The Official Iraq War thread (country, Europe, American, cover)

[sleepy jack]

Go way back, I said we should have dealt with Iran first.

We shouldn't DEAL with anyone. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is giving interviews to TIME Magazine, he isn't about to launch a nuclear strike against the US. He is developing nuclear technology, just..like..every single US ally..is. The only difference is, he isn't a US ally. Only the US and people who will side with them are allowed to have big guns. Naturally, if we got into a war, we'd want the advantage of Nukes of the other country.

Ever heard the saying putting more fuel into the fire?

Yeah, Coalition forces are that fuel.

Fine. You win, lets pull out of Iraq. And if another 9/11 happens a few years down the road, don't try and ask me to forgive you for being wrong.

Iraq was a complete deviation from the War on Terror. I'm an advocate of eliminating terror cells, but we went into Iraq boasting claims of al-Queda links, which he didn't have. He wasn't harboring terrorists, he wasn't a good man, but he was not harboring terrorists. Had we stuck with the course of the 'War on Terror' we'd still have the world with us. We didn't though, we went into a war with Iraq for personal reasons that were only disguised as War on Terror.

Also, we've been nothing but threatened by terrorist attacks since 9/11. I dunno about you, but I though way less about being attacked by terrorists BEFORE this war on Terror to make us more secure. As long as you're scared, you'll do anything, which is how the government was able to get Americans to give up their civil liberties with the PATRIOT Act. Everyone was scared and the government did nothing but perpetuate that fear and then exploit it.

Funny how everyone denies that Saddam intended to have a powerful offensive millitary. Even though its a fact.

Really? You don't remember with the Gulf War, the elite Special Force the Iraqi's supposedly had, the reason we sent thousands of men into Desert Storm? That elite special force that..we never encountered. Had he somehow thrown together an elite warrior unit in the 12 years after Desert Storm? Well, no. Because when the US invaded Iraq we were not met by an army whatsoever. Makeshift militias were what the US encountered, Saddams elite army didn't show up, Saddams..army didn't show up..did Saddam even have an army?

You don't draw your examples well however. I bet if we invaded North Korea you would say its just like Nicaragua too.

We don't have any reason to invade North Korea. Also, you keep bringing up Nicaragua as a comparison to every country we've invaded. Nicaragua was a formative democracy we crushed. North Korea is not a democracy. If we invaded and claimed it was to spread democracy, I would compare it to Nicaragua. We don't care about developing democracies, so saying we went to North Korea to develop one would be a total lie. Also, we DIDN'T invade North Korea. There is a reason for that too. I mean, he actually has nuclear weapons. We just thought that Saddam maybe could have had a couple of like..weapons that were possibly Nuclear. But yet we chose to invade him, because Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the Middle East. North Korea has nothing.

Gee. How irrational of us.

It is irrational fear. A constant, persistant threat looming over your head, even if it isn't really there, affects your judgment tremendously. Like I said, you're justifying a silly, absurd War because of that threat. A threat which hasn't manifested itself.

The goverment has no control over my opinions. Why do they care if I support them or not? I'm a libertarian who thinks drugs and prostitution should be legal. Not the kinda guy a Republican would want working for him.

But Iraq was not a democracy, and it wasnt a poor country that posed no threat. This is why they are different.

Iraq was a poor country that posed no threat. You just weren't supposed to believe that.
And you complete contradict Reagan there. Reagan DID tell the people of the United States that Nicaragua was an imminent threat, just like Bush painted Iraq as an imminent threat.

Maybe it's just me. Do you not understand that Nicaragua and Iraq were not being directly compared by me until I made the above statement, which is a direct comparison? The reason Nicaragua was mentioned was to rebut the theory that we went into Iraq to spread democracy. If we cared about spreading democracy, we wouldn't overthrow them when they formed.

Do you understand that? I don't care whether or not you agree with it, but with that ordering or words do you understand the reason that I brought Nicaragua up. Could I somehow make the point anymore clear to you? Are you going to accuse me of making faulty comparisons because "NICARAGUA ISN"T LIKE IRAQ, ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY" Do you understand where the comparison lies? Do you understand that I am comparing our actions in NICARAGUA with our JUSTIFICATION of War in Iraq. Do you get it? Democracy is not something we care about because we haven't supported them in the past. That refutes our claim that we went into Iraq to spread democracy. Is this understandable to you? Do you get it? Should I make it more clear? Will you stop refuting points that I didn't make? Will you please? Do you understand? How many more times do I have to say this for you to get it? Do I have to talk like you are a 4 year old child for the rest of the post or can you comprehend the comparison? Just tell me, I can continue like this if you really need it.

Again, no matter how evil our intentions were, it should have been done, nothing is going to change that.

Saddam should not have been in power, agreed. But we should not be the ones to take him out.

Yeah, we pull the strings of every democracy in the world, keep telling yourself that.

Didn't say that. Formative democracies in regions where we can easily dominate (AKA not Europe), are the ones whose strings we like to pull. If one attempts to form without US backing, we, at the very least, attempt to overthrow it.

Ok, lets go to war with France.

We would be obliterated by every country in Europe collectively. We would also be hard pressed to come up with justification for it.

And I'm the one who dosen't know his history.

Umm. DOES DARFUR RING A BELL? How about Srebrenica? The UN did NOTHING.

The UN does nothing but send money to Darfur. Sure, they could have paid attention a little sooner, but rich white people don't care about human rights violations in Africa. Nor the Middle East for that matter, which would also serve to refute our absolute desire to bring a better life for Iraqi people.

So, the UN are not at fault for anything? The reason we act the role of world police as you put it is because the UN dosen't do its job. I wish they would. I don't like how we deal with foreign affairs any more than you do.

The US is not the World Police. That is that. Wether George Bush agrees with what the UN is doing or not, he has no authority to break international law and take matters into his own hands. He is not Rambo, George Bush is not John McClane, he is subject to the same laws that all the other countries in the UN are.

Is Israel not another one of those fecades you talk so much about?

If anything the United States is a caucasian facade for Israel.

Ok. You did prove me wrong about protecting terrorists from the FBI. The people who are harboring them obviously should be held accountable.

Well, those people are the highest officials in our White House.

[James Earl Jones]

im going to send my poor friends off to the iraq war and kill off all of my brain cells so i public speak like a monkey with a diIdo in his mouth.

[Alexander the Grape]

Instead of trying to respond to the 5 pages of posts I didn't read I'll just say this:

The vast majority of Iraqis want us out of there. We're supposedly trying to spread democracy. Therefore, we should obey the wish of the people and leave.

/thread

But while I'm here:

Originally Posted by The-Starving-Artless

ARE YOU FOR SERIOUS?

Those are actually lyrics he's used?

Yeah, the first time I heard that song I got the feeling in my stomach like I was going to puke. I'm not joking at all. It didn't help that all my coworkers got together and started singing along with it. It felt like a gross perversion of when my friends and I always would sing along to Against Me! at work.

[boo boo]

Don't mean to be rude but, I question the possibility of blowing up an entire country with an average car bomb. It would have to be one hell of a nuke.

bump. i like to argue about stuff like this.

Then why didn't you contribute to the discussion instead of just saying "bump"?

[Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01]

I'm gonna regret posting here, but what the hell.


I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq.

As far as war goes, I have no problem with it if;

1. It is to remove a major threat to the world.
2. Conquest for the greater good.
3. Retaliation (ie, 9/11 attack).

I don't support the starting of wars, unless it's unavoidable. I think of war as I do natural disasters; both have their own share of conflict that humans must overcome and both involve not only people but sentient life overall. But while most natural disasters mainly deal with Man Vs. Nature conflict, war goes deeper than that; Man Vs. Man, Man Vs. Machine, and Man Vs. Himself. War is the ultimate, I guess, competition where death cam happen at anytime, and it is just one more way of eliminating the weak and preserving the strong, even though that's not the reason wars are started.

Part of me wishes the War in Iraq hadn't started; it wasn't our place to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We should have been looking for a peaceful solution instead pushing for this war.

The other part of me is glad we started it; No one else had the will to do it, and Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator and could have become more dangerous.

I don't think we should be staying in there to try to fix their government and form it into something we want; we don't own the country, so we have no right to regulate what kind of government it becomes

But I don't think we should leave; While we have no right to control what they become, I do think that by leaving, we run the risk of another dictator rising up and taking Saddam's place.

As I said, mixed feelings.

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

I'm gonna regret posting here, but what the hell.


I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq.

As far as war goes, I have no problem with it if;

1. It is to remove a major threat to the world.
2. Conquest for the greater good.
3. Retaliation (ie, 9/11 attack).

I don't support the starting of wars, unless it's unavoidable. I think of war as I do natural disasters; both have their own share of conflict that humans must overcome and both involve not only people but sentient life overall. But while most natural disasters mainly deal with Man Vs. Nature conflict, war goes deeper than that; Man Vs. Man, Man Vs. Machine, and Man Vs. Himself. War is the ultimate, I guess, competition where death cam happen at anytime, and it is just one more way of eliminating the weak and preserving the strong, even though that's not the reason wars are started.

Part of me wishes the War in Iraq hadn't started; it wasn't our place to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We should have been looking for a peaceful solution instead pushing for this war.

The other part of me is glad we started it; No one else had the will to do it, and Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator and could have become more dangerous.

I don't think we should be staying in there to try to fix their government and form it into something we want; we don't own the country, so we have no right to regulate what kind of government it becomes

But I don't think we should leave; While we have no right to control what they become, I do think that by leaving, we run the risk of another dictator rising up and taking Saddam's place.

As I said, mixed feelings.

You do realize that it was the United States who put Saddam Hussein in power in the 1960's and we were the ones giving him military and monetary aid while he was commiting the atrocities that qualify him as a 'dangerous dictator'.

i guess ill actually reply to each part of this.

1. he was not a threat to the world, polls indicate that he wasn't even a threat to the kuwatis, a people who had already been invaded by him once. he was a fledgling dictator living off of decades old American aid.

2. er, conquest for the greater good? what is the greater good in all of this? 100,000 iraqis dead? increased threat of terrorism? i'm missing this greater good.

3. saddam hussein had no al queda connections, a point which has been conceded by the bush administration, are you still basking in that hollow justification?

About you being glad that we started it because no one else had the will to do it. are you up on your historical facts much? i guess you don't recall the Shi'ite uprising in the early 90's which would have very likey overthrown Saddam from power, but was crushed with US authorization and assistance. I think that those shia muslims had the will to overthrow saddam, the only problem is that the US wouldn't let them do it. so i guess your whole "we were the only ones with the will to do it" argument is kaput. We were the only ones with the will to do it because we were the only ones who were painting him as this grave threat to world security. the rest of the world could see through our bullsh*t, and realized that saddam was not an imminent threat.

[Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01]

Originally Posted by i get high sometimes

You do realize that it was the United States who put Saddam Hussein in power in the 1960's and we were the ones giving him military and monetary aid while he was commiting the atrocities that qualify him as a 'dangerous dictator'.

i guess ill actually reply to each part of this.

1. he was not a threat to the world, polls indicate that he wasn't even a threat to the kuwatis, a people who had already been invaded by him once. he was a fledgling dictator living off of decades old American aid.

I believe any dictator in this world, whether they live in a **** hole of a country or not, is a potential threat. Maybe not now.... well, especially not now since he's dead, but give him a little leg room and a couple years and see.

2. er, conquest for the greater good? what is the greater good in all of this? 100,000 iraqis dead? increased threat of terrorism? i'm missing this greater good.

I'm talking about war in general. By conquest for the greater good, this could mean waging war with a dangerous nation and trying to conquer them before they can conquer other nations, or for imperialistic gain, which would be for the greater good of the country conquering and taking over nations rather than the whole world.

Of course, as you can see, there is a problem with the latter reason, especially in this time and age.

3. saddam hussein had no al queda connections, a point which has been conceded by the bush administration, are you still basking in that hollow justification?

I believe in whatever I believe in, whether it be based on facts, conjectures of my own, or just figments of my own quirky imagination. If that discredits my argument, so be it. But no, I don't listen to anything Bush or his administration say.

About you being glad that we started it because no one else had the will to do it. are you up on your historical facts much? i guess you don't recall the Shi'ite uprising in the early 90's which would have very likey overthrown Saddam from power, but was crushed with US authorization and assistance. I think that those shia muslims had the will to overthrow saddam, the only problem is that the US wouldn't let them do it. so i guess your whole "we were the only ones with the will to do it" argument is kaput. We were the only ones with the will to do it because we were the only ones who were painting him as this grave threat to world security. the rest of the world could see through our bullsh*t, and realized that saddam was not an imminent threat.

Ok, you got me there. I wasn't aware of any uprising in the 90's. I was refering to right before the war started. And again, I believe any dictator in this world is a potential threat. Even if the world didn't see Saddam as one, I did, and the US did apparently. Whether they were painting him as a threat or not is irrelevant.

...

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

...

Alright, I'll reply to each part of this.

Saddam Hussein WAS a threat, point conceded, but he was a threat in the 1980's, when he was backed and supported by the United States. During the Reagan and Bush I administrations, Saddam committed genocided against the Kurds in northern Iraq. All the while, the United States was providing him with the weaponry he needed to carry out this genocide. In fact, in 1982, Iraq was taken off the list of countries which sponsor terrorism so that he would be eligible for aid under the Reagan administrations. So, we supported him during his atrocities, and then used the same atrocities to justify his removal from power. Pretty illogical. Ever since 2000, when he stopped recieving aid from the United States, he poses absolutely no threat to anyone. Perhaps his own people, but that is what revolution is for. As for any dictator being a threat, you should really let the government know that, since we continue to support ruthless dictators just like Saddam Hussein, and have been doing so for years. Look at Suharto, Mobutu, Somoza, the Shah, and countless others for proof of that. The United States really doesn't view fascist dictators as a threat. If they did, we would stop supporting them.

Next, you think that imperialist gain is for the 'greater good'? Do you see the massacres in India (the Sepoy rebellion) and China (the Opium Wars) or the absolute raping of the Congo by the Belge, or the horrors in pre-1960 Algeria, as very potent counter-examples of imperialist gain being for the 'greater good'? The Indochina wars? In what way is imperial gain 'greater good'? All it does is cause suffering, which is why most European countries released their imperial possessions after WWII. Of course their is a problem with justifying war for imperial means. Not even the imperialist countries actually thought imperial gain was good justification for war, which is why they came up with other silly excuses for their wars.

Okay, you believe in what you want to believe in. That doesn't make it true in any way whatsoever, especially when it is not only based on NO evidence, but is actually refuted BY the evidence which is in existance. Why would the United States concede that Iraq had no al-Queda connections, after all, they used it's 'connections' with al-Queda to justify war in Iraq after the first justification fell through (WMD's). It was in their favor to have the populus think that Iraq had al-Queda connections, which is why, when it was discovered that they had none, it was somewhat impressive to hear the administration admit it. But of course, they couldn't pull out, they just offered another justification. Your 'own conjectures' led you to believe that Iraq had al-Queda connections...


And lastly, YOU viewed Saddam as a threat. Therefore an illegal war against him is justified. Well there you go, all this time the Bush administration was desperately grasping for plausible justification for this war, when they could have just gone ahead and said that Voice_of_The_Soul 12,13,01 viewed him as a threat and the international community would have been off our backs. Why didn't you say so earlier?!