|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 23:28:44 GMT -5
Iran - much less a threat than you would believe. Although a member of the AoE, they are like the little brother that just barely made the team Syria - Odds of Syria developing WMD? Very low risk. Chechnya - See Syria, only more so. Nigeria - See Chechnya. Cuba - Because if Cuba gets uppity, it costs almost nothing for the US to sweep over the island. Of all the countries listed, Cuba is minimal threat. Nothing big (like weapons) can get into or out of Cuba So WMD appear to be your main issue here. Here's what Hans Blix (I assume you'll agree that his opinion matters...) had to say: "L'expérience de l'AIEA en matière de vérification nucléaire prouve qu'il est possible, particulièrement avec un système intrusif de vérification, d'évaluer la présence ou l'absence d'un programme nucléaire, même sans la coopération totale des autorités du pays inspecté"<br>Which essentially says that even without a country's full cooperation, it's possible to evaluate whether or not a country has a nuclear weapons program. radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/special/nouvelles/irak/irak/inspections.shtmlAnd do I need to remind you that there were inspectors in Iraq when the US decided that the deadline had passed ? I just wish we could figure why *now*. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 23:52:27 GMT -5
Well, it looks like TNG covered the left flank. Couple of notes. BC, you dismiss similarities between Hitler and Saddam because other can be as sadistic and cruel? Sheesh! Isn't that a bit rich? Or are you just trying to be argumentive? Old man and children are dying to save the Saddam fatherland. Where have you heard that before? Of course that's true. But why now, after 12 years? What was the trigger, the catalyst? To "free the Iraqi people" certainly isn't it, because there are lots of oppressed people around the world. Why not expand the war to Iran? Or Syria? Both those countries are virtual mirror images of Iraq, and if its just a line on a map... Where is the bleating that weapons inspections aren't working for those countries? I agree that weapons inspections weren't working in Iraq, but to say THAT is the reason for invasion... Why didn't the Americans supply the muscle from the get-go? "Of course that's true." You have a nasty habit of agreeing with me and I can not take it anymore. Please stay on the other side of the table.  Always looking for a conspirecy but nothing at face value. Unless you are alos going to use the oil argument. You want the Ugly American to go all over the world and yet you lambast him for doing this in Iraq? Why? Where is the "Appeasment" movements precious UN? We keep going over the reasons for invading Iraq and you keep asking the same question. Why? " I agree that weapons inspections weren't working in Iraq, but to say THAT is the reason for invasion... Why didn't the Americans supply the muscle from the get-go?" Stop it, you hear me, stop it. You must DISAGREE with me. The US did supply the muscle up to 1998 and the usuall suspects did everything possible to stop it. Do a little homework on the final days of inspection in 1998. I supplied an overview in a few threads on this subject. Oh god, that's an easy one. Kurds in the north (who live in virtual autonomy anyways) and Shiite Muslims in the south, who rebelled (after Bush 1 urging) and who could have toppled Saddam had they been backed then. The Ba'ath clan is actually a small one, by Iraqi clan standards, and not overly well liked outside of their own little circle. They hold power now - ruthlessly - but there is no shortage of people who would gladly take his place. There is an entire Iraqi government in exile already.You know, you should not make the arguments for me. His military is enough to suppress all his enemies except for that big Ugly American war machine and then you make the point about how they ruthlessly hold power now but expects someone to sneak in the back door and take over. Please stay consistent in your argument. Now you say that there are people who would gladly take over the place. You said “There is an entire Iraqi government in exile already.”<br> So what happened to your “descent into anarchy, lawlessness and bad toilets”? Face it, you are not really against this action. That is why you can't debate it with honest conviction and clarity. I am not a big fan of sanctions myself, but you stated that nobody has provided any alternatives. People have. Just because you disagree with them, does not make them "unreasonable." "I am not a big fan of sanctions myself" So why bring them up as an argument? BC, please take the opposite view, it makes it hard for me to debate myself and you know how I am a master de bater. And I'm still awaiting a reasonable, in depth post on why here, why now. Your Pax Americana post - while contradicting a lot of your above reasoning - still doesn't explain why Iraq, why now. The "well, they happen to be in the neighborhood" answer is not a good one. Why not Iran? Why not Syria? Why not Chechyna? Why not Nigeria? Why Iraq, an oil-rich country? Why not Cuba, a poor, destitute, non-oil country? Isn't Cuba much more "in the neighborhood?"And who gave you a simple "well, they happen to be in the neighborhood" answer. I laid out the Chaney Docrtrine and the reasoning behind the "now". If you think it looks contradictory it's because I touched upon all the reasons that could be used by both hawks and doves. Did you miss the part about the ability of Iran to rebuild itself? What about the fact that it is ruled by the Nastiest Dictator of the Year? The proximity to Afganistan? More.... Sheesh, if you want more then you have to wait for my book. So why don't YOU tell us why? P.S. BC, you are not doing a very good job potraying yourself as the Voice of Anti-UglyAmerica. Please stop forcing yourself and come to the light. War is a dirty, dirty job but someone has to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 24, 2003 0:08:00 GMT -5
Unworthy oversimplifications and parodic statements.
To say that there is but ONE reason to invade Iraq is like saying the only crime that Hitler committed was trying to take over Europe.
WMD's were one of a myriad of reasons to invade Iraq. Other reasons include, but are not limited to: He's a threat to regional security, he has worked with at least two terrorist groups in the past, he has the means to supply said terrorist groups with the resources to attack the USA and the desire to do so, he is in violation of the peace accord which he signed in 1991 and he is rivaled by few historic dictators in his cruelty to his own populace (namely: Stalin and Hitler).
But yeah - the weapons inspectors were really working. That's why twelve years on he still has missiles he's not supposed to have.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 24, 2003 9:12:07 GMT -5
Go and check out how many jews live in Iraq. Or how many Synagouges there are. Or pick up a history book and leaf to the section on WWII. Then come answer this question again. Saddam is an anti-semite of the highest order. However, his country did not have a lot of Jewish people to begin with, and since he slaughtered almost all of them for the most part when he took power, it really hasn't been an issue. He's content to pay suicide bombers (or rather, their families) and lob missiles at Israel whenever he gets a chance. The Iraqi funding of suicide bombers is nothing compared to the Saudi and Iranian funding and training of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and a dozen or other more elaborate, effective, and dangerous terrorist groups. Yet Saudi Arabia is allegedly one of our strongest allies in the region. Iraq's funding of terrorists has always been more symbolic than actually effective. Just a quick note. The last list does not intersect with the rest of the list. Except China, but more on that in a second. The point HA is making is that Saddam compares to Hitler in a lot of ways that no one else does. Sure, a couple of them have a couple similarities, but few have so much common ground. Do you really think Pakistan wants to rule the world? Or do they just want to recapture the kashmir and make the lives of the indians bad. And vice versa for india. Has Israel shown any intent on ruling the middle east? No. That's a matter of opinion. World domination? Come on. Thats rhetoric in the highest order. Regional domination, almost certainly. World domination? Not even Saddam is that unrealistic. You've got to be kidding me right? Excluding the problem with body doubles among other things, I don't think anyone wants Uday or Xnay (or whatever the other ones name is) to take over from Saddam. That changes NOTHING. Or let me correct myself. That can only make things worth. Xnay is the head of the Iraqi secret police in charge of such fun things as torture, military operations, opressing the population and deploying such officers as "Chemical" Ali to regions to 'eliminate' problems. Uday is the head of the "communications" (read: propoganda) of the country of Iraq, is the guy who likely authorized those gruesome and despicably POW videos, is the head of the Iraqi Olympic Committe (which has done such wonderful things as imprisoning and torturing the Iraqi Soccer team when they lost a match, and is a serial rapist too boot. But yeah - lets let one of those two take control. Or better yet, let's let them split the country and fight over it. So then you wipe them out too. Isn't that the goal of this war? Why do they have to level and occupy the country to do so? Bush I didn't eliminate Saddam because hethought diplomacy would work. He was wrong. Why now? Because the time is right. Troops are in region. The threat posed by the Iraqi and other terrorist organization is so high. North Korea (out of region) is also posing a threat to world security, thus creating a real problem should both act up at the same time. So why not continue through Iran and Syria? Why not wipe out Saudi Arabia, a much more active funder of terrorism than Iraq? (not to mention Iran) Why just Iraq? And tens of thousands of US troops are in the Korean thingyula, as well as an entire war infrastructure designed to accomodate a much larger force. The Americans could very easily transfer their forces to that region. I won't touch the problems that would cause. But I assure you, funding indiscriminate tribal warfare is not a good idea. And yet that is precisely what I fear will happen. Ignoring the CIA operatives working over the last year to flame these very divisions, what will happen after the war? Will the US occupy Iraq? That certainly won't ease the anti-American sentiment in the region, now will it? Will they prop up a puppet regime? Didn't work too well in Iran, and given the tribal and clan divisions already existing in the country any puppet regime is going to have to rule with an iron fist, because their opposition will not hesitate to use one if given the chance. Or will they simply abandon Iraq to its fate, as they have done with Afghanistan? Iran - much less a threat than you would believe. Although a member of the AoE, they are like the little brother that just barely made the team. That's not even close to being true. Iran is the closest of any of those countries to acquiring the bomb. Syria - Odds of Syria developing WMD? Very low risk. Syria has invaded and occupied Lebanon for the last decade or so. They are funders of terrorism (though not on the scale of Saudi Arabia or Iran) and they train, harbor, and arm those militias in southern Lebanon that routinely invade and attack Israel. They have a very large army, and are just as interested in acquiring weapons of mass destruction as anybody else in the region. Why would you suggest they aren't? What part of their recent history suggests they are peace-loving, democratic, pacificst nation? Chechnya - See Syria, only more so. Granted, but wasn't this war supposed to be about liberating oppressed people, who happen to be in the region? See Chechyna indeed. Nigeria is a mess, but since major US oil companies work and thrive there, its an acceptable mess. Nigeria is the 5th largest supplier of oil to the US. So its obviously not about "doing the right thing." Cuba - Because if Cuba gets uppity, it costs almost nothing for the US to sweep over the island. Of all the countries listed, Cuba is minimal threat. Nothing big (like weapons) can get into or out of Cuba. Now we are getting somewhere. So its not really "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then, is it? Its "Operation Subdue Iraq." Is that what you are saying? Since Iraq got "uppity" they have to be slapped back down? Who cares about the rights and freedoms of the people? Since Cuba is a minimal threat, and since the US could indeed sweep right across the country, why don't they do so? Why don't they install a democractic and free society in Cuba? Why don't they eliminate Castro, in the same way Castro eliminates his political opponents? Is it because there is nothing to be gained from freeing Cuba? Is it because Cuba is a minimal threat to the US?You've answered by question, though perhaps not in the manner you had hoped. Its Iraq because they can, because its politically and logistically convienent, because its in the US' best interests. Its not because of the Iraqi people, or any concept of "Iraqi freedom" at all, now is it? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 24, 2003 10:44:02 GMT -5
We're not talking about other countries in the region. We're talking about Iraq.
Don't kid yourself BC. Saddam knows that regional domination (and thus control of the majority of the worlds oil supply) would give him enough clout to 'rule the world'. World domination is not all that unrealistic from his pov.
(a) There are about twenty other close followers of Saddam. I just used Uday and his brother as an example of a guy that would step into a power vaccum and make the country as bad or worse than the current situation. An assassination is pure idiocy for any number of reasons and would likely leave Iraq embroiled in internal and external warfare.
(b) I haven't seen any evidence of the country being 'levelled'. Hell, the lights are still on in Baghdad. The water is still on in Umm Qasr. Life goes on.
Only if you over simplyfy things as you have BC. Sadly, because you're trying to find a signular reason (which could also apply to half a dozen other countries) you fail to see that you can not simply say "we are at war because...". We are at war for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is his treatment of his populace. You ask why not here or there? Perhaps you would like to pay for the military operations in these places? The USA can not be everywhere at once, but it can be at the most important places. When will Nigeria develop WMD's? When will Syria seize control of world's oil feilds, thus making them the effective rulers of the world?
To go back to another analogy, why don't you ask why the allies went after Germany rather than the Soviets in WWII? The answer is simple. Germany was much more of a global threat at the time. Iraq is not a much more global threat that Nigeria or Chechnya etc.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 24, 2003 12:27:19 GMT -5
We're not talking about other countries in the region. We're talking about Iraq. You cannot talk about Iraq without talking about the other countries in the region. They are inter-mixed, and any action in one, causes reaction in others. Osama bin Laden's central creed is to kick American forces out of Saudia Arabia. To that end, he will inflame and use the populaces of every country in the region. Iraq does not exist in a vaccuum. Don't kid yourself BC. Saddam knows that regional domination (and thus control of the majority of the worlds oil supply) would give him enough clout to 'rule the world'. World domination is not all that unrealistic from his pov. Does this mean Saudi Arabia is in effect, the most powerful nation in the world? Should not then, it be much more imperative to cripple and weaken, and occupy Saudi Arabia (course, some would argue this has already been done). (a) There are about twenty other close followers of Saddam. I just used Uday and his brother as an example of a guy that would step into a power vaccum and make the country as bad or worse than the current situation. An assassination is pure idiocy for any number of reasons and would likely leave Iraq embroiled in internal and external warfare. The orginal point of listing those options, was to counter the argument made here that the anti-war faction will NEVER come up with any alterior options, aside from war. That list showed that there are many alterior options to the current course of policy, and to debate each and every other option is a whole other debate in and of itself. The point is, to say that this is the only option is not accurate, nor is it accurate to say that those who oppose this war, have never suggested any other options. We have. You just don't agree with them. Only if you over simplyfy things as you have BC. Sadly, because you're trying to find a signular reason (which could also apply to half a dozen other countries) you fail to see that you can not simply say "we are at war because...". We are at war for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is his treatment of his populace. You ask why not here or there? Perhaps you would like to pay for the military operations in these places? The USA can not be everywhere at once, but it can be at the most important places. When will Nigeria develop WMD's? When will Syria seize control of world's oil feilds, thus making them the effective rulers of the world? To go back to another analogy, why don't you ask why the allies went after Germany rather than the Soviets in WWII? The answer is simple. Germany was much more of a global threat at the time. Iraq is not a much more global threat that Nigeria or Chechnya etc. Later But isn't that the debate? We have seen pictures of dead Kurdish children posted on this board, as if it matters. There are dead children everywhere, including Nigeria and Chechnya. In the end, there deaths are only a small, perhaps insignificant factor in the launching of this war. Perhaps not a reason at all. I keep asking why here, why now, and I keep getting a "Saddam is a bad guy, look what he did to the children" response. Nobody debates that. He is a bad guy. But there are all kinds of other bad guys on the planet, and nobody seems to mind their continued existance. Some are our strongest allies. Try being a woman in Saudi Arabia, which is essentially the Taliban without the oil. You are right, there is no singular reason as to why Iraq, why now. But it is the pro-war faction that has tried to reduce it to one. "Saddam is bad, he is dangerous, he is a threat to world security." So are lots of people. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 24, 2003 13:00:12 GMT -5
Agreed, but you're trying to imply that the US should go in to Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked "but everyone else is doing it" isn't a valid excuse for doing something. Your argument that because Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria have a slightly anti-semetic bent (they don't want the destruction of the Jewish people a la Saddam and Hitler, they just want them out of the Holy Land) that they should be targets as well. That, my friend, is a logical fallacy that you carry through your entire anti-war reasoning. As I have said time and again, there is not but one or two or ten reasons to remove Saddam Hussien, but twenty or thirty.
So yes, I can say you need to focus on Iraq and no where else.
Saudi Arabia could be the most powerful nation in the world. Certainly not through their industrial might, but through their vast supplies of oil they could effectively bring the world to a halt. Is it imperitive to occupy their land then? No. They are much more "world friendly" than Iraq has ever been.
I have yet to hear a viable, logical solution besides taking him out with force that would prevent further degredation to the Iraqi people and the political situation in the area. If you have one, please tell me about it (and provide some amount of support to it other than 'assassination is best' or 'sanctions really do work, really').
He is a bad guy. He has committed horrors upon children. You think because other countries have similar despoting lunatics that we should be everywhere? Or do you beleive that since we can't save everyone we shouldn't be allowed to use the poor living conditions of the Iraqi people as a reason among countless reasons to remove the opressive, Iraqi regime?
By your logic we should have never gone into World War II. After all, we didn't have the resources to fight all the evil in the world, so why should we take on Hitler? And most certainly we shouldn't have allied with Stalin. Ye gods... such a horrible thing that war was. We should never have been a part of it. We should've just accepted the fact that evil is present in the world and goose-stepped through the street.
Just because evil is present elsewhere should not bind our hands to deal with it when it threatens us and our friends. Else we permit evil to fester and grow, like we have in Iraq in the past twelve years.
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 24, 2003 16:27:36 GMT -5
Don't kid yourself BC. Saddam knows that regional domination (and thus control of the majority of the worlds oil supply) would give him enough clout to 'rule the world'. World domination is not all that unrealistic from his pov. Oil ? Oil ? What's oil got to do with this war ? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 24, 2003 16:44:31 GMT -5
There's a small difference between your position ("George Bush (the evil Illuminati president of the United States of the Freemasons) only wants to rape Iraq and steal all of it's oil") and my statement ("Iraq has shown in the past to be motivated by regional dominance in hopes of creating a unified, palestinian state across the middle east that could manipulate the world at whim by controlling the oil supplies")
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 24, 2003 19:19:24 GMT -5
There's a small difference between your position ("George Bush (the evil Illuminati president of the United States of the Freemasons) only wants to rape Iraq and steal all of it's oil") and my statement ("Iraq has shown in the past to be motivated by regional dominance in hopes of creating a unified, palestinian state across the middle east that could manipulate the world at whim by controlling the oil supplies") I'd define our positions somewhat differently: You: The all-knowing Bush, acting for the greater good of humanity, has gone in to destroy a terrible evil like the earth has never known, with no afterthought concerning his own well-being or that of his countrymen. He's courageously ignored the protests from people the world over who would want Iraqi ressources for themselves, whereas Bush will leave everything in the fine trusting hands of the proudly elected Pro-American government he'll leave behind. Me: Bush is trampling one of several evil dictators in the world, in a great hurry though the reason for the rush is blurred, despite massive worldwide disapproval, and he's likely doing it to get some kind of hold/control over the oil ressources in the area ( or maybe because "they tried to kill my daddy"), and the people he's supposedly freeing will be just as much up the creek once the Americans pull out as they are now. Anyhow, getting you to admit that oil might be, in some way, shape or form, an issue in all of this, is a huge step forward. I'm stunned. Really. *said "elected pro-American" government will then go and squash it's own population or there will be a civil war. The blueprint can be found anywhere in the world - from Chile to Iran to Afganistan ..... and ever onwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 24, 2003 21:01:32 GMT -5
Consider the option that not supporting US aggression in Iraq does not necessarily mean that one supports Saddam. One can, with no contradiction, be both against Bush's war mongering and Saddam's brutality. The war is bad enough, but the worst is yet to come, as its consequences multiply Yes MB. War isn't about who wins or loses, it's about whose left. Later. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 25, 2003 11:49:06 GMT -5
BC, you dismiss similarities between Hitler and Saddam because other can be as sadistic and cruel? Sheesh! Isn't that a bit rich? Or are you just trying to be argumentive? Old man and children are dying to save the Saddam fatherland. Where have you heard that before?
Old men and children are dying in Nigeria, Chad, Congo, Indonesia… well, you get the point. Or do you? Are all those countries run by mini-Hitlers? Or is that simply a by-product of despotic regimes? I don’t see any railway tracks leading to death camps in Iraq. Is calling someone a “Hitler” merely rhetoric designed to rally the troops around the cause? Because if it is, then the question remains – why Iraq? It certainly isn’t true that it is because old men and children are dying, now is it? They are dying all over the world, why single out Iraq? Obviously its not because Saddam is like Hitler (which isn’t even accurate).
Of course that's true. But why now, after 12 years? What was the trigger, the catalyst? To "free the Iraqi people" certainly isn't it, because there are lots of oppressed people around the world. Why not expand the war to Iran? Or Syria? Both those countries are virtual mirror images of Iraq, and if its just a line on a map... Where is the bleating that weapons inspections aren't working for those countries? I agree that weapons inspections weren't working in Iraq, but to say THAT is the reason for invasion... Why didn't the Americans supply the muscle from the get-go?
"Of course that's true." You have a nasty habit of agreeing with me and I can not take it anymore. Please stay on the other side of the table. Always looking for a conspirecy but nothing at face value. Unless you are alos going to use the oil argument.
Well, if anything, you supplied that conspiracy angle, after first dismissing “my” source. You are right, we both agree; the US was going to attack Iraq regardless of whether the UN weapons plan was working or not, as outlined, depending on who you believe, by either the Wolfostein plan, or the Cheney-think tank plan. Same plan, and they both called for an invasion of Iraq, regardless of who was in power, and what their policies were or are. Any pretext would do. So by your own admission, the weapons inspections, working or not, had no bearing on the invasion. Obviously, again by your own admission, its not because of the weapons inspections.
You want the Ugly American to go all over the world and yet you lambast him for doing this in Iraq? Why? Where is the "Appeasment" movements precious UN? We keep going over the reasons for invading Iraq and you keep asking the same question. Why?
No, I don’t want the US to go all over the world; I want an answer to the same question I have always asked. Why here, why now? Why not Nigeria? Why not Chad? Why not the Sudan? Why not Somalia? Why, of all places, Iraq? Your reasons for invading Iraq are numerous and confusing, and change by the minute;
Its not about oil, its to free the Iraqi people. Well, why not free the Nigerian people?
Well, they were close to Iraq. Well, why not free Cuba?
Well, Cuba doesn’t pose a threat to world security, Iraq does, by controlling the oil. So it is about oil? So why not Saudi Arabia?
Well, its not about oil, its about weapons. They aren’t trying to get weapons of mass destruction. But what about Syria, or Iran, or North Korea?
Well, they don’t pose as much of a threat to America. How so? Aren’t they trying to get weapons too? By all accounts much more vigorously than Iraq?
They just don’t. Missing separators and all. Besides they’ll rebuild Iraq, and it will be a much better place. A counter-weight to Iran and Syria. Like Afghanistan and Somalia?
Discreet silence.
And I have never referred to them as Ugly American, so please drop the insinuation – I work regularly in the States, my girlfriend is from Texas, and a good friend of mine served in the US Marines.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 25, 2003 11:50:58 GMT -5
" I agree that weapons inspections weren't working in Iraq, but to say THAT is the reason for invasion... Why didn't the Americans supply the muscle from the get-go?" Stop it, you hear me, stop it. You must DISAGREE with me. The US did supply the muscle up to 1998 and the usuall suspects did everything possible to stop it. Do a little homework on the final days of inspection in 1998. I supplied an overview in a few threads on this subject.
1998? Is that the most recent? What about the final days, before the invasion, when Iraqis were bending over backwards, supplying scientists, records, open facilities? Even by US admission, they were forthcoming, just “not enough.”
Oh god, that's an easy one. Kurds in the north (who live in virtual autonomy anyways) and Shiite Muslims in the south, who rebelled (after Bush 1 urging) and who could have toppled Saddam had they been backed then. The Ba'ath clan is actually a small one, by Iraqi clan standards, and not overly well liked outside of their own little circle. They hold power now - ruthlessly - but there is no shortage of people who would gladly take his place. There is an entire Iraqi government in exile already.
You know, you should not make the arguments for me. His military is enough to suppress all his enemies except for that big Ugly American war machine and then you make the point about how they ruthlessly hold power now but expects someone to sneak in the back door and take over. Please stay consistent in your argument. Now you say that there are people who would gladly take over the place. You said “There is an entire Iraqi government in exile already.” So what happened to your “descent into anarchy, lawlessness and bad toilets”? Face it, you are not really against this action. That is why you can't debate it with honest conviction and clarity.
His military is not strong enough to suppress his enemies, as evidenced by the fact that he has virtually zero control over the Kurdish north, and quickly lost power over the Shi’ite south during Gulf War 1. He has no airforce, no navy, and a conscripted army that is a hollow shell of its 1991 self. Days before the invasion experts were saying it should be a relative cake-walk for the US, and indeed, there is genuine surprise that the nominal resistance the Iraqis HAVE put up is much stronger than expected. As Robin Cooke, who I believe was at one time Britain’s Minister of Defense said,
“Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a serious threat.
I AM against this war, much to my chagrin. The government in exile comment was to point out that Iraq is a severely divided country, with no shortage of people willing to do the dirty work of eliminating Saddam Hussein. Of course, now the US is saying eliminating Hussein isn’t enough, which is another strike against your pro-war stance, but that isn’t the point. You asked for options, and I provided them. The fact that the US will subsequently do nothing to help any post-war Iraq (aside from securing the oil fields, presumably), tells me that Iraq will in fact descend into anarchy, lawlessness and bad toilets. Much like Afghanistan has, the US’ most recent attempt at saving a nation. Why will nobody address this issue? Why, after the US abandoned Afghanistan, Somalia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia and Serbia (who they bombed into the dark ages), are people convinced they are going to pump in billions of dollars in reconstructive aid, supply a 50,000 man security force, and make a 30 year commitment to keeping it there? What, in the US’ recent history, suggests they are going to do that?
I am not a big fan of sanctions myself, but you stated that nobody has provided any alternatives. People have. Just because you disagree with them, does not make them "unreasonable."
"I am not a big fan of sanctions myself" So why bring them up as an argument? BC, please take the opposite view, it makes it hard for me to debate myself and you know how I am a master debater.
There is a joke in there somewhere, but this is a family board.
I did not bring them up as an argument, I brought them up in direct response to your quote that the anti-war faction will “NEVER” provide any alternatives to war. I then listed all the alternatives that had ALREADY been provided, including continued sanctions. Hence the comment “you stated that nobody has provided any alternatives. People have.” I do not believe in them myself, but I don’t believe in UFOs either. But if somebody were to say “nobody has EVER claimed to have seen a UFO” I would disagree with that comment, and provide examples of case where people have said they have seen UFOs. Just like I did here. You wanted examples, I provided them.
And I'm still awaiting a reasonable, in depth post on why here, why now. Your Pax Americana post - while contradicting a lot of your above reasoning - still doesn't explain why Iraq, why now. The "well, they happen to be in the neighborhood" answer is not a good one. Why not Iran? Why not Syria? Why not Chechyna? Why not Nigeria? Why Iraq, an oil-rich country? Why not Cuba, a poor, destitute, non-oil country? Isn't Cuba much more "in the neighborhood?"
And who gave you a simple "well, they happen to be in the neighborhood" answer. I laid out the Chaney Docrtrine and the reasoning behind the "now". If you think it looks contradictory it's because I touched upon all the reasons that could be used by both hawks and doves. Did you miss the part about the ability of Iran to rebuild itself? What about the fact that it is ruled by the Nastiest Dictator of the Year? The proximity to Afganistan? More....
Is the fact that you used “Iran” as your example a Freudian slip, or are you admitting that the reason for the invasion of “Iraq” really has little to do with “Iraq” or Saddam Hussein? And it was the New Guy who said they chose Iraq because they had all their troops and equipment in Afghanistan already. To which CO replied “wouldn’t it be easier to just bring them home?” Or something like that.
If you really and truly believe that the Cheney Doctrine is the reason why the US went to war with Iraq, then I can’t believe you would support this action. You HAVE to know it will lead to more long term hardship and turmoil. Messing with the Middle East has NEVER led to clean and beneficial results, something the US should have learned from their propping up of the Shah of Iran. Or the continued presence in Saudi Arabia, cited as reason numero uno by Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks. Terrorism, insurrection, a rise in Muslim fundamentalism, a quagmire of blood, mud, and tears. Its got Vietnam written all over it.
And as has been shown over and over again and again, invading Iraq because Saddam is in power is NOT the reason, or even a main reason, for the attack. There are numerous dictators and despots around the world who make Saddam Hussein look like freaking nun. The Fahd family in Saudi Arabia comes immediately to mind. Neither is saving the Iraqi people a valid reason, because as MC pointed out with his pictures of Ethiopia (also discreetly ignored by the pro-war faction) nobody really gives a damn about that suffering.
So we are left with the following conclusions:
* Its not about deposing Saddam Hussein, because the US now says that doesn’t matter
* Its not because Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, because there are lots of brutal dictators around the world
* Its not because the US happened to be close by, because Cuba is closer and it’s a bad reason to begin with
* Its not because of Iraq’s army and the threat it poses to others, because that army
was by all accounts crippled and impotent, long before the war started
* Is is about weapons of mass destruction? They haven’t found any (though I am sure they will “find” some), nor have any been used. And you would think that Hussein would use them, knowing he has already lost
* Its not about rebuilding Iraq, because nothing in recent US history would suggest Americans are ready and willing to make the brutal commitment necessary to do so. As proven by their abandonment of Afghanistan, a mere year and a half after promising to save it
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 25, 2003 11:51:24 GMT -5
Our only option left then, is to believe that this war is about snagging and securing an extra source of oil, and an attempt to assert domination over a region that historically cannot be dominated. The Cheney plan. I cannot believe this is the reason. I refuse to. Thus I keep asking why here, why now? I keep hoping somebody will give me a reason other than this one. Because if this is the reason, the world just got to be a very scary place, and I am not talking about for people who oppose the US. I am talking about for people who side with the US. Of which we are one.
P.S. BC, you are not doing a very good job potraying yourself as the Voice of Anti-UglyAmerica. Please stop forcing yourself and come to the light. War is a dirty, dirty job but someone has to do it.
War is indeed a very dirty job. I would never argue otherwise. I would also never argue against the fact that sometimes it is necessary. Your casual dismissal of my recent posts as being “not very good” merely perpetuates the myth of the right-wing Republican, close-minded, arrogant, and dismissive of any counter-argument. I know, I am one, and have been on the receiving end of those barbs. I shouldn’t have to provide my conservative credentials, but apparently I do;
* I supported the war in Afghanistan
* I supported the air-war against Serbia
* I screamed for military intervention in Rwanda, Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia
* I supported the first Gulf War
* I vote Progressive Conservative
* I think Ronald Reagan will go down as one of the greatest presidents in US history
* I think Bill Clinton should have gone to jail
I do not support this war. What does that tell you?
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 13:52:10 GMT -5
* I supported the war in Afghanistan
* I supported the air-war against Serbia
* I screamed for military intervention in Rwanda, Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia
* I supported the first Gulf War
* I thought nobody was worthy of my vote, but support many Canadian Alliance
policies (especially accountability of government).
* I was very much against Bush Jr. becoming US president...terrified, actually.
* I think Bill Clinton was a very good president and that his personal life was nobody's
business.
I support this war. What does that tell you?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 25, 2003 14:32:18 GMT -5
Yup. Of course. It's all one great big conspiracy PTH. The US is some big evil out to get the worlds oil. That's why he hasn't used the fact (a lot of peace people are so quick to throw in the face of the hawks) that they have a much 'stronger, emotional' reason to invade the richer Saudi Arabia.
I have never said this war wasn't about oil. I've said it wasn't about Bush wanting oil. If he wants the oil there's other countries to invade with much less of a military bent that would illicit much less of a reaction from doves like yourself. And before you quote history again, please - come up with an explanation for Kosovo (which the US pushed NATO into) or Somalia (which the US pushed the UN into). What gain did the US get from them?
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 25, 2003 22:59:47 GMT -5
Yup. Of course. It's all one great big conspiracy PTH. The US is some big evil out to get the worlds oil. That's why he hasn't used the fact (a lot of peace people are so quick to throw in the face of the hawks) that they have a much 'stronger, emotional' reason to invade the richer Saudi Arabia. "Getting oil" isn't a phrase I'd use just to say that Iraq would be the 51 st state and the oil would be pumped out by Exxon - to be "getting oil" can be applied to taking over a country to get the oil flowing out of it, regardless of actually having complete control. Saoudi Arabia is an excellent example of that; as is Canada. In both countries the US can essentially count on getting our oil, and doesn't have to take over the country litterally to do so -a very cheap source of reliable oil. Really ? Well, maybe I wouldn't have to keep bringing it up if you weren't stuck on the asinine suggestion that Bush is in the war for oil. But you know... So this war might be about oil, but not about Bush getting oil, yet it's the US that's invading a massively oil-rich country - interesting. So it's about oil and saying Bush might be trying to control some of it is assinine ? I'm confused... Kosovo was a very easy campaign for the US, entirely air-based, leaving others to take the crap on the ground. As to Somalia, the US skedaddled out of that one as soon as the going got rough on the ground. They have a bit more backing for this war, but once the main fighting is over and it starts getting complicated and diplomacy is needed and there are terrorist hits on US soldiers, how long will the US stay in place ? History is pretty clear on that count... |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 26, 2003 0:27:39 GMT -5
So this war might be about oil, but not about Bush getting oil, yet it's the US that's invading a massively oil-rich country - interesting. Listen to yourself. So this war might be about sand, but not about Bush getting sand, yet it's the US that's invading a massively sand-rich country - interesting.The war couldn't have anything to do with getting rid of a terrorist supporting, WMD seeking, brutal dictator...could it? Naaaa.... |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 26, 2003 0:37:04 GMT -5
Listen to yourself. So this war might be about sand, but not about Bush getting sand, yet it's the US that's invading a massively sand-rich country - interesting.The war couldn't have anything to do with getting rid of a terrorist supporting, WMD seeking, brutal dictator...could it? Naaaa.... Terrorist supporting ? Plenty of other dictators support terrorism (the Saoudis, Iran, Syria, Libya, plenty of otherss), and this war is likely to increase terrorism rather than decrease it. See my signature quote on that one, do a google search and find tons of interesting tidbits on American Imperialism at its best. WMD seeking - again, huge numbers of other countries are after WMD or even have them in their hands. Saddam's chemical weaponry was brought in from the West, so it's not a local expertise, and the last time it was used it was with the US's tacit consent, if not explicit consent. Most of that setup has since been destroyed, and Saddam had inspectors up his arse (thanks to US pressure - which was essential in reaching that point), so in fact he was the least likely to generate interesting weaponry once again. And again, to paraphrase my favourite British Ex-minister, "Iraq has no credible threat of weapons of mass destruction, namely a proven weapon and a reliable delivery system". I tend to think the Brits know what Saddam might have. Brutal dictator ? Again, tons of those, all over the place. Many if not most are American allies. Saddam is the kind of slime that the earth would be better without, but why is the US going after this particular piece of slime amid all the rest, at the point in time ? The only credible theory on this is to stabilise oil prices to help the US economy get back on track. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 26, 2003 0:58:12 GMT -5
I like how you call something credible when the only thing that makes it credible is that you say so. How does a war which according to you, will increase terrorism (we all know what Sept. 11 did to the US economy), increases expenditures now (even with the possibility of future gains from the raping of Iraqi oil that you shove down our throats without a shred of proof besides your say so), decreases stability in their primary oil supplied (Saudi Arabia, according to you, will soon fall to American hating islamic fundamentalist), decreases the amount of dollars going back into the American economy (money earned by the soliders will at least partly be spent in Kuwait or other forigen countries rather than at home) solve the current economic problems of the US?
I'm not an economist, but I live with someone who's studying the basics of it. It seems to me that the general consenus among her professors is that consumer confidence needs to be increased more than anything else. The reason for the current recession is because of the tech crash (which was disheartening), 9/11 (which was more disheartening) and the financial scandals (which was downright depressing) have scared everyone off. Stablizing oil prices might help slightly, but it's not going to solve the problem.
Your theroy remains asinine and without basis. Keep trying...
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 26, 2003 1:07:01 GMT -5
I like how you call something credible when the only thing that makes it credible is that you say so. How does a war which according to you, will increase terrorism (we all know what Sept. 11 did to the US economy), increases expenditures now (even with the possibility of future gains from the raping of Iraqi oil that you shove down our throats without a shred of proof besides your say so), decreases stability in their primary oil supplied (Saudi Arabia, according to you, will soon fall to American hating islamic fundamentalist), decreases the amount of dollars going back into the American economy (money earned by the soliders will at least partly be spent in Kuwait or other forigen countries rather than at home) solve the current economic problems of the US? I'm not an economist, but I live with someone who's studying the basics of it. It seems to me that the general consenus among her professors is that consumer confidence needs to be increased more than anything else. The reason for the current recession is because of the tech crash (which was disheartening), 9/11 (which was more disheartening) and the financial scandals (which was downright depressing) have scared everyone off. Stablizing oil prices might help slightly, but it's not going to solve the problem. Your theroy remains asinine and without basis. Keep trying... I'll answer this tomorrow when I have time. But hey, if my theory seems so terrible, come up with a better one, that actually fits the real-world facts, and not the Bush propaganda. I didn't think all the demonization of Saddam would work so well - I didn't realise people could be this gullible. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 26, 2003 1:40:27 GMT -5
How about having a little faith instead of being paranoid? Did you ever consider that, in the end, the US is in this to honestly free the people of Iraq, destroy the Iraqi WMD's (they've found what... three chemical plants now? But that's okay, that's just Bush propoganda I suppose) and inject some stablility in the region?
No? Can't take anything at face value?
How about supporting the Muslim world? Or rather, making friends there. You free a bunch of people who are under an opressive regime and are predominantly Muslim of one form or another, and you may just increase US-Muslim relations. After all, who were they saving in Somalia (Muslims) and Kosovo (Muslims)? I mean hell, that's historical precedent there which you seem to think matters trenmendously much. Granted, most Muslims forget this when they call for jihad on the US (conviently forgetting facts is a trait of a lot of anti-US groups... unsurprisingly) but improving US-Iraqi (read: Muslim) relations doesn't sound horrible. After all, many Kuwaiti's are just plum in love with Americans (and before you mention it, yes, some of the 9/11 terrorists (four I think) were from Kuwait, however I'm sure I read in a report somewhere that they can not be traced back before 1991, which leads to other questions altogether).
Is that plausible enough for you? It certainly makes more sense than your 'oil' hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 29, 2003 15:33:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 30, 2003 11:15:26 GMT -5
How come this thread is still open while the "Kicking the French in the n*ts" one is locked? Oh well...here's some interesting stuff provided by the Embassy of France in the US: I didn't look at threads beyond the first page initially. Thanks for pointing it out. It's been unlocked. |
|
Always looking for a conspirecy but nothing at face value. Unless you are alos going to use the oil argument.
