Americans can't accept real reason for Iraq war

[johnhpus]

He fought a bloody war with Iran for ten years; the U.S. stood aside there and let those two out-of-control governments beat each other senseless. Sadly, we also stood aside while chemical weapons were used on Iraqi citizens.

You should find out who gave Saddam those weapons (the U.S.) and then take another look at whether we simply sat on the sidelines (another hint, we didn't, we gave Saddam spy satellite images so he would know where best to use his weapons).

[johnhpus]

using gang rape of wives and daughters, in their home in front of the husband and other children, as a weapon of repression.

So when John Yoo said that it is perfectly legal to crush a child's testicles in front of his father during interrogation, why didn't he earn himself and those who support him (Bush) a trip to the gallows as well?



Also, to whoever it was that sad "the Jews" were responsible for the invasion of Iraq... I have no doubt that a variety of power groups played a role in it, but you automatically sound like a racist when you blame "the Jews". It's not the Jewish race you're even trying to identify. It's the Zionists. So use that term instead (though you'll sound like a wacko conspiracy theorist, it's better than sounding like a racist).

[warmi]

He fought a bloody war with Iran for ten years; the U.S. stood aside there and let those two out-of-control governments beat each other senseless. Sadly, we also stood aside while chemical weapons were used on Iraqi citizens.

You should find out who gave Saddam those weapons (the U.S.) and then take another look at whether we simply sat on the sidelines (another hint, we didn't, we gave Saddam spy satellite images so he would know where best to use his weapons).

Really ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... 0s_-_1980s

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif

[weshowe]

You cannot take a political argument in the U.S. after the fact and use it as an argument against a decision that happened years before.

I recognize there will always be people fundamentally opposed to violence, and I believe they serve a useful counter-balance against those who would shoot first and ask questions later.

But I also believe that those that argue against the invasion and deposing of Hussein as leader of Iraq are wrong in this case, the invasion of Iraq is well justified. I admit many mistakes were made, but those were all because we were not tough enough after defeating the Iraqis until recently, trying to solve a problem with diplomacy that in retrospect required greater resolve to rid the country of foreign troublemakers.

I will also assert my belief that when the history books are written, Mr. Bush will be recognized for his leadership in World affairs, and all the popular press fluff about WMD will be consigned to notes that the war was not without controversy (as has every war we ever fought, except perhaps WW2).

EDIT: I don't believe that "did he or didn't he have WMD" argument is really germane to what needed done. Those that support terrorism against anyone must be made to cease such action, and placing Saddam at the end of a rope was what it took to end that.

[johnhpus]

warmi

I'm trying to find an article that proves my point, but I'm having a hard time finding anything that isn't from a left-biased source. If I find something I'll post it here.

weshowe

If your point is that I can't compare Yoo's policies to Saddam's policies... I don't get it. They may be separated by time, but they're both concerning the torture of innocent people. I think to say that it's a reason to kill Saddam, and then say that you don't hold it against Bush, is hypocritical.

I do agree with you about the U.S. being too soft after the invasion. We should have been ruthless and disarmed the Iraqis immediately following the invasion. It would have made for a lot less net suffering.

And concerning the history books, fair or not, Bush will be a villain throughout history. Besides being an evil bastard, I believe he's also something of a puppet and a scapegoat. I think it's in the interest of his opponents as much as his friend to take a step back and let him shoulder the blame.

Maybe some Americans in the future will look at the world and decide that without Bush's actions a different landscape would exist. That doesn't mean the people at large will be putting him on any currency or establishing a holiday in his honor.

Also "popular press fluff about WMD"... wtf are you talking about. That is the REASON the U.S. just had to invade and couldn't wait for the U.N. To say that it doesn't matter anymore that the war was entirely publicly premised on a mistake or lie is absurd. (I still think it was a combination of oil and opportunity, which at least makes some logical sense)

[weshowe]

The WMD was, in the end, a diversion of attention from events that warranted a severe correction. Saddam was not merely happy to defile his own nest, but paid to have Israelis killed, a key ally of long standing. State support of terrorism was declared by Mr. Bush as grounds for action.

So the WMD argument is a sideshow... it doesn't seem to have a single complete answer, and even if it did, it is irrelevant because sufficient reason to qualify Saddam-baby for his forced eviction from power already existed.

Neither of us know about what the history books of the future will say, so time will tell, and I hope each of us gets to meet again where one will admit he was wrong. If it is needed, I can do that.

I have to go for the evening... I regulate my sleep (better living through chemistry) and soon will be incapable of completing a single coherent statement.

[johnhpus]

Alright, the fact that they paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel is an action worthy of war. Do you agree that any country sponsoring terrorism against an American allied country is an enemy?

I think so. So alright, maybe that does do something to justify the war.

But the job isn't nearly finished --

But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/ ... 5316.shtml

Sounds like quite a job then. And we'll have to prepare a seat at the table for Iran as well. They won't want to miss it.

The only problem is that no one has pointed it out to Bush yet:





Or that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians (I thought it was 17/19) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

[syedhs]

Now we are talking about suicide bombers especially and if you are talking about Palestinians, hear this: After their families houses had been demolished by bulldozers and some even get to see their own families being squeezed directly in the rubbles, they turn to suicide-bombers.

And these suicide-bombers get labeled as terrorist and condemned like hell, whereas the one who demolished their houses, murdered some of the family members are scott-free?? And George Bush even call Ariel Sharon as 'the man of peace'? Do you know what Ariel Sharon had been doing in the past - Shabra Satilla is without any single dispute is equivalent to the Holocaust.

So all I am saying be careful (and know firsthand, what is the bigger picture) when speaks about this matter. But I can understand that some media exaggerate other news, while other which were significantly important did not get reported.

And there are so much more things can be unearthed on this issue where in the end is this: America has deliberately turned its ears deaf many many times where its allies are without dispute should take the blame (and therefore, justifiably called terrorist too). And America is also notably very quick to jump over many smaller aggressions by its enemies, and these are usually followed without fails by some western media like CNN or FoxNews. And you will almost immediately get to hear the USA president as claiming The world condemns xxxxx or the international community .... - question, question: who authorize you to speak on behalf of the world?

[Zool]

You could argue all day long but what's the point given that no oil is being "stolen" from there ...

Do you have any kind of evidence ?

Wtf are you talking about, I never said that "oil is being stolen from there".

Where is your evidence. In the 8 years following the "complete departure of what used to be the mainstream of republican foreign policy", can you show us any action taken by the US Govt to actively promote democracy in other parts of the world (preferably one that doesn't involve a certain country in the Middle East with huge oil reserves) ?

He fought a bloody war with Iran for ten years; the U.S. stood aside there and let those two out-of-control governments beat each other senseless.

We need to redefine "stand aside" then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... 93Iraq_War

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army. This included information that was used by the Iraqis in targeting chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and U.N. expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.

there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war. For example, the US and UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On March 21, 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80 ... t_for_Iraq

n 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons. President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

[KungFooMasta]

He fought a bloody war with Iran for ten years; the U.S. stood aside there and let those two out-of-control governments beat each other senseless. Sadly, we also stood aside while chemical weapons were used on Iraqi citizens.

You should find out who gave Saddam those weapons (the U.S.) and then take another look at whether we simply sat on the sidelines (another hint, we didn't, we gave Saddam spy satellite images so he would know where best to use his weapons).

Yah, I suppose you'll also tell us our local gun dealers should be held responsible for the crimes committed by people purchasing guns?

I agree with weshowe. So many people are hung up on the whole WMD deal and the fact that we couldn't find any, as if Hussein was such a great man. We should just let everybody kill each other and not get involved unless there are WMDs?

And on the topic of suicide bombers, there is NO justification for killing innocent people, including men, women, and children in the market, on a pilgrimage, at their house, etc. If you bulldoze my family I should explode a bus?

[warmi]

Where is your evidence.

My evidence ? Isn't it you who is accusing them of having ulterior motives ?
The burden of proof is on you.

[reptor]

Aaah, I love The Burden of Proof! One of my favourites!

[weshowe]

Now we are talking about suicide bombers especially and if you are talking about Palestinians, hear this: After their families houses had been demolished by bulldozers and some even get to see their own families being squeezed directly in the rubbles, they turn to suicide-bombers.

You have the cart in front of your horse there. Israel had a policy of bulldozing the houses of suicide bombers. If they had any way of knowing who was destined to be a suicide bomber before they blew themselves up, they could just imprison them. That would be 100% effective.

Israel tried to impress on other potential suicide bombers that there would be a cost to their family if they killed citizens. Saddam, and others, promoted this by giving the families money.

I don't know about where you live, but here when person A pays person B to kill person C, A is regarded as a criminal, and is just as culpable as B was. Saddam lived his life as a criminal, and died at the end of a rope, at the hands of his former subjects.

[Zool]

Where is your evidence.

My evidence ? Isn't it you who is accusing them of having ulterior motives ?
The burden of proof is on you.

You seem to forget that the official motive for the Iraq invasion was that Iraq was in possession of WMDs and it represented a grave danger to US security, thus a pre-emptive strike was necessary for the safety of the American people (read up on the "Bush doctrine" sometime).

The "it's the democracy-loving neocons, wanting to bring global democracy, Che Guevara -style" is your theory.
It's a fascinating wacky conspiracy theory, but frankly, the "Jews did it" conspiracy theory makes much more sense, you may want to consider promoting that one.

[warmi]

Now we are talking about suicide bombers especially and if you are talking about Palestinians, hear this: After their families houses had been demolished by bulldozers and some even get to see their own families being squeezed directly in the rubbles, they turn to suicide-bombers.

You have the cart in front of your horse there. Israel had a policy of bulldozing the houses of suicide bombers. If they had any way of knowing who was destined to be a suicide bomber before they blew themselves up, they could just imprison them. That would be 100% effective.

Israel tried to impress on other potential suicide bombers that there would be a cost to their family if they killed citizens. Saddam, and others, promoted this by giving the families money.

I don't know about where you live, but here when person A pays person B to kill person C, A is regarded as a criminal, and is just as culpable as B was. Saddam lived his life as a criminal, and died at the end of a rope, at the hands of his former subjects.

That's true - he was a vile person.

The real question though is if our government should be in business of apprehending and punishing people like him ?

[KungFooMasta]

The real question though is if our government should be in business of apprehending and punishing people like him ?

It is a good question. It seems a lot of people in recent times don't care about helping others out, they'd rather point fingers and emphasize mistakes.

[Zool]

If Saddam wasn't batshit crazy, had some sense in him, and played ball with the US after the Iran-Iraq war, things would probably turn out quite differently.

Instead of being regarded as an evil, despicable bastard, he would be regarded as a vital ally of the US against the "axis of evil", particularly those evil Iranian bastards.
Nobody in the US would know how he treats his people, because well.. why would anyone care about that then

[xavier]

If Saddam wasn't batshit crazy, had some sense in him, and played ball with the US after the Iran-Iraq war, things would probably turn out quite differently.

Instead of being regarded as an evil, despicable bastard, he would be regarded as a vital ally of the US against the "axis of evil", particularly those evil Iranian bastards.
Nobody in the US would know how he treats his people, because well.. why would anyone care about that then

Saddam had a rather heavy-handed approach (to put it mildly) to the problem of controlling the internal holy wars between three groups of idealogues who historically have always hated each other, but as horrible as was his solution to the problem, it was in fact a problem, and one that we discovered after his regime had ended. We ran into the same problem with Yugoslavia.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds start shooting each other again.

[dr_amr]

oh egyptian government is an oppressive vicious undemocratic government too, yet it some f***ing way manages to get american support to oppress their own people, so guys please stop talking about iraqi "freedom" , "democracy" and all that shit because it falls on deaf ears.

and you guys should stop discussing iraq and talk about the more important stuff, like how american economy is going to hell in a handbasket, and how china is an ever growing ecomonic/military superpower. because if you wait a couple of years, you'll see that you won't be able to discuss if invasion of new countries is moral or well justified or not because then you CAN'T invade more countries.

[dr_amr]

and btw, I'm egyptian.

[xavier]

and you guys should stop discussing iraq and talk about the more important stuff, like how american economy is going to hell in a handbasket

Which we have, and there is nothing we can do about it other than talk, so...

, and how china is an ever growing ecomonic/military superpower.

Except that their economy has absolutely stalled -- they are not buying anything right now for some reason, which is the primary cause for the recent drop in global oiil prices. It's great for oil, but it's killing my China-based stock.

because if you wait a couple of years, you'll see that you won't be able to discuss if invasion of new countries is moral or well justified or not because then you CAN'T invade more countries.

Contrary to popular global belief, the American people aren't that thrilled about invading other countries. I'd rather, if we were going to go into some country, that it be one where actual atrocities go unchecked (*cough* Zimbabwe *cough* Sudan *cough*), but we tend only to go where American interests are threatened (which is true of any country in the world) and unfortunately, as terrible as it is what's going on in various countries in Africa, it threatens no US interests, hence our apparent disinterest. Which is sad.

[warmi]

oh egyptian government is an oppressive vicious undemocratic government too, yet it some f***ing way manages to get american support to oppress their own people, so guys please stop talking about iraqi "freedom" , "democracy" and all that shit because it falls on deaf ears.
.

Is there any government in the region that is democratic and not oppressive ( excluding Israel of course) ?
Instead of complaining ,you guys should get a clue from Eastern Europeans and do something about it.

[VictorMoran]

Contrary to popular global belief, the American people aren't that thrilled about invading other countries. ...

Maybe the American people aren’t thrilled about invading other countries, but it is not what the record shows.
Here is a list of the countries US bombed in the last 50 years.
http://www.btinternet.com/~davidbeaumon ... ombed.html

BTW Shell is open for business in Iraq, I believe it was said originally that the oil companies could take up to 70% of the oil revenues with no obligation to re invest anything back in Iraq.
It makes you wonder how was it that before the invasion, the Iraqis where perfectly capable of exploiting their own Oil resource and after the war they became so helpless that they have forgotten how to manage their oil wells.

So while it is a technicality the war was not for Oil, we can say that one of the combinient consequences of the war, was to put Iraqi Oil resources on the free market.
The same Free Market that now what to drilling the 2% of the Oil reserve in the continental Unite States.

Do you know the original name of the war on Iraq? “Operation Iraq Liberationâ€

[syedhs]

Sorry I was on a one week holiday. Just got the time to reply.

Israel had a policy of bulldozing the houses of suicide bombers.

I ask you, to seriously educate yourself over what actually happened over there. There is nothing can be done, if one choose not to keep eyes/ears opened - it is as simple as that.

Israel tried to impress on other potential suicide bombers that there would be a cost to their family if they killed citizens.

This is utter bullshit, anyone who knows what really happened over there will laugh over your head on your ignorance - sorry to say this. And many Americans are definitely guilty on this area.

In the end, something need to be said and saying it more polite than this will not bring whatever necessary comprehension. And I hope despite of all these differences, we can all still talk about 3d programming in other thread of course.

[warmi]

Sorry I was on a one week holiday. Just got the time to reply.

Israel had a policy of bulldozing the houses of suicide bombers.

I ask you, to seriously educate yourself over what actually happened over there. There is nothing can be done, if one choose not to keep eyes/ears opened - it is as simple as that.

Israel tried to impress on other potential suicide bombers that there would be a cost to their family if they killed citizens.

This is utter bullshit, anyone who knows what really happened over there will laugh over your head on your ignorance - sorry to say this. And many Americans are definitely guilty on this area.

In the end, something need to be said and saying it more polite than this will not bring whatever necessary comprehension. And I hope despite of all these differences, we can all still talk about 3d programming in other thread of course.

How the hell do you know it is "utter bullshit" ... have you been there ?
Have you investigated this issue on your own , spoken to people involved, etc ?

Or are you simply relying on press reports just the same way we do over here ?