• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Now that Operation Iraqi Freedom is practically over...

Now that Operation Iraqi Freedom is practically over, what really happened?

  • A liberation?

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • An invasion?

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • A smokescreen?

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • Something else?

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • Total voters
    22

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
What was it? What do you think?

A liberation?

An invasion?

A smokescreen?

Something else?

Vote now!
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
I used to think that Operation Iraqi Freedom was nothing but an American invasion of a sovereign nation, but I also think there will be many positive things to come from our occupation of Iraq. If stable leadership is installed and a democracy is indeed formed, then things should be looking up, right? I really don't know, but it seems like when the U. S. meddles in the affairs of the Middle East, nothing but trouble ensues. I am hopeful that our occupation of Iraq will bring many positive effects to the people of that region, but I still have my doubts. Does anyone really think that our presence in Iraq can help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other troublesome issues in the region?
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
18,704
Points
69
Call it want you want ... I say it's an invasion, even though the result was libration.

I wavered back and forth, a few weeks before tecampaign began, I decided to support it. Call it an invasion or a liberation or whatever, there is such a thing as a "just war," IMHO.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,550
Points
24
I went back and forth on the war effort like Dan, and ultimately came out against it. Not because I'm a "dove", or because I thought Saddam ran his country just fine, or because the French told me so. I just saw a future with our troops -- and our tax dollars -- mired for many years in a country where we're not wanted.

I don't know, maybe I'm just a pessimist, but it just seems a year from now, general public opinion in the US about Iraq will be something like, "we liberated you guys, and this is the thanks we get? How ungrateful!!!"
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,550
Points
24
El Guapo said:
How about the right thing to do? That is the way I view it.
Problem is, if it was right to go into Iraq, then maybe it's right to go to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, maybe even Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea...

Sure it was right for Saddam and the Baathists to be out of power. But that was just one of many criminal authoritarian regimes around the world. I get a "slippery slope" feeling about all of this.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
I never supported it but if Saddam was really setting up some kind of attack then I could have.

If weapons ever turn up then I could still give Bush a pass

but so far no NBC weapons and no links to terrorism other than

"saddam's second cousin's brother in-law has a sister whose husband has been sponsoring terrorism through bank drafts to a charitable organization who fronts for a terrorist group."

So i call it an invasion that had been planned well in advance and I see nothing less than a whole lot of trouble due to occupation vis-a-vis a permanent US base in Iraq.
 

H

Cyburbian
Messages
2,850
Points
24
This is what is next…

Ps. before you get upset, this is a joke.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
pete-rock said:
Problem is, if it was right to go into Iraq, then maybe it's right to go to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, maybe even Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea...

Sure it was right for Saddam and the Baathists to be out of power. But that was just one of many criminal authoritarian regimes around the world. I get a "slippery slope" feeling about all of this.
With your logic Pal, nothing would ever get done. That is why we were blessed with judgment as beings - those of us that can still make a decision and stick with it. I could pick apart every professional and personal decision you have ever made in your life using the same logic. Try again.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,549
Points
25
I think post 9-11 it became US policy to remove Saddam. The US came up with some conditions that Iraq had to meet to avoid a US led invasion. The truth is that no matter what Iraq did, Saddams fate was sealed. The US was going to remove him no matter what. He could have turned in every terrorist and waepon and this administration would have found some technicality to go in there and remove him. Iraq will be better off without Saddam, but I think that support for this administration will falter if they go into someplace like Syria or Iran because of WMD or terrorism ties.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
I wouldn't be so fast to call them "WMD and terrorist lies." Alot of Americans give these Middle Eastern countries alot of credit. Most of them are probably pretty dangerous and a threat to our way of life. Should we go into these countries one at a time and overthrow their terroristic regimes? No, that would take too long. I think we could handle at least 2 countries at once.
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
pete-rock said:
Problem is, if it was right to go into Iraq, then maybe it's right to go to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, maybe even Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea...

Sure it was right for Saddam and the Baathists to be out of power. But that was just one of many criminal authoritarian regimes around the world. I get a "slippery slope" feeling about all of this.
I think you may be on to something here. For those of us who were skeptical about Operation Iraqi Freedom, perhaps the best way to avoid that old "Slippery Oil Slick" feeling is to limit our consumption of petrol products. Therefore, the necessity of future American millitary interference in the Middle East might very well be minimized.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,550
Points
24
El Guapo said:
With your logic Pal, nothing would ever get done. That is why we were blessed with judgment as beings - those of us that can still make a decision and stick with it. I could pick apart every professional and personal decision you have ever made in your life using the same logic. Try again.
OK, here's a better shot.

Come on, EG. Am I "wishy-washy" because I disagree with you? Please. To quote you, I could pick apart every professional and personal decision anyone (including you) has ever made using that same logic. What, you have no regrets in life or something? But that's not even the point.

The point is, most every Middle Eastern country has some kind of brutal authoritarian history, and a corresponding LACK of history with democracy. Do we go after them, too? Syria may have the WMD and the high-ranking Iraqi officials we're looking for. Do we go after them? Certainly you can't be in favor of a half-million troops -- or more -- permanently stationed in the Middle East for the next ten-plus years because suicide bombers and kids with rocks threaten the stability of governments WE prop up.

I'm actually cool with the fact that, post 9/11, the US could really use a beefed-up presence in the Middle East to keep an eye on terrorism. Hell, to me that's partly what Afghanistan was about -- and we had the evidence to support us. But it's foolish to think that we could go in, clean house, and report back that the threat is gone and our work is done. Our work is just beginning in Iraq.

Moral certainty -- it's so overrated.

Your turn.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Baghdad

Huston said:
This is what is next…

Ps. before you get upset, this is a joke.
There is a little burgh up the Allegheny from Pittsburgh called Baghdad, unless they changed its name.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
A Smokescreen

History is cyclic, in the 1700-1800 european countries didn't fight wars against them in their countries, but on their colonies.
Now France and much of the EU was getting involved in the exploitation of iraqui oil resources, OPEP countries were starting to drift towards an economy dominated by the Euro rather than the dollar. This "liberation" was only a smokescreen and a sign for those who were comercializing in Euro (and making the EU a stronger economical empire than the US) to change back and save the US economical empire from the real axis of evil, and that's the EU ;)

So it's just like in the old times, an indirect war. And still an economical war.


PS: Saddam was making much more money trading in euros than in dollars.. :p
 

H

Cyburbian
Messages
2,850
Points
24
Re: Baghdad

Tom R said:
There is a little burgh up the Allegheny from Pittsburgh called Baghdad, unless they changed its name.
This one is by Tallahassee, FL.

My brother found the church one day. He is the one in the photo.
 

petrushka

Cyburbian
Messages
30
Points
2
the right thing to do

The "right thing to do" would have been to curtail U.S. Foriegn policy, oust bush from office, and take care of america's overbearing problem of representation of the people (among many, many other things). This war is nothing more-- and yes, I am not the first, nor the last to say it-- than a move to secure future resources for an old world economy that possesses the technologies and the physical abilities to research ,develop, and put into place an energy system capable of supplanting our dependance on fossil fuels. The trouble is that the powers that be profit mightily from that dependance, and are therefore unwilling to give the "right thing to do" any further thought or effort than seedily using the cause to canvas votes which allow them to either retain, or advance their present financial status.
"The right thing to do" would be to take the billions being spent on literally "robbing at gunpoint" a poorer society in the name of liberty-- while many americans are currently unemployed with no hope (until bush and all of his new growth has burned) of finding suitable work; enslaved by the very same financial and political powers who profess to be "of the people"--and put it towards further research and development of solar and wind technologies, and emerging hybrid fuel cell technologies. The "right thing to do" would be to utilize the powers granted by the constitution to pass legislation to set a standard energy use for all new structures, mandate the auto industry to more strict fuel use responsibilities, and plow through the legal backtrails of corporations operating long in the shadows-- often times, against the people, at an obvious profit-- to deny them access to loopholes in current legislation, thereby making their frequent escape from justice, insecure.
Food for thought: If the Iraqi people truly wanted Saddam thrown from power, would they not do it themselves? Did not the Dutch, French, the Americans, the Russians, and the Bosnians do so?
Our government's presence in the Middle East is quite concretely, not the "right thing to do".
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
[ot]Greg, you old red running dog, welcome back. How was Germany? Did you visit the Marx family plot in Trier? [/ot]
 

petrushka

Cyburbian
Messages
30
Points
2
to answer your question, Beaner

Absolutely not. Our presence in the Middle East has no influence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That, as with the recent fracturing of Yugoslavia, is a war steeped in religious difference and subjugation. Religious wars continue until the parties involved are physically separated, or one or more parties are annhiliated (sp?).
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
Re: the right thing to do

Originally posted by petrushka
The "right thing to do" would have been to curtail U.S. Foriegn policy, oust bush from office, and take care of america's overbearing problem of representation of the people (among many, many other things).
Like it or not (and I don't) Bush is our president, legally. Curtail US foriegn policy? What exactly does that mean; become isolationist? America's overbearing problem of representation of the people? Do you mean we have too much representation?

This war is nothing more-- and yes, I am not the first, nor the last to say it-- than a move to secure future resources for an old world economy that possesses the technologies and the physical abilities to research ,develop, and put into place an energy system capable of supplanting our dependance on fossil fuels. The trouble is that the powers that be profit mightily from that dependance, and are therefore unwilling to give the "right thing to do" any further thought or effort than seedily using the cause to canvas votes which allow them to either retain, or advance their present financial status.
Yes, we could all hook our computers up to solar panels and power our factories with wind turbines if only the big, bad companies just let us. But no, why would a company want to be competitive and find alternative or more efficient sources of power that might make it profits? Damn those meanies! Come on, environmentalists! Let's force them to convert to good, clean sources of power like hydro and nuclear!

"The right thing to do" would be to take the billions being spent on literally "robbing at gunpoint" a poorer society in the name of liberty-- while many americans are currently unemployed with no hope (until bush and all of his new growth has burned) of finding suitable work; enslaved by the very same financial and political powers who profess to be "of the people"
Oh, come on! Unrealistic, textbook, paranoid, neo-Marxist rhetoric.... I hold some fairly left-leaning views on environmental issues, yet I was willing to dismiss your comments by the end of the first paragraph. Get real.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
beat me to the punch Michael...

Not to completely provoke Pet, but if I read you correctly the Iraqis enjoyed living under the opressive rule of Saddam and the Ba'ath party?

Have you not been reading the personal stories that has been coming out of this wretched country? Like the war or not and I have always agreed there were legitimate arguments against action--though I think we did the right thing because the rest of the world would not or could not--Let me say it again, Like the war or not NO ONE can say that getting rid of saddam is bad for the Iraqi people.

So the tumultous street demonstrations from pulling his statue down to yes, Shiite demonstrations in Karbala were what, the work of the CIA?
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,550
Points
24
gkmo62u said:
beat me to the punch Michael...

Not to completely provoke Pet, but if I read you correctly the Iraqis enjoyed living under the opressive rule of Saddam and the Ba'ath party?

Have you not been reading the personal stories that has been coming out of this wretched country? Like the war or not and I have always agreed there were legitimate arguments against action--though I think we did the right thing because the rest of the world would not or could not--Let me say it again, Like the war or not NO ONE can say that getting rid of saddam is bad for the Iraqi people.

So the tumultous street demonstrations from pulling his statue down to yes, Shiite demonstrations in Karbala were what, the work of the CIA?
LONG POST WARNING:

I hardly believe Iraqis enjoyed living in fear. And count me among those who is glad Saddam is out of power -- dead or just disappeared. It's a good day when any oppressor is toppled and people can begin to control their own destiny.

The stories coming out of Iraq are awful. I saw yesterday that a mass burial with dozens and maybe hundreds of bodies was discovered, and that the people were killed within days of our troops going into Baghdad.

But there are easily a billion people in the world living in similar conditions and experiencing the threat of oppressive regimes. In Nigeria, for example, a woman may soon be executed by beheading by a fundamentalist Islamic court because she had the nerve to be raped by her brother-in-law, become pregnant and have a child. Her crime? Adultery. The court is only waiting for her to wean the child before going ahead with the execution. Is it right to press for regime change in all cases where people are oppressed, or only for those nations most strategically located? Even as the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, I don't think we have the resources -- nor the will -- to go everywhere we're needed.

I also think we underestimate the power of the revenge factor. Shiites and Kurds are estatic to see Saddam gone. But now they (it seems moreso the Shiites than the Kurds right now) want to run the country on their own terms. Sec'y Rumsfeld's response to the Shiites desire for an Islamic republic, a la Iran? "That's just not going to happen." I don't want one either, but the genie's out of the bottle now, and the Shiites, as the poor and uneducated majority of Iraq's population, will push for what they want.

Again, I think the work has just begun in Iraq. Can our nation commit troops and money to Iraq for the next several years? Even in the midst of a shaky domestic economy? Can we really establish a government there that will be friendly to us and not be constantly under fire within the region? Is there a price to pay internationally for essentially "going it alone"? What if what the US envisions for Iraq is hardly what the people want?

That, and not any fondness for brutal fascist regimes, or dove-like tendencies, or any perceived problem with making decisions, was the crux of my objection to the war.
 

boiker

Cyburbian
Messages
3,889
Points
26
war ya war i mean war

no longer is my argument should we goto war... now my argument is... since we have liberated iraq, do we appoint a government or do we allow them to develop their own government?

If the Iraqis want an Iran style government, so be it.. they have the liberty and the freedom to choose their destiny now. We gave it to them. We do not have the moral right to strip the liberty we gave to them or limit it because the vision of Iraq's people or religious leaders does not fit the U.S. model.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
Boiker,
We did just that to Japan. MacAurthur practically wrote their constitution. We did to Germany and Italy. Why don't we have the right to do it too Iraq? We have had to kick their asses twice now for bad behavior. We have the right of the victor to tell the vanquished how the cow is going to eat the cabbage.

We left their country intact. That and a few years of forced stability will do them well. They should look at the last ass kicking as a blessing in disguise. We could have done far more damage if that was the kind of people we were. Instead we may have just given them a huge head start on the rest of the Middle East. Only time will tell.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
There's not going to be a theocracy, the guys that want an Iraqi theocracy are chummy with the corrupt high clerics of Iran's theocracy. If THE PEOPLE of Iran have their way, Theocracy will be gone (excluding religious institutions, where it belongs) within 20 years.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,550
Points
24
El Guapo said:
Boiker,
We did just that to Japan. MacAurthur practically wrote their constitution. We did to Germany and Italy. Why don't we have the right to do it too Iraq? We have had to kick their asses twice now for bad behavior. We have the right of the victor to tell the vanquished how the cow is going to eat the cabbage.

We left their country intact. That and a few years of forced stability will do them well. They should look at the last ass kicking as a blessing in disguise. We could have done far more damage if that was the kind of people we were. Instead we may have just given them a huge head start on the rest of the Middle East. Only time will tell.
You're right about Japan, Germany and Italy. And it was the right thing to do.

But the economic, political and cultural advantages those countries had over Iraq is huge. They either had cultures the US was familiar with (Germany and Italy) or were so homogenous that there was little room for ethnic/cultural dissent (Japan). I think those factors eased the transition in each nation.

The whole Sunni/Shiite/Kurd thing, with two of the three having axes to grind, makes it a little tougher.
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
Looks like GreenPeace is out to get President Bush:



Do you think they'll invade the United States of America anytime soon? Or is this just an ironic political statement articulated by an extremist international Liberal Do-Gooder organization?
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
do people misuse the term liberal to be ironic - or just annoying?

The political spectrum is much larger, and goes in many directions other than left and right.

I think people should feel free to subscribe to the theories they choose without trying to squeeze themselves into someone elses pigeonhole.

i.e. - environmentalists are liberals trying to create a socialist welfare state (ohh my the contradictions)


http://www.politicalcompass.org/
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
Ah, thank you so much! I never realized that.

But please, since you are so friendly and full of good humor, feel free to take a stab at the question: Do you think GreenPeace'll invade the United States of America anytime soon? If they were real Texans, they'd lasso up President Bush like the calf that he is and feed him to sharks!


jresta said:
do people misuse the term liberal to be ironic - or just annoying?

The political spectrum is much larger, and goes in many directions other than left and right.

I think people should feel free to subscribe to the theories they choose without trying to squeeze themselves into someone elses pigeonhole.

i.e. - environmentalists are liberals trying to create a socialist welfare state (ohh my the contradictions)


http://www.politicalcompass.org/
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
I think greenpeace is staging a massive invasion.

You think those ships are really for research? Everybody knows they're in cahoots with al qaeda! We don't call 'em environmental terrorists for nothin'.

They're using arab anger at the US right now to recruit new followers and bring their environmental jihad to our shores.

They'll supplant our good ole' democracy with their fascist, primitivist ways and we'll all go back to living in log cabins with no electricty or running water - that is of course right after we all move into the city in 30 story high rises - and right before they wipe humans off the face of the earth so that animals and plants can thrive.

amen.
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
You know, that would actually be kind of scary: GreenPeace as terrorists.


jresta said:
I think greenpeace is staging a massive invasion.

You think those ships are really for research? Everybody knows they're in cahoots with al qaeda! We don't call 'em environmental terrorists for nothin'.

They're using arab anger at the US right now to recruit new followers and bring their environmental jihad to our shores.

They'll supplant our good ole' democracy with their fascist, primitivist ways and we'll all go back to living in log cabins with no electricty or running water - that is of course right after we all move into the city in 30 story high rises - and right before they wipe humans off the face of the earth so that animals and plants can thrive.

amen.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
what's more scary is that there are people out there who actually believe that.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
I guess a better question is does Bush really have those kind of weapons and, i don't know, he's invaded countries before, might he do it again?

speaking of NBC weapons? . . . umm . . . what was that war about?
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
Really?! I never knew that. But I guess I can believe it - some of the tactics they've used in the past have seemed a little Guerilla or terroristy.


jresta said:
what's more scary is that there are people out there who actually believe that.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
sorry beaner, for misreading you in the earlier post. I didn't detect the sarcasm.
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,213
Points
29
Hey, no prob! Glad to have you in Cyburbia! Politically, I think you and I are both in the same camp (...I think). I'm a Democrat, though I no longer have any faith in the party. Sucks to be an American liberal these days.

Anyhoo... GET YOUR WAR ON!
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
hehe - i'm def. not a Democrat. No offense of course. I'm not too in tune with the whole "liberal" thing either. They remind me too much of engineers. They mean well but they always wind up making a bigger mess.

I guess there two sides. The "practical" or "realistic" side of me that wants to see problems solved ASAP. Then there is the side of me that thinks we shouldn't have to make those decisions in the first place. Which side i give answers from . . . well, your guess is as good as mine

you think i have that picture of Emiliano Zapata in my profile for nothing?
 

Chris

Member
Messages
19
Points
1
From a legal view - it was very clearly an invasion.

But then -
the war on nazi germany ultimately was a liberation. So...?

We'll have to wait what is going to happen next in the Middle East. Right now Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia seemingly start to introduce reforms. If they lead to a wider freedom, and if the Iraqi people are going to choose freely for themselves, I will say that this was a liberation.
 
Top