Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
dark fusion

war on iraq, a waste of time?

205 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Richdog

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.

Ahh yes you're right... just like Sudan and the other places where people have been slaughtered in their millions by the Janjaweed right? Fact is Sudan was 100x wose than Iraq... yet holds no personal gain or interest for the USA.

Iraq was one of the lesser problems in the world... made far greater by the fact it contains vast oil reserves. It's all about personal gain... if Iraq had been a barren country with nothing there we wouldn't have stopped those "murders".

The WMD were clearly exaggerated in order to get international sanction to invade as well as public support... which wasn't given anyway.

Complete farce...

Edited by Richdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

Looking at the situation from the outside, as many others like Richdog do, we perhaps see things differently. We are pretty much united in opposing this invasion (I will not dignify it by calling it a war) and the lies that were told to the American people to justify it. What amazes us, however, is how the American people can support this action in spite of the overwhelming evidence indicating that it was unsanctioned, unjust and by international standards, criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz

because the lie, is that it was a lie, and that lie keeps getting repeated around the world

But ok. So Bush lied. Congress lied. International intel lied. The Clinton administration lied. Lets just for the sake of moving forward say it's true that they all lied. (even though it's really not true they lied)

What do we do now? What's the plan?

Ok, throw all the ones that allegedly lied in jail, or have them executed, ok great. Whatever.

What's next? What's the plan? What's the plan for Iraq? What's the plan for militant extremeists around the globe? What's the plan for tyrranical dictators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snuffypuffer

I haven't read all of this thread, just going by the title and the last three or four posts.

What Iraq becomes after we pull out of the country will determine whether or not the war was worth it in the end. None of what happened leading up to the invasion really matters, anymore. We are there, and we are committed. A quick withdrawal at this point really isn't an option, so how we prepare the Iraqi people to govern themselves, and what form that government takes once we're gone is really what's going to determine how history looks at the whole situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

Looking at the situation from the outside, as many others like Richdog do, we perhaps see things differently. We are pretty much united in opposing this invasion (I will not dignify it by calling it a war) and the lies that were told to the American people to justify it. What amazes us, however, is how the American people can support this action in spite of the overwhelming evidence indicating that it was unsanctioned, unjust and by international standards, criminal.

Well, no...not all americans support what is going on(Or even most at this point judging by the presidents approval rating) in iraq.

What is happening right now is what was the biggest concerns of those who didn't like the idea to begin with. I have no idea of what is going to become of the investigation of whether or not the president and his folks tweaked intelligence to get the desired results, but my hope is that someone can find out what REALLY happened.

Did bush believe what he passed along to everyone, or did he specifically ask his intel people to come up with the information that was used to justify the war? My guess is yes, but I do not know for sure. I can only hope that if he did lie, that he and his staff pay for what he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

because the lie, is that it was a lie, and that lie keeps getting repeated around the world

But ok. So Bush lied. Congress lied. International intel lied. The Clinton administration lied. Lets just for the sake of moving forward say it's true that they all lied. (even though it's really not true they lied)

What do we do now? What's the plan?

Ok, throw all the ones that allegedly lied in jail, or have them executed, ok great. Whatever.

What's next? What's the plan? What's the plan for Iraq? What's the plan for militant extremeists around the globe? What's the plan for tyrranical dictators?

That's just the point, there appears to be no plan. Form a new government, force democracy on the Iraquis, turn everything over to them and get out with another lie that the entire disaster was necessary and successful. Bush has maintained a middle finger foreign policy and wanted to hallmark his presidency with strong responses to 9/11. The truth is that he has not. Bin Laden is still out there because no one wants him caught because it would justify the end to the war on terror, or he is already dead and no one's talking. Afghanistan was a complete disaster with absolutely no positive result in spite of the American loss of lives and those of countless civilians. Iraq is obviously the same situation and when America finally does decide to leave, it will be an international disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am me

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

Well how many lives did it cost to "stop" Saddam?

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?

SWAT is not the national military headed by the president. Of course SWAT members will not be tried just like Bush will not be tried, they are all government agencies. Nothing polices the government.

When Bush ordered the strike and awe campaign he ordered the killing of anybody who was in the way of the bombs. He knew that innocent Iraqis would die. But remember the saying "It's all worth it". Sure it was...tell that to the family members of those who died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
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 huh.gif Because that's pretty much how they've gone about "liberating" Iraq

what if it solved the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

what if it solved the problem?

Unfair question. When in all of history has invasion and the maiming and killing of innocents solved poverty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

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.

THe point I'm making is that the leaders shouldnt be tried for killing civilians now any more than the leaders during WW2 should have.

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.

You're right, but the question wasnt about hipocrasy.

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.

Im not talking about killing civilians in factories in WWII, I'm talking about collateral damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz

Bush has maintained a middle finger foreign policy and wanted to hallmark his presidency with strong responses to 9/11. The truth is that he has not. Bin Laden is still out there because no one wants him caught because it would justify the end to the war on terror, or he is already dead and no one's talking. Afghanistan was a complete disaster with absolutely no positive result in spite of the American loss of lives and those of countless civilians. Iraq is obviously the same situation and when America finally does decide to leave, it will be an international disgrace.

Ok, great. Given what you say is true (even though I don't), WHAT'S YOUR PLAN OTHER THAN BASHING? Bush has a plan, you don't like it. Fine. No problem. What's Your Plan Then?

When Bush ordered the strike and awe campaign he ordered the killing of anybody who was in the way of the bombs. He knew that innocent Iraqis would die. But remember the saying "It's all worth it". Sure it was...tell that to the family members of those who died.

I think we put out flyers to warn them to get out. But anyway, Bush murdered civilians. Ok, lets say he's found guilty and executed. Now...

WHAT'S YOUR PLAN?

Unfair question. When in all of history has invasion and the maiming and killing of innocents solved poverty?

What does maiming and killing of innocents have to do with poverty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Ahh yes you're right... just like Sudan and the other places where people have been slaughtered in their millions by the Janjaweed right? Fact is Sudan was 100x wose than Iraq... yet holds no personal gain or interest for the USA.

What are you trying to imply? I'm saying that the world SHOULD go into Sudan too in order to stop the slaughter there. In no way was I saying that the USs intentions with Iraq were humanitarian in nature...

Iraq was one of the lesser problems in the world... made far greater by the fact it contains vast oil reserves. It's all about personal gain... if Iraq had been a barren country with nothing there we wouldn't have stopped those "murders".

The WMD were clearly exaggerated in order to get international sanction to invade as well as public support... which wasn't given anyway.

Im not saying otherwise.

Looking at the situation from the outside, as many others like Richdog do, we perhaps see things differently. We are pretty much united in opposing this invasion (I will not dignify it by calling it a war) and the lies that were told to the American people to justify it. What amazes us, however, is how the American people can support this action in spite of the overwhelming evidence indicating that it was unsanctioned, unjust and by international standards, criminal.

Im also against those lies... but feel that the invasion, handled properly, would have been benefitial to the Iraqis.

Well how many lives did it cost to "stop" Saddam?

That holds no bearing to my point. First of all, it could be argued that the 28000 innocent Iraqi lives lost would have been lost anyway if SH remained in power, but that still doesnt have anything to do with what I said. I said that its the worlds responsibility, IMO, to stop murder wherever it can. Just because the US handled Iraq wrong. If the US nuked Iraq right now, it wouldnt change my point of view on that... it'd just show that the US did something wrong, not that the world shouldnt try to stop murder.

SWAT is not the national military headed by the president.

That changes nothing. What, somehow the law is different if it concerns the president? I thought everyone was supposed to be treated equally in the US?

Of course SWAT members will not be tried just like Bush will not be tried, they are all government agencies.

Oh, but the SWAT member who shot and killed a civilian WILL be in sh** for doing so... but why should the officer in charge of the SWAT organisation be in sh**?

When Bush ordered the strike and awe campaign he ordered the killing of anybody who was in the way of the bombs.

Did he? I suppose thats why the military targets parked near mosques and schools were not targetted by bombs?

Hell, thats also why the military WARNED Fallujah residents to leave in preperation for the assault on it...

He knew that innocent Iraqis would die.

Just as whoever controls SWAT knows that some times innocent ppl will die. It doesnt change the fact that he's not responsible for them, its the ppl who screwed up and killed those innocent ppl who are.

But remember the saying "It's all worth it". Sure it was...tell that to the family members of those who died.

Just as soon as you tell that to the family members who were on the bring of death under SH but were saved due to the invasion.

Unfair question. When in all of history has invasion and the maiming and killing of innocents solved poverty?

Lets be honest, the question wasnt really about poverty, it was on a general note. He could have just as well replaced poverty with "suffering/oppression/murder" or anything of the sort. You want to know when it HAS solved such a problem? WW2. The invasion of Normandy.

Sometimes war IS necessairy... just not all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

What are you trying to imply? I'm saying that the world SHOULD go into Sudan too in order to stop the slaughter there. In no way was I saying that the USs intentions with Iraq were humanitarian in nature...

Im not saying otherwise.

Im also against those lies... but feel that the invasion, handled properly, would have been benefitial to the Iraqis.

That holds no bearing to my point. First of all, it could be argued that the 28000 innocent Iraqi lives lost would have been lost anyway if SH remained in power, but that still doesnt have anything to do with what I said. I said that its the worlds responsibility, IMO, to stop murder wherever it can. Just because the US handled Iraq wrong. If the US nuked Iraq right now, it wouldnt change my point of view on that... it'd just show that the US did something wrong, not that the world shouldnt try to stop murder.

That changes nothing. What, somehow the law is different if it concerns the president? I thought everyone was supposed to be treated equally in the US?

Oh, but the SWAT member who shot and killed a civilian WILL be in sh** for doing so... but why should the officer in charge of the SWAT organisation be in sh**?

Did he? I suppose thats why the military targets parked near mosques and schools were not targetted by bombs?

Hell, thats also why the military WARNED Fallujah residents to leave in preperation for the assault on it...

Just as whoever controls SWAT knows that some times innocent ppl will die. It doesnt change the fact that he's not responsible for them, its the ppl who screwed up and killed those innocent ppl who are.

Just as soon as you tell that to the family members who were on the bring of death under SH but were saved due to the invasion.

Lets be honest, the question wasnt really about poverty, it was on a general note. He could have just as well replaced poverty with "suffering/oppression/murder" or anything of the sort. You want to know when it HAS solved such a problem? WW2. The invasion of Normandy.

Sometimes war IS necessairy... just not all the time.

Stellar,

While we often disagree on various issues, I want you to know I appreciate your class in handling the issues. One thing that people not living in the U.S. believe is that the society is so saturated with violence (gangs, TV, crime rates, etc.) that it has become the national character. It is easy to perceive that situations like Iraq could emerge from that mentality and that the people would initially support such actions from the same social attitude. We find it difficult to imagine, for example, that there are more people in prison in the United States than in China! It is incredible that the U.S. is the only first world nation still using the death penalty. So if we seem a little too critical at times it comes from our external perceptions based upon information and news that often is not the same as appears in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dark fusion

i know some one who went to the war in iraq and i had enough time to ask him this question.

"will the war in iraq come to an end soon?"

his answer,

"No, i think it will be another 10 years until there is peace. iraq will become like northern ireland."

do you believe this? :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

The U.S. is the last of the first world nations to use the death penalty. That is true. Of course we only execute a handful of people a year. Most of the inmates on death row live there for twenty years or better before getting thier just deserts.

True, we do have more people in prison than China. In China people often go missing.

I'm glad that you have the ability to see through all the hype that some people in other countries espouse. You know first hand that we are not perfect. We have our many short comings. That goes for our government and our people. If more people could see the U.S. through your eyes, they'd be more willing to help us instead of cursing us.

BTW, Got the P.M., Thanks. I'm looking into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

The U.S. is the last of the first world nations to use the death penalty. That is true. Of course we only execute a handful of people a year. Most of the inmates on death row live there for twenty years or better before getting thier just deserts.

True, we do have more people in prison than China. In China people often go missing.

I'm glad that you have the ability to see through all the hype that some people in other countries espouse. You know first hand that we are not perfect. We have our many short comings. That goes for our government and our people. If more people could see the U.S. through your eyes, they'd be more willing to help us instead of cursing us.

BTW, Got the P.M., Thanks. I'm looking into it.

Thanks for the kind words. Just one note about the death penalty. True, there are not many men executed annually except for Texas. There they don't have a last meal, they have buffets. Texas and Florida execute more people annually, and pardon less, than all other states together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I don't know that Iraq will ever become like Northern Ireland. I don't think that even the most radical of either side there really wants to die.

In Iraq... I'm not so sure. Suicide bombers and the like. I think that you'll have to modernize the people there first. Then, after they get all these Jihadist dreams out of their heads, it may be a safe and secure country. That is the part that will take ten years, modernizing the people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

Ok, great. Given what you say is true (even though I don't), WHAT'S YOUR PLAN OTHER THAN BASHING? Bush has a plan, you don't like it. Fine. No problem. What's Your Plan Then?

I think we put out flyers to warn them to get out. But anyway, Bush murdered civilians. Ok, lets say he's found guilty and executed. Now...

WHAT'S YOUR PLAN?

What does maiming and killing of innocents have to do with poverty?

There are no plans for hindsight. The PLAN was to not invade Iraq, to listen to and respect world opinion. To operate like a democracy and recognize that nations that do not agree with you do not become your enemies (France, for example). To understand that if Iraq, or any other nation is a threat, it is a threat to the community of nations, not just the United States and nowhere, NOWHERE in the pacts, agreements, treaties or doctrines of that community does the United States have the right to supercede world opinion and indiscriminately invade and attack a sovereign nation.

And as irresponsible as he is, it is certain that Bush would never be charged or tried for his actions but that would not make him less guilty.

We have already resolved the poverty question in earlier posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz

There are no plans for hindsight. The PLAN was to not invade Iraq, to listen to and respect world opinion. To operate like a democracy and recognize that nations that do not agree with you do not become your enemies (France, for example). To understand that if Iraq, or any other nation is a threat, it is a threat to the community of nations, not just the United States and nowhere, NOWHERE in the pacts, agreements, treaties or doctrines of that community does the United States have the right to supercede world opinion and indiscriminately invade and attack a sovereign nation.

And as irresponsible as he is, it is certain that Bush would never be charged or tried for his actions but that would not make him less guilty.

We have already resolved the poverty question in earlier posts.

so your plan is... to whine more. ok.

poverty was imposed on its people by a dictator who made palaces and built bunches of deluxe bunkers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030404-1.html

Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims.

According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

Allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.

Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: o 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 o 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998 o 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign" o 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000 o 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001 o At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001

but the plan is, bush lied

Do we continue fighting? Bush lied. Do we pull out? Bush lied. Do you want ice cream? Bush lied, the war was "illegal". How about some coffee? Bush lied. The plan for future action is: BUSH LIED!

That'll save lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollo

so your plan is... to whine more. ok.

poverty was imposed on its people by a dictator who made palaces and built bunches of deluxe bunkers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030404-1.html

but the plan is, bush lied

Do we continue fighting? Bush lied. Do we pull out? Bush lied. Do you want ice cream? Bush lied, the war was "illegal". How about some coffee? Bush lied. The plan for future action is: BUSH LIED!

That'll save lives.

well call me Mr Naive but i would hope that ANYONE who starts a war would be held accountable for the reasons they gave for starting the said war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz

well good, lets indict him already. for the sake of argument lets say the man's alraedy been executed for his "lies".

What's the Plan?

The plan is Bush lied? Lets say he's dead already. What's the Plan?

Bush lied is the plan!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

so your plan is... to whine more. ok.

poverty was imposed on its people by a dictator who made palaces and built bunches of deluxe bunkers.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030404-1.html

but the plan is, bush lied

Do we continue fighting? Bush lied. Do we pull out? Bush lied. Do you want ice cream? Bush lied, the war was "illegal". How about some coffee? Bush lied. The plan for future action is: BUSH LIED!

That'll save lives.

While I recognize that it is easier to ignore the point than deal with it, the issue is not the PLAN now. The point is that there should be no need for a plan, that the administration should have been honest and responsible. Your question wanting a plan now is like two inmates on death row asking each other, "So, what's the plan?"

But if you insist on a plan, here's one. Impeach Bush on the same grounds as the attempt was made to impeach Clinton. He lied to Congress. Recognize the error and withdraw from Iraq. If the goal was to get rid of Hussein, then it has been done. You can tell the people that they are now free of him and also free to establish whatever form of government they want, not what the U.S. dictates to them.

Having withdrawn and charged Bush with his criminal behavior, valuable lessons could be learned for future administrations and the people at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollo

umm.... when was it made permissable to "execute" Bush for lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

When did Bush lie? Is it still a lie if you genuinely believe it and then find out that the info was false? Have you never falsely accused someone only to find out that your accusations were unsubstantiated? It does happen. Are you going to hang Bush up to dry because all his advisers were telling him that it looks like S/H has WMD. Would you take chance on losing a couple of cities to find out for sure? If someone walked into your house and threatened to kill you mother, would you wait to see the knife? If so, I'm glad that I'm not your mother.

We all need to keep in mind that the freeworld had the legal right to resume the Gulf War the first time S/H attempted to delay the inspecters.

As to rather he ever had the WMD or not, go ask some Kurds. I think Saddam left a few of them alive.

It's not a question of rather he had them but, rather how did he dispose of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gollo

if someone came into my house and threatened my mother I would tell my dad she was only making a quick visit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.