they've never known it was a representative republic. The majority has never ruled, thank god.

No matter what side you are on in this thing, the war is easily as polarizing as the 2000 election or when Clinton was fingering Monica. It's the kind of thing that no matter the outcome, no one is going to change their mind. If Saddam is deposed, the hawks will claim validation and the doves will say it could have been done without killing so many people. It's so fucking boring and predictable, just like every other "big issue" that the media here taunts us with. As Bushie would say himself, "You are either with us or against us." It's like that on everything here--abortion, "women's rights", school vouchers, etc, etc. It's all one big political war between the two corporate parties.

I grew up in rural Iowa and did undergrad at ISU. I always found that the attitude between DM or the other "big" cities and the farmland was pretty stark. Kind of like the growing national red/blue demography. (Not disagreeing with you, just relaying my impressions.)

The United States suddenly has decided that international law is a good idea after all. I could swear that American televions ws showing footage of Iraqi POWs up until yesterday, but i could be mistaken. Too bad Dubya also refused to have anything to do with International Criminal Court, with his little "unsigning" stunt.

I also wonder if Dubya's perception of Putin's soul has changed now that it turns out Russia has been providing material support to IRaq up until last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13057-2003Mar23.html

My dad, for one, would have something to say about that. Just because nothing was ever formally declared didn't mean that things weren't intense and active, and quite clearly Korea and Vietnam, for a start, were 'actual engagements,' if ones driven by misperception many times.

Tis a wish that exists only in children's books, apparently. I can't remember a time when "government" and "efficiency" could exist in the same sentence. Right now, it's a case where the US heads of state only care about showing off their faster planes and larger missiles.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749879550.html