11 myths of iraqi war

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theim:
Don't be assinine. Civilized powers have started wars all throughout history. From the Romans to the British.

Yep. To expand their ambitions for empire.

Originally posted by theim:
hey tried after the Gulf War, which I know you remember but just choose not to mention. It didn't work.

Yep. America promised aid when the Kurds would rise up to oppose Saddam's regime. The Kurds started to make trouble and the Americans left.
The Kurds were slaughtered back into submission.

Originally posted by theim:
Freedom, Mr. Stalin, is God's gift to human kind. It is earned by being born. Just because one country won their war and the other got gassed/gunned down doesn't mean they deserve to be fed into woodchippers and shredders. I know how much you love seeing that stuff, but still. Most think it's bad.

If freedom was God's gift to humankind, how come most animals are free, whereas most humans live in dire conditions, suffering from malnutrition and preventable disease. Does God not like Africans?

Freedom is won through bloody battle. European countries and other western civilized nations are now free. Not because God chose them to be free, but because they fought numerous wars for it. Maybe you recall the American war for independence against the British Empire. It was quite a bloody affair and I don't recall any divine intervention on any side's behalf.

It's a sad state of affairs if people use their faith in God to suppress other people and deprive them of their freedoms, branding them as evil if they happen to have another name for God.

Originally posted by theim:
Where you in a coma? Oil-for-Food ring a bell?

The UN oil for food program has resulted in the loss of roughly 2 million Iraqi lives, most of them children. I agree it was a very bad move, instigated by the US that bullied the UN into accepting the sanctions.

Originally posted by theim:
It has everything to do with 9/11. 9/11 happened because we let an evil organization fester and plot, instead of killing them outright, because they hadn't done anything major.

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. At all. See my previous post.
No matter what a son of a bitch Saddam is, the world is teeming with evil dictators, just this one sits on a large pile of oil.

Originally posted by theim:
America does not have an unlimited number of soldiers. They will be toppled eventually, unless lefties have their way of course.

I actually do remember America installing quite a few dictatorial regimes in mostly South American countries. I've even heard somewhere that Saddam used to be good friends of Washington when he wanted to fight the theocratic regime in Iran for you. When he instead used the first British/American shipment of poison gas on the Iraqi Kurds, he was given a second shipment but had to promise he would use it on Iranians this time.

Originally posted by theim:
OIL...FOR...FOOD.

Must. . . stop . . . making . . . new . . . excuses . . . for . . . war.

Originally posted by theim:
We are not afraid of starting wars. Unlike pacifist weaklings who would rather preemptively surrender than fight for their ideals.

Who the man! Who the friggin' man!
Oh yeah, bring on the PAIN!!

Seriously, I am not a pacifist myself.
If someone breaks into my house and starts stealing shit, he will be in a lot of pain if I catch him. If I kill him in my rage, that was not supposed to happen, it was an accident. Tough luck.

On the other hand, I will never walk up to someone in the streets whom I suspect of being a burglar and pre-emptively beat the crap out of him.

 

[theHawk]

Yep. America promised aid when the Kurds would rise up to oppose Saddam's regime. The Kurds started to make trouble and the Americans left.
The Kurds were slaughtered back into submission.

I love it when libs talk about how "America" abandoned the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Funny I remember it being a true coalition back then. Truth is Bush Sr. bowed to a great amount of international pressure, mostly from the French and other wonderful Euro allies. You conviently leave out these facts when it suits your needs. We made mistakes in the first war due mainly to listening to our wonderful 'allies'. But to you all mistakes were made by "America" and there is no mention of a coalition. Then when we decide to do it without the U.N.'s blessings you label us "unilateralist" (we'll just pretend UK and other countries that were with us don't exist). And you wonder why Americans could care less about being apart of some Euro coalition.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
I love it when libs talk about how "America" abandoned the Iraqis in the first Gulf War. Funny I remember it being a true coalition back then. Truth is Bush Sr. bowed to a great amount of international pressure, mostly from the French and other wonderful Euro allies. You conviently leave out these facts when it suits your needs. We made mistakes in the first war due mainly to listening to our wonderful 'allies'. But to you all mistakes were made by "America" and there is no mention of a coalition. Then when we decide to do it without the U.N.'s blessings you label us "unilateralist" (we'll just pretend UK and other countries that were with us don't exist). And you wonder why Americans could care less about being apart of some Euro coalition.

Yes, the entire coalition halted the invasion of Baghdad.
But it was America that lobbied with the Kurds, not the Euro's.

On top of that, I don't recall the American government stating at the time that the European allies were to blame for all the mistakes that were made.
In fact, I have seen a video with general Norman Schwartzkopf, who said the following in 2002:
"If you remember the Vietnam War, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle of world public opinion, eventually we lost the battle. In the Gulf War, we had great international legitimacy, in the form of eight UN resolutions, every one of which said: kick Iraq out of Kuwait. It didn't say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country, and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two, had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone, and I'm quite sure the Arab coalition would not have gone. The coalition would have ruptured, and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America. And oh and by the way, I think we'd still be there, we'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit, we could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying one hundred percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq."

"And that was the quagmire, therein lay Vietnam as far as we were concerned."
Robert Gates - Deputy National Security Advisor

As for the unilateral brand: it refers to the fact that most countries were bribed by the US to participate, althoug the British themselves had a score to settle since the 1920s it seems, so maybe bilateral would be more accurate.

 

[manu1959]

"If you remember the Vietnam War, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle of world public opinion, eventually we lost the battle. In the Gulf War, we had great international legitimacy, in the form of eight UN resolutions, every one of which said: kick Iraq out of Kuwait. It didn't say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country, and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

classic....gulf war I we obey the UN to the letter and you all get your panties in a wad....gulf war II we go and do what you wanted us to do in gulf war I and disobey the UN and you get your panties in a wad..... :blah2: :blah2:

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by manu1959:
classic....gulf war I we obey the UN to the letter and you all get your panties in a wad....gulf war II we go and do what you wanted us to do in gulf war I and disobey the UN and you get your panties in a wad.....

You seem to be contradicting yourself there.
Gulf War I was a UN approved war, with the goal to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

Gulf War II, or operation Iraqi Freedom or whatever you prefer, was not a UN aproved war and did not result in accomplishing goals of Gulf War I (since the first Gulf War goals did not include invading the country, conquering Baghdad and hanging - or capturing - Saddam Hussein).

 

[manu1959]

You seem to be contradicting yourself there.
Gulf War I was a UN approved war, with the goal to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

Gulf War II, or operation Iraqi Freedom or whatever you prefer, was not a UN aproved war and did not result in accomplishing goals of Gulf War I (since the first Gulf War goals did not include invading the country, conquering Baghdad and hanging - or capturing - Saddam Hussein).

just stating the lefts argument ...

 

[theHawk]

Lets say for a second we buy into your arguement that the war was 'illegal'

:baby4:

So what? What is the U.N. going to do about it? They didn't do anything to Iraq for violating 1441, do nothing about Sudan, and will do nothing to stop Iran from producing nukes. So what are they going to do to the U.S? Thats right, nothing....so its a moot point to argue it is 'illegal.' If its perfectly legal for tyrants and totalitarian governments to oppress their own people and blantantly violate UN resolutions, or if those actions are illegal but the laws are not enforced then the system is going to lose all credibilty.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Lets say for a second we buy into your arguement that the war was 'illegal'

:baby4:

So what? What is the U.N. going to do about it? They didn't do anything to Iraq for violating 1441, do nothing about Sudan, and will do nothing to stop Iran from producing nukes. So what are they going to do to the U.S? Thats right, nothing....so its a moot point to argue it is 'illegal.' If its perfectly legal for tyrants and totalitarian governments to oppress their own people and blantantly violate UN resolutions, or if those actions are illegal but the laws are not enforced then the system is going to lose all credibilty.

Don't forget North Korea

 

[theim]

Yep. To expand their ambitions for empire.

And is that a bad thing? Firstly, America's "Empire" consists of a few pinprick islands in the ass middle of nowhere. Secondly, without the Romans and the British Western civilization as we know it would not exist.

Yep. America promised aid when the Kurds would rise up to oppose Saddam's regime. The Kurds started to make trouble and the Americans left.
The Kurds were slaughtered back into submission.

So why are you so eager for us to do the same "cut and run" trick and let the Islamofacists slaughter the populace again?

If freedom was God's gift to humankind, how come most animals are free, whereas most humans live in dire conditions, suffering from malnutrition and preventable disease. Does God not like Africans?

Freedom is won through bloody battle. European countries and other western civilized nations are now free. Not because God chose them to be free, but because they fought numerous wars for it. Maybe you recall the American war for independence against the British Empire. It was quite a bloody affair and I don't recall any divine intervention on any side's behalf.[/quote

Do you think I just pulled that phrase out of my ass or something? Read the frickn' Declariation of Independence. It's right at the top, can't miss it.

The UN oil for food program has resulted in the loss of roughly 2 million Iraqi lives, most of them children. I agree it was a very bad move, instigated by the US that bullied the UN into accepting the sanctions.

So it was Big Evil Amerikkka who forced a weeping Saddam at gunpoint to loot the money that was supposed to support his people and instead built luxurious palaces? It all makes so much sense now.

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. At all. See my previous post.
No matter what a son of a bitch Saddam is, the world is teeming with evil dictators, just this one sits on a large pile of oil.

Than 3000 people have died, and you do not realize why and refuse to learn. Sad. All that can be done now is to ensure people like you never gain power again, lest an equally destructive attack occur because "they never hurt us very badly before."

Must. . . stop . . . making . . . new . . . excuses . . . for . . . war.

Oh come on. At least TRY and modify the talking points a little bit to make it look like you are actually thinking. Humor me here.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by SpidermanTuba
Democracy is earned by blood - we didn't get our democracy because some other nation decided "Hey - let's bring democracy to America!" We fought for it ourselves - which is why is has endured for so long. IRaq is going to be a mess for years to come because their democracy is unearned.

Who are you to decide or make that judgment? People who walk miles in fear of getting blown up just to vote most definitely deserve and want freedom...

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
Lets say for a second we buy into your arguement that the war was 'illegal'

:baby4:

So what? What is the U.N. going to do about it? They didn't do anything to Iraq for violating 1441, do nothing about Sudan, and will do nothing to stop Iran from producing nukes. So what are they going to do to the U.S? Thats right, nothing....so its a moot point to argue it is 'illegal.' If its perfectly legal for tyrants and totalitarian governments to oppress their own people and blantantly violate UN resolutions, or if those actions are illegal but the laws are not enforced then the system is going to lose all credibilty.

You are right that the UN is acting like it doesn't care or just doesn't know what to do, which is a rather sad state of affairs. I think it is in dire need of a large re-organizing scenario if it is to maintain it's function at all.

By saying it's a moot point to call the invasion illegal because the UN has no power to stop the US to do whatever it likes is exactly the attitude most Europeans have a problem with. Of course we do not do unquestioningly what the UN tells us to do; basically the UN has nothing to say over what we do. But when it comes to these international actions that may bring about unforeseen consequenses I think it's still wise to have as many opinions on the matter as you can get - hence the reason why the UN still exists.

I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that certain nations have the power of veto: America, Russia, China, France and Britain can all single handedly torpedo whatever resolution and reduce it to ashes. That has resulted in many resolutions that simply vanished before they could be implemented - which obviously greatly hampers the speed at which the UN can act, thus undermining it's credibility.

These are complex problems, but they are not undefeatable.
I think however, by preaching pre-emptive war, the US has opened the door to a lot more conflict to follow in the future. Already Russia has invaded Chechenya under the flag of the "war on terror", China has massacred some rebellious peasants in the north with the same excuse, and Israel has stepped up it's actions against the Palestinians. That all happened within a year.

We'll see, maybe it will all settle down soon in Iraq and we can start looking at the future, or the conflict in Iraq might spill out towards it's neighbours, resulting in an escalation of a war the size of which we have not seen for fifty years. I don't know yet.
However, Iran is high on the hitlist, increasing the potential for the second option.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Harmageddon
If freedom was God's gift to humankind, how come most animals are free, whereas most humans live in dire conditions, suffering from malnutrition and preventable disease. Does God not like Africans?

Yes God does and so he gives many the good fortune by having rescources, money and the freedom to do something about all the suffering which many people do here and abroad............We are a very generous country here in the U.S. and give away billions of dollars in aid etc to help end hunger and disease and it's getting a bit tiring to hear other countries insult and diminish that daily just because we are not as socialistic as other countries seem to think we should be..........

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Bonnie:
Who are you to decide or make that judgment? People who walk miles in fear of getting blown up just to vote most definitely deserve and want freedom...

[sarcasm mode]who are you to decide or make that judgement? for that matter, who is bush to decide or make that judgement? We have people now everywhere in the west that take buses and trains in fear of getting blown up by a radical muslim on their way to work.[/sarcasm mode]

I cannot help but agree with Spiderman Tuba on this. Look, obviously the Iraqi people deserve freedom just as much as anybody else. But ponder this statement for a second:
"Why of course the people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of
the country who determine the policy, and it's always easy to drag the people
along. Whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, voice or no voice,
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering, Hitler's designated successor.

Do the American people really want to wage a war on Iran after this? On North Korea, Syria, whatever else is on the list? If so, is it for the liberation of the people living there from their oppressive regimes? Or would it be for the "Americanisation" of these countries, to make them more inclined to follow the American way. In the order of "if you cannot defeat your enemy, you may try and change him instead."

Countries continuously aggressively invade other nations to "liberate" it's people from their own governments. Has it ever worked in the long run? Other than Japan, Germany and Italy after the second World War, it seems the successes have been minimal, whereas the catastrophic results have been numerous. The policy of "regime change" has resulted more in the installment of brutal dictators than any other tactic so far exploited.

Therefore, would it not be better to lead by example alone?
This would mean some nations go through very brutal regimes for maybe a decade even, but the populace will eventually come te see that democracy can bring them so much more than a dictator ever could. And when they do, they will unite as a people, execute the dictator, and install their own version of democracy - a true, long lasting one.

 

[insein]

Do the American people really want to wage a war on Iran after this? On North Korea, Syria, whatever else is on the list? If so, is it for the liberation of the people living there from their oppressive regimes? Or would it be for the "Americanisation" of these countries, to make them more inclined to follow the American way. In the order of "if you cannot defeat your enemy, you may try and change him instead."

No. I think we should stop the pussyfooting around, announce islamo-facism as the enemy and work towards ELIMINATING them not temporarily stopping them. Then i think we should drill for our own oil here in the US. We have more deposits locked in shale then all of saudi arabi. Why are we not drilling for that? Why are we off if foreign countries trying to secure a region with these animals just so we can have oil? Because the environmental-facists have prevented this country from growing into modern times.

Drill our own oil and KILL the enemy. Thats how we should approach the war on terror.

 

[Bonnie]

Harmageddon...Do the American people really want to wage a war on Iran after this? On North Korea, Syria, whatever else is on the list? If so, is it for the liberation of the people living there from their oppressive regimes? Or would it be for the "Americanisation" of these countries, to make them more inclined to follow the American way. In the order of "if you cannot defeat your enemy, you may try and change him instead."

Do the American people ever want war of course not, however we may have to go to war with Iran, N Korea, if they continue their nuclear goals, we may not have a choice if diplomacy fails.

Did you happen to see how happy the Iraqi people, men and women were to actually vote?? Are you seriously saying they are not better off now and will be in the coming future than they were under Hussein??

Therefore, would it not be better to lead by example alone?
, but the populace will eventually come te see that democracy can bring them so much more than a dictator ever could. And when they do, they will unite as a people, execute the dictator, and install their own version of democracy - a true, long lasting one.

That is exaclty what we are doing, leading by example, because other Muslim countries are now seeing what is happening in Iraq and wanting that for themselves, they are finally seeing that America wants to help them to be free, for women to have rights etc. And in the process it is good for America to have a friendly government in that region yes!

Are you suggesting that while Hitler planned to take over the world we should have sat back and allowed it to happen????? I see no logic in that whatsoever!!

How would you feel living in brutal dictatorship and listening to someone else say this..

This would mean some nations go through very brutal regimes for maybe a decade even

Would you like to live that way????????????????

 

[Said1]

[sarcasm mode]who are you to decide or make that judgement? for that matter, who is bush to decide or make that judgement? We have people now everywhere in the west that take buses and trains in fear of getting blown up by a radical muslim on their way to work.[/sarcasm mode]

I cannot help but agree with Spiderman Tuba on this. Look, obviously the Iraqi people deserve freedom just as much as anybody else. But ponder this statement for a second:
"Why of course the people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of
the country who determine the policy, and it's always easy to drag the people
along. Whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, voice or no voice,
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering, Hitler's designated successor.

Do the American people really want to wage a war on Iran after this? On North Korea, Syria, whatever else is on the list? If so, is it for the liberation of the people living there from their oppressive regimes? Or would it be for the "Americanisation" of these countries, to make them more inclined to follow the American way. In the order of "if you cannot defeat your enemy, you may try and change him instead."

Countries continuously aggressively invade other nations to "liberate" it's people from their own governments. Has it ever worked in the long run? Other than Japan, Germany and Italy after the second World War, it seems the successes have been minimal, whereas the catastrophic results have been numerous. The policy of "regime change" has resulted more in the installment of brutal dictators than any other tactic so far exploited.

Therefore, would it not be better to lead by example alone?
This would mean some nations go through very brutal regimes for maybe a decade even, but the populace will eventually come te see that democracy can bring them so much more than a dictator ever could. And when they do, they will unite as a people, execute the dictator, and install their own version of democracy - a true, long lasting one.

I'm sure you would agree that there have been many revolutions, that were nessesary in order to rid certain nations of monarchy and colonial rule that goes above an beyond the the nations you have listed above. Some changes happened peacefully to avoid the catastrophic results you claim.

 

[manu1959]

Do the American people really want to wage a war on Iran after this? On North Korea, Syria, whatever else is on the list? If so, is it for the liberation of the people living there from their oppressive regimes? Or would it be for the "Americanisation" of these countries, to make them more inclined to follow the American way. In the order of "if you cannot defeat your enemy, you may try and change him instead."

i believe iran, NK, syria and whoever else should be allowed to do as they please within their own borders.....unless they are invited into another country.....that said....i belive the US should be allowed to do the same.....the US was invited into both israel and SA.....OSB hezbola etc.... declared war......against israel, SA, the US and the west in general....what should the reaction of the west be?

holland seems to have some experience in this:

http://www.paulvandervelde.nl/geo_imp.html

http://www.gimonca.com/sejarah/sejarah05.shtml

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theim:
And is that a bad thing? Firstly, America's "Empire" consists of a few pinprick islands in the ass middle of nowhere. Secondly, without the Romans and the British Western civilization as we know it would not exist.

Empire is not necessarily bad, since it has brought us more civilization in some instances. However, the Romans invaded barbarian lands, bringing them all the greatness that Rome stood for: the arts, the architecture, the government, all unrivaled in their age.

The British Empire spawned in a time where the whole of Europe was running around the world to see who could colonize the most in the shortest amount of time. They too were unrivaled in technological and advancement and the state of their societies was one far beyond large parts of the world. At least the ones we invaded.

The Americans, were they to go for Empire, will encounter mostly nations that are just as advanced or even more so as them. Obviously, most of the Middle East is "backwards" from our point of view, but then this is mostly due to prior meddling and invasions by the west, most notably Britain.
So I don't think it's going to be one hell of a success story.

If history is any guide to what will happen next, the age of the previous Empires should tell you something of the coming American one. The Romans managed to last for the better part of a millennium, the British pushed in a neat century, so the Americans will have to make do with a decade.
Hardly worth the effort I'd say.

Originally posted by theim:
So why are you so eager for us to do the same "cut and run" trick and let the Islamofacists slaughter the populace again?

I'm not eager for you to leave them rotting a second time, although I was quite eager for you not to go in the first place. However, since you're there, you must finish the job. There's been a vote, seems the constitution is going along, so maybe you can leave with dignity.

However, already Cheney and Bush and others in your administration beat the drums of war for number two on the axis of evil: Iran. The big prize. Number three has decided if it's going to have any chance of not being invaded it has to have nukes, and now says it does. The beatings of the war drums again is what is a worrying prospect. For Iran will be a far harder nut to crack; it has not suffered from a decade's worth of sanctions for one thing, and has many allies, whereas Iraq had basically none.

Originally posted by theim:
So it was Big Evil Amerikkka who forced a weeping Saddam at gunpoint to loot the money that was supposed to support his people and instead built luxurious palaces? It all makes so much sense now.

Nope. You don't seem to understand what I mean.
Although the US pressured the UN into putting up the sanctions in the beginning, most nations agreed after a while that was for the best. So most nations are equally guilty now, not just the one that started it.
That Saddam would give a rat's ass about his people was obvious.
I agree with you it was a despicable, sorry affair.

Originally posted by theim:
Than 3000 people have died, and you do not realize why and refuse to learn. Sad. All that can be done now is to ensure people like you never gain power again, lest an equally destructive attack occur because "they never hurt us very badly before."

I do realize why they have died on that tragic day. What do you think I am? Some senseless idiot? Dude, I WATCHED that shit on live television too, and I don't know if you've got a blind spot for friendly remarks, but nearly the whole world condemned those attacks, and Europe felt as if we were America that day. So cut it with your bull.

I've spent a good two years digging through information on the internet, while I got very depressed at everything I was reading - I delved into geopolitics and you aren't human if that doesn't put you to shame when reading that stuff for the first time. But I endured. And resurfaced. And now I'm pissed off. Not just at the American government, not just at the radical Islamists, but at a good part of the world. For the governments are ALL hypocrites. I just had to see it to believe it.

You obviously knew beforehand what was going on, you were not surprised at all and think less of those who were. Good on you.

Originally posted by theim:
Oh come on. At least TRY and modify the talking points a little bit to make it look like you are actually thinking. Humor me here.

Here's some humour for you:

 

[Bonnie]

Harm...The Americans, were they to go for Empire, will encounter mostly nations that are just as advanced or even more so as them. Obviously, most of the Middle East is "backwards" from our point of view, but then this is mostly due to prior meddling and invasions by the west, most notably Britain.
So I don't think it's going to be one hell of a success story

.


Just wondering what nations those might be??

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And this connection is what?

Actually - there is no connection between 9/11 and Hussein at all. Except that Hussein is a Muslim bad guy and the people who did 9/11 were Muslim bad guys. That's not really a "connection" in anything but the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game.





You mean people who conitnue to insist Hussein and Al-qaeda were collaborating? Yeah, it amazes me that those people continue to insist that even though its been well demonstrated there was no collaborative relationship..

You just CONFIRMED IT, blah, blah, blah, go do a google search IRAQ 9/11, you see, I've learned not to waste my time with BITTER people by wasting time posting all the connections cuz you wont respond to them directly.

Uhh... so its OK for us to kill them instead? What's the irony? That you think killing by the US is OK but killing by others is not? That's not irony that called hypocrisy.

Uh, actually, yes. So you dont see a difference between murdering someone for refusing to join an army that is torturing its own people, and killing another soldier who is trying to kill you? Brain, aluminum foil hat, twilight zone music......