Why is there such skepticim from Americans about America's motives in Iraq?

[redman]

Other countries and their citizenry have their own agendas, cultural biases, fears, etc.

But what I don't get is Americans who attribute illicit and base motives to our war against Iraq, rather than accepting at face value that our Administration sincerely believes that there's a danger to our country that needs to be removed?

Where does this skepticism come from?

[Yomar]

after decades of scandals, abuses of power and lies, its tough not to be cynical of government

[Art]

Originally posted by Yomar

after decades of scandals, abuses of power and lies, its tough not to be cynical of government

Yes. I see a similarity between us and Iraq and the trustworthiness of the two .

[Kilmer17]

I blame Clinton

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I blame Clinton

hahahahahahaa

[Yomar]

there is more than enough blame to go around, its not a partisan thang

[fansince62]

redman...perhaps it's also a cultural matter........everything these days is contentious, fractious and bellicose! you can't pick up a paper or watch an interview without hearing something directed at the person rather than the idea. this seems to have become the norm for discourse and argument these days....and we have all been guilty of it on this board!!!!

[JackC]

I've come to learn that it is caused by the evil within the democrat party. The only way to be a true patriot is to join the GOP!

FOUR MORE YEARS!

[Kilmer17]

Welcome aboard Jack.

[redman]

I actually mean to be serious here, and I'm glad Jack for one is participating because I happen to read his views to be quite skeptical of our motives. I just don't see why.

fs62, I'm not sure you're right that discourse is more personal now than it was. Read about the impeachment of Andrew Johnson sometime, or various scandals various of our politicians throughout history frankly. They're all obscenely personal, and that's ignoring whether or not the accusations were true.

But to me that's another issue. Even assuming that the means of discourse is more personal, I'm wondering why it is that it's backed by the people who mean to express skepticism about our country's present position on Iraq.

[Yomar]

I'll tell you what, our government has really shined the last couple of days in the face of some pretty unpleasant situations. Powell's making the case against Iraq and the way NASA has dealt with the shuttle disaster are two examples of the type of frank open discourse that would go a long way towards healing the distrust a lot of people have of the government. Of course, then all the politicians and their spin doctors would be out a job...but they could probably work in TV

[The Evil Genius]

Perhaps some of the mistrust comes from that the US puts these wacked out "wolves in sheep's clothing" into power in the 1st place and then twenty years later, decides that they can no longer tolerate their actions.

IT wasnt too long ago that Saddam and IRAQ was our"friend" and that we supported Osama in Afghanistan. The US was quite in favor of Saddam's dictatorship at one time. They sold him arms throughout the Iran/Iraq war. During the Iran and Iraq war Saddam supposedly gassed villages and the US not only blocked UN resolutions condemning Saddam but issued reports blaming Iran for the attack. The US mainly kept silent as he carried out genocide on the Kurds in the 1980s.

Now, after they (Saddam and Osama) have truly revealed their intentions, citizens are expected to accept teh new guys we want to put in power.

Are these new guys going to be the next Osma or Saddam?

[The Evil Genius]

But then I am not speaking entirely from my views - since I trust that we will not be getting involved with warfare on Iraq unless its needed.

[Riggo-toni]

In the Spanish American War, we were duped into believing the Spaniards had blown up the Maine, even though this is very doubtful (more likely it was an engineering failure). This psuedo-provocation was siezed upon by journalists who back then liked War (good headlines sold papers).

In WWI, after running on the peace platform (the famous campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war"), Woodrow Wilson used the sinking of the Lusitania as an excuse to bring America into the Great War. Problem was, the Lusitania was reportedly carrying arms to Britain (thus violating our claims of neutrality), and the US was forewarned by the Germans it would be sunk.

In WWII prior to the "Day of Infamy," FDR was secretly bombing German submarines trying to provoke them into a "first strike" that he could use as a causus belli for bringing the US into a war its people weren't ready for.

But the biggest reason lies here:

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave LBJ the right to use force in Vietnam as a response to a supposed attack on a US boat in the region. Years later, with the release of the Pentagon Papers, it was revealed that such an attack never occurred. LBJ privately remarked something to the effect of "Our boys were shooting at fish" So, we were brought into our nation's most unpopular war through an utter lie by our president.

[fansince62]

good question TEG...can't be worse than the old guys!!!!

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by fansince62

good question TEG...can't be worse than the old guys!!!!

I agree. Well at least I hope you are right.

But I think (not 100% sure) that Osama and Saddam were worse than the guys they replaced.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Perhaps some of the mistrust comes from that the US puts these wacked out "wolves in sheep's clothing" into power in the 1st place and then twenty years later, decides that they can no longer tolerate their actions.

We did not put Saddam in power; however we did accept and promote him as the lesser of two evils as a way to contain the spread of militant islamic Fundamentalism. And it wasn't just us. Iran was originally threatening to invade Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti premier made several trips to Moscow to persuade Gorbachev to extend more credit to Saddam. Keeping Iran and Iraq at war with each other was an effective strategy. Unfortunately, Reagan got nailed for the Iran-Contra affair and felt that he had to act as a peacemaker there as part of the damage control.

In Afghanistan, we made the mistake of entrusting the Pakistanis with supplying the mujihaddin in Afghanistan. Contrary to popular opinion, the CIA was not directly involved w/ Bin Laden or any of the other Afghani leaders. Instead, we provided military aid and weapons through the ISI. What we failed to appreciate was the racism and ethnic loyalties among the ISI operatives, who were primarily Pashtun. Consequently, they funneled nearly all of our $3 billion in aid exclusively to Hekmatyar and a handful of other leaders like Usama who were either pashtun or sympathetic to the Pashtun rebels. This was a tragic mistake. We should have gone directly in and supported Massoud, who was by far the most skilled military leader, and was a committed moderate who wanted to unify the country rather than coercing and terrorizing the population the way Hekmatyar and later the Pashtun led Taliban did.

[tex]

Lets see. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Abscam, Bill - "I did not have sex with that women"- Clinton, OJ was framed.

The truth is often harsh and unpleasant, so why not replace it with an appealing deception?

[redman]

The consensus here seems to be that the skepticism arises out of lies by past presidents. What's fascinating is that no one in this thread has indicated skepticism about Bush's, or Powell's or anyone else's credibility from the current administration.

That's telling, because I happen to believe that they've been honest about the information that they've made public, and have not been trying to deceive anyone about what's concerning them in Iraq.

And that's my point. Is the skepticism on this issue limited to the analysis that holds that "one president/Administration is as bad as another?"

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Many people live in a dream world. They believe that you can use conversation to solve all problems. They believe you can contain a problem and isolate it and sanction it and it will just go away. These people fail to realize this fantasy world is possible only due to the actions of those who came before us. What actions am I refering to?

I am talking about the brave men and women who stood up to evil dictators and said enough is enough. They realized that words alone cannot solve all problems. That there comes a time when leaders have to make tough decsions based on what is right not what is popular. The actions our country took in WW1 and WW2 to preserve the peace is exactly what gives these people the fantasy world they dwell in. It is ironic that if these people were alive in 1938 and dealt with Hitler the way they want to deal with Saddam. They wouldn't have the luxury of there fantasy world today.

[Darth Tater]

When we fail to live up to our ideals, people may die

but

when Shaitan lives up to his deal, people must die.

[Mad Mike]

Good post riggo-toni.

We should have gone directly in and supported Massoud

Massoud was a great man. If we had bothered to listen to him we may have been able to avoid 9/11. He told us that something big was coming and begged us to help him get rid of the Taliban and Bin Laden and we ignored him.:shootinth

[tex]

redman,

How can you tell if a politician is lying?

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by tex

redman,

How can you tell if a politician is lying?

They're in office (currently employed)? :high:

[tex]

Rodger that.

You could also answer: when their lips are moving.