Iraq: WSWD? What Should have George W. Done?

seventil · Post by **seventil** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:27 am

As I typed the description of the topic, I realized how crazy it sounded even saying it. To compare the decisions of Bush to Jesus is comical to most, serious to some and not a laughing matter to a few.

Over a bottle of wine (or three) recently I discussed this topic with a fellow Christian friend of mine. It was our conclusion that:

In regards to the Iraq War:

After the 9/11 attack, if George W. would have practiced real Christianity (turning the other cheek, loving your enemy as yourself) he would have made more of an impression on the world.

Think of it: a heartfelt telecast where George says: "Obama, please stop killing Americans. We're angry right now- but we're hating the sin, not you. We aren't going to try and kill you. We are praying for you, and we ask that you stop trying to terrorize us."

The response in America probably would have been terrible. He might have got shot, even. Emotion was so high in American then that people wanted VENGEANCE. (This is a flaw in our society character, but is to be expected). Yeah, people would be mad. Maybe rioting. However, 5 years in the future (like now) people would probably be much, much happier with the war and everything that's been done.

So, questions for debate:

What would have been the world or US reaction to a pacifist solution to the current Iraq War?

Could this ever happen? Would America allow a pacifist solution to a scenario like this?

Is it Biblically justified to do what we're doing in Iraq currently?

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:15 pm

The entire premise is flawed. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the Bush Administration already knew this, and anyone who was paying attention knew as well. We had our reasons for going into Iraq, but 9/11 wasn't it.

I have tried avoiding Iraq threads for a while for one simple reason. I have had a journey that seems to be inverted when compared to the american public in general.

During the obvious buildup to war in Iraq I was adamant in my opposition and my doubts to the legitimacy of the whole WMD charge.

During the first two years of the war, I was unwilling/unable to get past my initial opposition, but during the third year, I decided it was time to stfu about us going in, and began trying to figure out why we went.

In 2000 Iraq quit trading Oil in US Dollars and began doing so in the Euro. At the time people expected it to cost Iraq revenue, but with the declining dollar, it actually paid off quite well for them.

But for the US, allowing Oil to be traded in anything other than dollars is a threat to the long term interest of the US Govt. The primary reason dollars are more than green paper for other countries is the reality they need them for the purchase, of oil. This requires them to maintain additional dollar reserves to protect their own currency; and these reserves, when invested, help maintain the current high levels of the US securities markets.

A shift by OPEC to the euro would rapidly confront the US with an economic disaster. Major oil importers would need to transfer some of their funds from US dollars reserves into euro reserves. This would cause a major fall in the value of the dollar, which could start a chain reaction of further withdrawal of funds as investors became nervous over the value of their dollar assets.

This could cause the out of control US debt, which has been muted currently with artificial inflation of value to become a factor of considerable importance.

It was only after our hostile attitude towards Iran began to become more and more newsworthy that I sorted out a rational reason for us entering Iraq. From that point on, I have had to admit going into Iraq was the right thing to do, but we did it in a piss poor manner.

And for those same reasons we will be in Iran before the decade is out.

seventil wrote:Think of it: a heartfelt telecast where George says: "Obama, please stop killing Americans. We're angry right now- but we're hating the sin, not you. We aren't going to try and kill you. We are praying for you, and we ask that you stop trying to terrorize us."

I think that if Bush had said that he would have been impeached, then tarred and feathered out of town.

Either way, it would have been the wrong thing to do, We didn't need to deal with Iraq to deal with Osama (I am guessing you meant Osama, I dont think Obama had anything to do with it).

seventil wrote:The response in America probably would have been terrible. He might have got shot, even. Emotion was so high in American then that people wanted VENGEANCE. (This is a flaw in our society character, but is to be expected). Yeah, people would be mad. Maybe rioting. However, 5 years in the future (like now) people would probably be much, much happier with the war and everything that's been done.

If Bush had not invaded Afghanistan and did what you suggested instead, he would have been impeached and someone else would have invaded Afghanistan. Either way, not much different than now, and even now I know people who oppose Iraq but still see that we were right to go into Afghanistan.

seventil wrote:What would have been the world or US reaction to a pacifist solution to the current Iraq War?

I don't think there was a pacifist way to get Saddam to quit trading oil in the euro, and it is absolutely against US interests to allow Opec to start migrating to a euro based trade instead of dollars.

seventil wrote:Could this ever happen? Would America allow a pacifist solution to a scenario like this?

Pacifist? No, peaceful? perhaps. But not in Iraq or Afghanistan. One was too dead set against us, the other was too close to anarchy to have a centralized government to deal with in the first place.

seventil wrote:Is it Biblically justified to do what we're doing in Iraq currently?

Sure, there is no shortage of biblical examples of genocide to attain property or goods.

seventil · Post by **seventil** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:26 am

Hi Vladd, thanks for the reply.

Vladd44 wrote:
I think that if Bush had said that he would have been impeached, then tarred and feathered out of town.

Either way, it would have been the wrong thing to do, We didn't need to deal with Iraq to deal with Osama (I am guessing you meant Osama, I dont think Obama had anything to do with it).

I hate that typo. I like Obama. Damn similar names!

I agree that we didn't need to go to Iraq to deal with Osama. However, it was thrown in there as a fight for the "War on Terror" since Iraq harbored terrorists. First it was WMD's, then it was Saddam, then the icing was the War on Terror side. I agree that these were all pretty much a front for oil, greed, property, etc.

If Bush had not invaded Afghanistan and did what you suggested instead, he would have been impeached and someone else would have invaded Afghanistan. Either way, not much different than now, and even now I know people who oppose Iraq but still see that we were right to go into Afghanistan.

Yes, I was speaking mainly of Iraq as Afghanistan isn't thought to be as bad (or bad at all by some).

I don't think there was a pacifist way to get Saddam to quit trading oil in the euro, and it is absolutely against US interests to allow Opec to start migrating to a euro based trade instead of dollars.

I suppose when the goal is greed and long term financial gain, Biblical morality can be put on the back burner.

Pacifist? No, peaceful? perhaps. But not in Iraq or Afghanistan. One was too dead set against us, the other was too close to anarchy to have a centralized government to deal with in the first place.

seventil wrote:Is it Biblically justified to do what we're doing in Iraq currently?
Sure, there is no shortage of biblical examples of genocide to attain property or goods.

True enough there.

I suppose my initial premise was flawed, being that the ultimate goal of Bush and the US government was for property / financial gain and not vengeance for dead Americans.

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:21 pm

I agree that these were all pretty much a front for oil, greed, property, etc.

The oil plays a factor, but in itself it is hardly the primary one. It is the way oil is exchanged via dollars around the world that is at stake. We could live without the oil far easier than we could live without our artificially inflated dollar.

The Persnickety Platypus · Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:47 pm

I'm not so sure about the pacifist approach. Here is a list of countries that George should have invaded:

Belarus
Cote dIvoire
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Laos
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Zimbabwe
Burma
Cuba
Libya
North Korea
Somalia
Sudan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

This is assuming that government oppression and human rights abuses were the prime factor in our selection of a government to trash up, as the administration likes to tout. The dictators and "presidents" of the aformentioned countries all have an infinitely worse track record than Saddam. This should make it clear to anyone (if it was not all ready) that the well being of Iraq's citizens was the last thing on George's mind.

Was the impending economic disaster justification for invasion? Possibly. Then again, considering that the money spend on the war thus far could have ended global poverty twelve times over...

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:39 am

I still say Canada is ripe for invasion.

But it seems that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are the only ones wanting to Blame Canada.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 9:43 am

Vladd44 wrote:I still say Canada is ripe for invasion. But it seems that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are the only ones wanting to Blame Canada.

How about you hold off your invasion and we'll give you Qubec?

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:36 pm

McCulloch wrote:How about you hold off your invasion and we'll give you Qubec?

If the canadians are willing to take W Virginia then it's a deal.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:27 pm

McCulloch wrote:How about you hold off your invasion and we'll give you Qubec?

Vladd44 wrote:If the Canadians are willing to take W Virginia then it's a deal.

Population: 1,818,470
Surnames: 15

spiritletter · Post by **spiritletter** » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:37 pm

What George Bush should have done? He should have been born with a heart. He is merely acting for the energy cartels that his family has been involved with for generations. If George Bush wanted to apply thought to the issue prior to making his decision to invade Iraq, he might have studied the history of the Middle East, Oil Politics, and the general predatory attitude of rich nations toward poor nations throughout time. But thought is not George Bush's metier. Neither is it self-knowledge. He has mistaken his own hard-wiring for thought: he thinks he thinks, but he is merely reacting to conditioned responses that keep him from any honest self examination, or any real knowledge of the human suffering he is causing both abroad and at home. Ditto his loyal administration.

According to the very conservative Johns Hopkins study, more than a half million Iraqis have been killed since the war began, the majority of them civilians. Also, there are nearly three million Iraqi refugees from the war in Jordon and other Middle Eastern Countries.

It's been said many times: who would Jesus Bomb?