war on iraq, a waste of time?

[dark fusion]

Russia was on the defensive, they were to occupied with staving off the german invasion of Russia to take offensive action.

we were free to take offensive action

we are meant to be talking about the war in iraq

Edited November 7, 2005 by dark fusion

[dark fusion]

sorry for repeating

Edited November 7, 2005 by dark fusion

[Guardsman Bass]

The invasion of Iraq by the United States government was a colossal idiocy that failed to accomplish its initial objectives, has dragged on longer than projected, and has cost a tremendous amount of money.

The glorification of the fact that we overthrew a dictator does not count, because it was not one of the objectives originally used to go into Iraq, and as far as objectives go, it is worlthless. North Korea is a far more severe dictatorship than Iraq ever was, and is a real threat to security in East Asia, whereas Iraq's main army was, and had been from the end of the first Gulf War, a joke. Yet, there are no calls to overthrow the North Korean government, at least not in the major policy-making circles.

The primary reason for going into Iraq was because of supposed 'weapons of mass destruction.' That was the reason used before the United Nations, and was the main reason given to the public, and it has proven false, since in nearly two years of occupation, none have been found. Not suprising, since the evidence was dubious in the first place.

Do any of you remember the statements by major Bush officials on how Iraqi oil would pay for most of the costs? That has proven to be a major miscalculation, with the result that the Iraqi venture has cost $204 billion, with an additional $45 billion dollars from this budget. That's not counting the expenses that weren't in the official budget. Nearly all of that will be borrowed, adding to the government deficit.

Finally, to those who look at a democratic government, I say, "Look closer." Iraq is a country with serious ethnic problems, including a Kurdish minority that clearly wants to be independent and united with the other Kurdish areas in the Middle East, a Shiite majority that has strong religious ties with Iran, and a Sunni minority used to years of rule and fearful of the Shiites, not to mention serving as the base for most of the Iraqi insurgency. None of this can be simply papered over, even by a constitution that is heavily pro-Islamic.

For an example, just look at Lebanon. After Lebanon's independence, the Christian faction and Sunni Muslim leadership made an agreement carving up Parliament and the Presidency between them. But it didn't solve any of the problems; it simply papered over the ethnic divides, which exploded twenty-five to thirty years later when the Shiites, previously a minority, grew to become a majority. Or look at Nigeria, where a democratic government literally fell to pieces over a dozen times, because of the division between the Muslim north, and Christian South and West. Like in Iraq, oil, and the promise of instant money from it, inflamed ethnic tensions.

Saddam Hussein may have been a dictator and a strongman, but when you are looking at the interests of the United States, a strongman was a much better idea in Iraq rather than an unstable democracy. At least a strongman can brutalize the populace into obedience, and attracts the ire of the populace. Whereas now, the US is seen as the 'strongman', and has become the magnet for insurgents and extremists.

[Mr Ed]

The glorification of the fact that we overthrew a dictator does not count, because it was not one of the objectives originally used to go into Iraq, and as far as objectives go, it is worlthless

It was an objective though, they planned to remove him from power and therefore it was an objective.

Even if it came under the main heading of 'get rid of the nukes and biological (non-existent) weapons.'

Also, I will run with this anyway, so what if it wasn't a major objective? There should still be masses amount of praise for it.

What a silly thing, to discount a great event just because it wasn't made to be the main objective, or in your opinion, not an objective at all, but quite frankly I completely disagree with that.

North Korea is a far more severe dictatorship than Iraq ever was, and is a real threat to security in East Asia, whereas Iraq's main army was, and had been from the end of the first Gulf War, a joke. Yet, there are no calls to overthrow the North Korean government, at least not in the major policy-making circles.

I am sorry, do you know that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

It is obvious, I thought to everyone, that you cannot attack a country that has nuclear weapons, in general that is. Even if Mr Blair and Mr Bush believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons, they knew that, from the information they had, that they could not be launched in time if an attack was made swiftly, which they did.

North Korea has a fully operational nuclear programme and there is no way all their silos, whatever you want to call them, could be taken out.

Attacking North Korea would create a cataclysmic nuclear war between China and the attacking country, not to mention North Korea itself and its other allies.

Iraq was believed to have an underground WMD programme, with short range missles I assume, if any, it had no powerful allies, and basically they couldn't have reached the UK or the USA.

This is why North Korea will never be attacked, it would trigger a nuclear war...

Finally, to those who look at a democratic government, I say, "Look closer." Iraq is a country with serious ethnic problems, including a Kurdish minority that clearly wants to be independent and united with the other Kurdish areas in the Middle East, a Shiite majority that has strong religious ties with Iran, and a Sunni minority used to years of rule and fearful of the Shiites, not to mention serving as the base for most of the Iraqi insurgency. None of this can be simply papered over, even by a constitution that is heavily pro-Islamic

Yes, there are majorities, minorities and the country is plagued by problems. However, there is a democractic government in place. A government that needs the help of coalition forces.

Saddam Hussein may have been a dictator and a strongman, but when you are looking at the interests of the United States, a strongman was a much better idea in Iraq rather than an unstable democracy. At least a strongman can brutalize the populace into obedience, and attracts the ire of the populace. Whereas now, the US is seen as the 'strongman', and has become the magnet for insurgents and extremists.

I completey disagree. An unstable democracy is far better than a power crazed dictator who killed more than thousands of his people. A democracy, even a fragile one, will secure Iraq a safer future. It will not be overturned whilst the coalition is there, but I admit that there is a threat of civil war.

A democracy stands for what is right and is working to make Iraq a better country, not run it into the ground as the nice Saddam Hussein would have continued to do.

[iaapac]

Iraq was believed to have an underground WMD programme, with short range missles I assume, if any, it had no powerful allies, and basically they couldn't have reached the UK or the USA.

Interesting . . . . "believed" to have had an underground WMD program with short range missles . . . .

Considering that none of the terrorists attacking the WTC were from Iraq and there were no substantiated ties between Iraq and this terrorist organization and they had only short range missles . . . . what then was all this talk about Iraq being a direct threat to the United States?

[Stellar]

Okay, so since the U.S. is in the business of removing dictators and apparently believes it has the right to do so in spite of U.N. mandates against it, then when will you invade China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and a host of African nations?

1. Be real. The US has to be able to do it first of all. China, North Korea... those cant happen... Saudi Arabia... would hurt the US too much, to the point of it not being within the USs current capacity.

Now... if the US actually did invade another country under the pretext of removing a dictator or a corrupt regime... would you be here posting that it has no right to do so and that it shouldnt?

I think the point you're missing is that you're claiming we went into Iraq to stop the slaughter of innocent people...yet we quite happily stood back and watched Saddam slaughter innocent people a few years ago. Funny that...hmm..I wonder if it had anything to do with the US desperately needing oil...(that, and Saddam was hardly trying to kill you)

Bottom line, humanitarian reasons are the last thing Bush had in mind when he decided to invade Iraq.

I'm not saying that they went in there for humanitarian reasons... but a few years ago when SH was slaughtering ppl, it was a different administration. I dont like it when ppl use arguments such as that. "Well, 5 years earlier, the US didnt do anything!" 5 years earlier, the US was run differently.

Russia was on the defensive, they were to occupied with staving off the german invasion of Russia to take offensive action.

we were free to take offensive action

You do realise that Russia DID take the offensive, right?

[iaapac]

1. Be real. The US has to be able to do it first of all. China, North Korea... those cant happen... Saudi Arabia... would hurt the US too much, to the point of it not being within the USs current capacity.

Now... if the US actually did invade another country under the pretext of removing a dictator or a corrupt regime... would you be here posting that it has no right to do so and that it shouldnt?

I think it is very real to suggest that the United States believes it has the right and authority to invade a sovereign nation and remove its leader. But, of course, it has to be selective about which dictator to remove (perhaps only those in oil rich nations or those who "tried to kill my daddy").

The second question . . . . you're damned right that I would be posting an objection simply because the U.S. has NO international authority beyond the limits of its participation in the U.N. and a few legally sanctioned international pacts. It had no right to stop Nigerian registered ships on the high seas in international waters, but it did. It had no right to detain and imprison people on the basis of suspicion and years later continue that detention without filing charges. The ultimate point is that the U.S. is NOT welcomed international as a police force and is admired only because what it lacks in authority, it makes up for with arrogance.

[Stellar]

You think the US has no authority to stop a murderer?

[I am me]

You think the US has no authority to stop a murderer?

It does not have and should not have that authority. The USA government is exactly that, the government of the USA, not the world.

Of course you could always debate the fact that Bush has ordered the killing of terrorists and the bombing of innocent Iraqis. You can be tried for murder in the USA if you hire a hitman can you not? What do you think the heros in the military are?

If the USA is the world police, who polices the world police?

[mklsgl]

I agree with Seraphina, as do many politial scientists, that it is highly likely civil war will breakout in Iraq. Using Yugoslavia and Czechoslovkia as recent examples, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites (at least) will fight each other over self-governing.

[Stellar]

It does not have and should not have that authority. The USA government is exactly that, the government of the USA, not the world.

Its sad that apparently it is not up to any human to stop murder there where they can according to you.

Of course you could always debate the fact that Bush has ordered the killing of terrorists and the bombing of innocent Iraqis.

But Bush has not ordered the killing of innocent Iraqis. When SWAT is called in on something or the police are in a chace and an innocent bystander dies, does the person who called in SWAT or the police dispatcher get tried for murder?

[iaapac]

Its sad that apparently it is not up to any human to stop murder there where they can according to you.

But Bush has not ordered the killing of innocent Iraqis. When SWAT is called in on something or the police are in a chace and an innocent bystander dies, does the person who called in SWAT or the police dispatcher get tried for murder?

Do you go out at night looking for murderers? No, you have a designated, authorized police force for that work. And if you did go out and find a murderer and kill him, you would be arrested and tried. The situation is no different on the international arena. There are procedures, methods and systems to govern and ocntrol renegade nations but unfortunately the U.S. has a renegade president. Thank God that enough intelligent people are beginning to see him for what he is that his approval rating has dropped to a horrendous 37 percent.

At the same time, each person is responsible for the peripheral consequences of each of his decisions or actions. The drunk driver does not mean to kill anyone, he just wants to go home while intoxicated. Bush may not have ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians but he sure as hell is responsible.

[Hans Dolbrook]

let's be fair here!not only is it a waste of time,it's a waste of lives and money too.iraq will only a democratic country for more than a year or two at most after we leave!!!

[iaapac]

Not that long! What has happened in Afghanistan in spite of all the publicity hype the American public received about a new democracy with equal rights for women? All of Afghanistan outside of Kabul has reverted to the old Taliban system and when the U.N. sent advisors to assist women claim their new status, the women themselves staged protests against the "new regime."

[Guardsman Bass]

It was an objective though, they planned to remove him from power and therefore it was an objective.

Even if it came under the main heading of 'get rid of the nukes and biological (non-existent) weapons.'

Also, I will run with this anyway, so what if it wasn't a major objective? There should still be masses amount of praise for it.

What a silly thing, to discount a great event just because it wasn't made to be the main objective, or in your opinion, not an objective at all, but quite frankly I completely disagree with that.

Because it constitutes dishonest behavior on the part of the Bush Administration. Moreover, the fact that the stated objectives of the invasion were not accomplished constitutes a failure in my book.

I am sorry, do you know that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

It is obvious, I thought to everyone, that you cannot attack a country that has nuclear weapons, in general that is. Even if Mr Blair and Mr Bush believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons, they knew that, from the information they had, that they could not be launched in time if an attack was made swiftly, which they did.

North Korea has a fully operational nuclear programme and there is no way all their silos, whatever you want to call them, could be taken out.

Attacking North Korea would create a cataclysmic nuclear war between China and the attacking country, not to mention North Korea itself and its other allies.

I DID know that North Korea has probably around 3 or 4 nuclear weapons, and it does not in any way change my point that if we are invading countries for the sake of 'creating democracy,' North Korea should have been higher on the list than Iraq. They invaded Iraq because it was EASY, not because Iraq was some horrible dictatorship that needed democratic enlightenment. There are far worse states in the world, that are just as dictatorial, but not as easy to conquer.

Iraq was believed to have an underground WMD programme, with short range missles I assume, if any, it had no powerful allies, and basically they couldn't have reached the UK or the USA.

This is why North Korea will never be attacked, it would trigger a nuclear war...

On the contrary, Iraq had essentially NO nuclear program that could have produced any type of nuclear weapon without a 7-10 year period of development. Their nuclear program was cut off by Israeli bombing in the ideas, and basically killed by inspections at the end of the Gulf War.

What Iraq had were Scud missiles, all of them antiquated. No surprise, but not WMD.

Yes, there are majorities, minorities and the country is plagued by problems. However, there is a democractic government in place. A government that needs the help of coalition forces.

And you are doing it right now -assuming that a paper democratic government can simply build over these types of ethnic divisions, the kind that have ruined several 'democracies.' Incidently, it isn't a viable government if it can't maintain itself, but that's a moot question until the US pulls out. I'm predicting that the Iraq government will be strong-armed or will disintegrate in ten years, or less after the pullout.

I completey disagree. An unstable democracy is far better than a power crazed dictator who killed more than thousands of his people. A democracy, even a fragile one, will secure Iraq a safer future. It will not be overturned whilst the coalition is there, but I admit that there is a threat of civil war.

A democracy stands for what is right and is working to make Iraq a better country, not run it into the ground as the nice Saddam Hussein would have continued to do.

The government was being run into the ground after the Gulf War because of the Oil Embargo. Saddam Hussein was able to get around it, but the fact that almost no oil could be exported legally from Iraq crippled the economy.

Incidently, when I made my statement, I was thinking of the US's interests, and the US's interests in the region are economic stability and security, not democracy. A strongman in Iraq who could secure the flow of oil, like what is happening in Saudi Arabia, may not be particularly appealing, but at least the oil flows - not at all what is happening in the 'democracy' that makes up Iraq.

[Guardsman Bass]

1. Be real. The US has to be able to do it first of all. China, North Korea... those cant happen... Saudi Arabia... would hurt the US too much, to the point of it not being within the USs current capacity.

Now... if the US actually did invade another country under the pretext of removing a dictator or a corrupt regime... would you be here posting that it has no right to do so and that it shouldnt?

I actually would oppose an invasion on those grounds, unless both countries were in a state of declared war, and the US was acting in self-defense. I'm sorry, but respect for national sovereignty is necessary in nearly all cases if you want any type of diplomacy to work.

[iaapac]

Because it constitutes dishonest behavior on the part of the Bush Administration. Moreover, the fact that the stated objectives of the invasion were not accomplished constitutes a failure in my book.

I DID know that North Korea has probably around 3 or 4 nuclear weapons, and it does not in any way change my point that if we are invading countries for the sake of 'creating democracy,' North Korea should have been higher on the list than Iraq. They invaded Iraq because it was EASY, not because Iraq was some horrible dictatorship that needed democratic enlightenment. There are far worse states in the world, that are just as dictatorial, but not as easy to conquer.

On the contrary, Iraq had essentially NO nuclear program that could have produced any type of nuclear weapon without a 7-10 year period of development. Their nuclear program was cut off by Israeli bombing in the ideas, and basically killed by inspections at the end of the Gulf War.

What Iraq had were Scud missiles, all of them antiquated. No surprise, but not WMD.

And you are doing it right now -assuming that a paper democratic government can simply build over these types of ethnic divisions, the kind that have ruined several 'democracies.' Incidently, it isn't a viable government if it can't maintain itself, but that's a moot question until the US pulls out. I'm predicting that the Iraq government will be strong-armed or will disintegrate in ten years, or less after the pullout.

The government was being run into the ground after the Gulf War because of the Oil Embargo. Saddam Hussein was able to get around it, but the fact that almost no oil could be exported legally from Iraq crippled the economy.

Incidently, when I made my statement, I was thinking of the US's interests, and the US's interests in the region are economic stability and security, not democracy. A strongman in Iraq who could secure the flow of oil, like what is happening in Saudi Arabia, may not be particularly appealing, but at least the oil flows - not at all what is happening in the 'democracy' that makes up Iraq.

Couldn't agree more. Well said, congratulations.

[Stellar]

Do you go out at night looking for murderers? No, you have a designated, authorized police force for that work.

No I dont go out looking for murderers, but if an opportunity presented itsself in which I could successfully prevent a murder, I would.

And if you did go out and find a murderer and kill him, you would be arrested and tried.

Yet if there was a person robbing a bank and shooting ppl ever 5 minutes and I killed him, I would not, would I?

The situation is no different on the international arena.

You're right, it isnt.

At the same time, each person is responsible for the peripheral consequences of each of his decisions or actions. The drunk driver does not mean to kill anyone, he just wants to go home while intoxicated. Bush may not have ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians but he sure as hell is responsible.

How is he responsible any more than the owner of the bar in which the driver became drunk? It is not Bush that dropped the bomb, nor shot the bullet that killed innocent ppl. THOSE ppl are responsible.

There are far worse states in the world, that are just as dictatorial, but not as easy to conquer.

Or simply unconquerable.

I actually would oppose an invasion on those grounds, unless both countries were in a state of declared war, and the US was acting in self-defense. I'm sorry, but respect for national sovereignty is necessary in nearly all cases if you want any type of diplomacy to work.

Im sorry, but I dont much care for borders. If one part of the world is suffering due to a murderer, it is the responsibility of the world to fix that suffering.

[Guardsman Bass]

Im sorry, but I dont much care for borders. If one part of the world is suffering due to a murderer, it is the responsibility of the world to fix that suffering.

Since when? Besides, there is no unified 'world' to fix suffering, and no agreement on what counts as suffering. A country simply saying, "We're doing a right" and pre-emptively destroying a government shouldn't be surprised when its crusader mentality get thrown back in its face.

It's horrible, but true. That doesn't mean I don't support efforts to spread democracy; I just don't support efforts like Iraq, where the so-called attempt to spread democracy started as nothing of the sort, and was filled with ulterior motives.

[iaapac]

No I dont go out looking for murderers, but if an opportunity presented itsself in which I could successfully prevent a murder, I would.

Yet if there was a person robbing a bank and shooting ppl ever 5 minutes and I killed him, I would not, would I?

You're right, it isnt.

How is he responsible any more than the owner of the bar in which the driver became drunk? It is not Bush that dropped the bomb, nor shot the bullet that killed innocent ppl. THOSE ppl are responsible.

Or simply unconquerable.

Im sorry, but I dont much care for borders. If one part of the world is suffering due to a murderer, it is the responsibility of the world to fix that suffering.

Harry S. Truman had the courage to say, "The buck stops here" and recognized his complete responsibility for all that happened within his administration. Unfortunately George W. Bush is not that dignified nor has that type of courage.

I will remind you that Charles Manson did not kill anyone at the Sharon Tate house. He was not there. But he sent people to do it and he is now in his 42nd year in prison. Bush did not drop the bomb? Manson did not cut Tate's throat. Bush did not shoot the bullet? Manson did not shoot the chauffeur outside of the Tate mansion. Where would you like to separate these two killers and their ultimate responsibilities?

[Stellar]

Since when?

Sorry, I forgot to put the IMO.

Besides, there is no unified 'world' to fix suffering, and no agreement on what counts as suffering.

There not being a unified "world" to fix suffering doesnt mean that it shouldnt be humanities goal to do so IMO. And there is an agreement on what counts as suffering, or rather on whether some specific things count as suffering. Living in a regime where you can be killed or tortured for saying the wrong thing... I'm quite sure most people will agree that that's suffering.

It's horrible, but true. That doesn't mean I don't support efforts to spread democracy; I just don't support efforts like Iraq, where the so-called attempt to spread democracy started as nothing of the sort, and was filled with ulterior motives.

Im not saying that I think the motives were to spread democracy... but democracy will be spread, no matter what the motive was.

I will remind you that Charles Manson did not kill anyone at the Sharon Tate house. He was not there. But he sent people to do it and he is now in his 42nd year in prison. Bush did not drop the bomb? Manson did not cut Tate's throat. Bush did not shoot the bullet? Manson did not shoot the chauffeur outside of the Tate mansion. Where would you like to separate these two killers and their ultimate responsibilities?

THe difference is, Charles Manson sent those ppl to kill innocent people, while Bush did not send them to kill innocent people. The innocent people killed by the US were due to US servicemen and women screwing up.

Now, should the leaders in power during WW2 also be tried for killing innocent civilians, in your opinion?

[iaapac]

Sorry, I forgot to put the IMO.

There not being a unified "world" to fix suffering doesnt mean that it shouldnt be humanities goal to do so IMO. And there is an agreement on what counts as suffering, or rather on whether some specific things count as suffering. Living in a regime where you can be killed or tortured for saying the wrong thing... I'm quite sure most people will agree that that's suffering.

Im not saying that I think the motives were to spread democracy... but democracy will be spread, no matter what the motive was.

THe difference is, Charles Manson sent those ppl to kill innocent people, while Bush did not send them to kill innocent people. The innocent people killed by the US were due to US servicemen and women screwing up.

Now, should the leaders in power during WW2 also be tried for killing innocent civilians, in your opinion?

They certainly were. Among the charges filed at the Nurenberg were the murders of innocents, especially the deaths that occurred at Kharkov. The charges were made at the demand of the Russian Government since there were more deaths at Kharkov than in all of the Pacific Campaign put together. The German leaders, both political and military, were held responsible.

What is worse with the situation in Iraq is the disgusting lack of concern about the thousands who have died by indiscriminate bombing. Gen. Tommy Franks was asked about those deaths and replied, "We don't do body counts."

Finally, I think you continue to miss the point. No matter if soldier screw up or Genrals make bad decisions, a responsible president recognizes that he is simply that, responsible. To not hold him responsible is to disgrace the memory of those who died for no reason, in a war that has been conducted without justifiable cause.

[Seraphina]

Now, should the leaders in power during WW2 also be tried for killing innocent civilians, in your opinion?

The difference being, Stellar, that was a war...not an occupation. The killing of civilians during war time is something that simply has to be done...they're the ones working factories, building munitions, and keeping the military running from the backgrounds.

For that matter, the professed intention during World War two was not to "liberate" the german people...it was to stop the Nazis conquering Europe. There was just a teeny, tiny bit less hypocracy in killing them while you set about it.

Civilians in Iraq are hardly in the same position. They are neither equiping nor feeding the insurgents...in fact, given the comparitavly low industrial levels in Iraq, I doubt they were even doing it for Saddam's army...Saddam likely simply bought most of his weapons, rather than manufacturing them.

[bathory]

what about the french killed in the liberation of france?

I doubt they were even doing it for Saddam's army...Saddam likely simply bought most of his weapons, rather than manufacturing them.

Saddam manufactured his own chemical weapons (binary shells and so on), but yes, the majority of his conventional arms were purchased from other nations.

I actually would oppose an invasion on those grounds, unless both countries were in a state of declared war, and the US was acting in self-defense. I'm sorry, but respect for national sovereignty is necessary in nearly all cases if you want any type of diplomacy to work.

so i take it you don't support international action to stop poverty, famine and disease in other nations? don't want to be infringing on national soverignty right?

Edited November 8, 2005 by bathory

[Seraphina]

so i take it you don't support international action to stop poverty, famine and disease in other nations? don't want to be infringing on national soverignty right?

Well...if they tried to solve poverty by tearing into the country and slaughtering tens of thousands of the population, then no, I don't Because that's pretty much how they've gone about "liberating" Iraq