The OAO Iraq Debate thread

[Jingus 0]

Might as well have one of these, since arguing over the Iraqi invasion/occupation tends to clutter up way too many other threads.

 

My views on the war, broken down for simplicity:

 

1. Saddam Hussein and his Bathist party were evil, evil men. They used poison gas, a real live 100% official Weapon of Mass Destruction, on his own people. He invaded Kuwait in a move that was nothing more than a blatant land-grab. He waged a decade-long war against Iran that devastated both countries. He brutally repressed all religions except for the ruling Sunni minority, and only really paid them lip service. He tried to assassinate Bush Sr. when the prez took a trip to Iraq. He committed all kinds of human rights atrocities on his own people; imprisoning, raping, torturing, and executing them at his own whims in a manner that would've made Stalin and Hitler proud. He squandered his entire country's resources on building up his military and constructing massive palaces for himself and his family. He held fake elections just so he could lie about being the people's choice for their leader. He was rumored to have held meetings with & given support to members of Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations. He completely & consistently ignored the UN resolutions that he agreed to as part of his surrender after the Kuwaiti invasion, thus directly causing the embargos on his nation. He kept flying his military planes in the no-fly zones. He repeatedly obstructed and resisted efforts to inspect his country for WMDs. He let millions of his own people die due to lack of food & medicine that he could've easily provided at any time.

 

None of this is "bad intelligence"; it's all established fact. In short, this was a government who was begging to be taken out.

 

 

2. Despite having their own rules broken time and time again, the UN did nothing to stop Hussein from committing these infractions. They seemed willing to just leave the embargos in place and keep writing "cease and desist" letters telling him what a naughty boy he was.

 

 

3. The US had been taking minor corrective actions against Iraq, things like surgical airstrikes & sending inspectors, for years. Nobody else seemed willing to do anything or to give a damn that Saddam was acting like a playground bully to his entire region of the world. And there was some evidence of WMDs and Iraqi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. A military invasion & occupation looked like a good idea, speaking from the relative success we'd had in Afghanistan. So, the troops were sent in.

 

 

My problems with the war:

 

4. The "threat of WMDs" line was way too heavily leaned-upon as a reason for war. We did have some proof: captured documents, witness testimony, and satellite footage that seemed to suggest that Saddam was at least interested in gaining such weapons in the future. But WMDs were brought up over & over again in every speech calling for action, using deceptive language that made the threat seem bigger than it really was.

 

5. We did move awfully fast, too, not waiting for anyone else except the British to say they'd support us, or to firm up our shaky evidence about the WMDs. Also, we couldn't use the "he broke UN rules" line when we were breaking them by moving without UN approval.

 

 

So, two years later, we have this:

 

6. Over a thousand US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been murdered as a direct result of terrorists operating within Iraq's borders. These criminals use suicide bombings, target civilians, and regularly kidnap & behead foreign workers and journalists. They do all this to fight against democratic elections for their own country. They are amoral fanatics by any definition. But, somehow, the US has been painted out to be the "bad guys" by many members of the media and other foreign countries.

 

7. Lots of people disagree with the war for the following reason: "Well, if Iraq was such a bad country and needed to be fixed, then why hasn't the US invaded North Korea/Rwanda/Cuba/shithole-of-the-month?" Truthfully, there is no good reason why Iraq should've been singled out alone as the #1 enemy against freedom. But that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have done it. Saddam Hussein was bad. Removing him & instituting democracy was good.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I would like to invade the panties of the chick in your sig and take over her naughty country.

 

That's all I have to say since discussing politics on a Wrestling Based Messageboard gets you nothing but suspensions and ban warnings.

[MrRant 0]

Invade France. Instant popularity points.

[Guest FromBeyondTheGrave]

War bores the anus off me.

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

 

 

*Brings the cookies*

[Dr. Tom 0]

Well said, Jingus. I find myself agreeing on all points.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Jingus hit pretty much everything I feel about the war, especially the whole WMD thing. I mean, I understand that there was more to it then that, but I don't think everyone does, which is a problem, methinks.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Nice job Jingus.

 

About WMD's. I still think some where moved into Syria before the invasion occured.

[SuperJerk 0]

Nice job Jingus.

 

About WMD's. I still think some where moved into Syria before the invasion occured.

I think Saddam just wanted people to think he had them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nice job Jingus.

 

About WMD's. I still think some where moved into Syria before the invasion occured.

I think Saddam just wanted people to think he had them.

At this point, I actually concur.

 

We know he had gas and the like. He used them.

 

I do not think that he had nukes, nor that he was close. He WAS trying. I, however, think that his scientists made him believe that he had them, out of fear of what he'd do to them.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Further proving that Saddam was a fucking idiot when it came to dealing with other countries, or really anyone who had the power to disagree with him. A dictator falsely implying that he has WMDs is a lot like a guy who's been pulled over for speeding suddenly lunging for the glovebox. You're a goddamn moron if you're surprised that you got shot in either situation.

[SuperJerk 0]

Consider the irony of someone pretending to have WMDs to keep from being attack, only to end up being attack precisely because others thought he had WMDs.

 

 

I'm still not in favor of the war, but that doesn't keep me from thinking Saddam Hussein was a fucktarded dickhead.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Nice job Jingus.

 

About WMD's. I still think some where moved into Syria before the invasion occured.

I think Saddam just wanted people to think he had them.

I can dig with that. I'm more or less pointing out he did have time to move weapons out of the country. Wouldn't put anything past Hussein.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Nice job Jingus.

 

About WMD's. I still think some where moved into Syria before the invasion occured.

I think Saddam just wanted people to think he had them.

I think that's obviously what happened given what has happened and his conduct prior to the war. There are only two options, he had them and managed to get them out of the country, or he never had them but wanted people to think he did. The latter is a far more realistic scenario.

 

In which case you can blame the United States for incompetence, but not accuse them of being treacherous.

[SuperJerk 0]

There are only two options, he had them and managed to get them out of the country, or he never had them but wanted people to think he did.  The latter is a far more realistic scenario.

That's certainly where the evidence points.

 

Of course, the Republicans can't admit that he didn't have weapons because it would mean that Clinton was right about something.

[Guest MikeSC]

There are only two options, he had them and managed to get them out of the country, or he never had them but wanted people to think he did.  The latter is a far more realistic scenario.

That's certainly where the evidence points.

 

Of course, the Republicans can't admit that he didn't have weapons because it would mean that Clinton was right about something.

But Clinton said he had them when he decided to make regime change the official policy of the US gov't in 1998-9.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

There are only two options, he had them and managed to get them out of the country, or he never had them but wanted people to think he did.  The latter is a far more realistic scenario.

That's certainly where the evidence points.

 

Of course, the Republicans can't admit that he didn't have weapons because it would mean that Clinton was right about something.

But Clinton said he had them when he decided to make regime change the official policy of the US gov't in 1998-9.

-=Mike

And Clinton said that he didn't have them and the sanctions were working back in 2002.

[Guest BDC]

There are only two options, he had them and managed to get them out of the country, or he never had them but wanted people to think he did.  The latter is a far more realistic scenario.

That's certainly where the evidence points.

 

Of course, the Republicans can't admit that he didn't have weapons because it would mean that Clinton was right about something.

But Clinton said he had them when he decided to make regime change the official policy of the US gov't in 1998-9.

-=Mike

And Clinton said that he didn't have them and the sanctions were working back in 2002.

But he did... then he didn't... but he...

 

*head explodes*

 

I'll say that I honestly think they were moved out before we got there. There was so much pussyfooting around with the UN and such that he probably could have had them moved by pushcart before we got there.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll say that I honestly think they were moved out before we got there. There was so much pussyfooting around with the UN and such that he probably could have had them moved by pushcart before we got there.

The report from last October says he didn't even have a program in the months leading up to the war.

 

 

He kicked the weapon's inspectors out so it'd look like he had them (so he wouldn't be attacked and could keep his people in line), when in fact he lacked the capability to make them.

 

And, let me just say...MAN, DID THAT PLAN BACKFIRE!!!!!!

[cbacon 0]

Over a thousand US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been murdered as a direct result of terrorists operating within Iraq's borders. These criminals use suicide bombings, target civilians, and regularly kidnap & behead foreign workers and journalists. They do all this to fight against democratic elections for their own country. They are amoral fanatics by any definition. But, somehow, the US has been painted out to be the "bad guys" by many members of the media and other foreign countries.

 

I just love how you try to account for the number of Iraqi deaths as a result of 'terrorist operations' while completely ignoring the fact that tens of (maybe hundreds of) thousands of innocents were directly killed by another nation fucking bombing their country. But I guess it's more convenient to think of it the other way, however imaginary you go about anaylzing such things. Good to see Dubya's rhetoric has flourished nicely in the feeble minded.

 

It's also amusing (in a twisted pseudo-masochist sorta way) the way you try to depict the insurgence rationale as thinking "grrr, we hate freedom!" when infact I can asure you the majority don't want their country occupied by another nation, especially when most who voted in the elections did so to get the troops out (which of course, will never happen, the bases are there to stay).

 

But that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have done it. Saddam Hussein was bad. Removing him & instituting democracy was good.

 

You mean when the new ruling parties take over, vote on having a new dictator and getting revenge on the sunnis for years of torture?

 

Or when all parties realize that democracy doesn't work, which leads to a serious civil war, which my ultimately be what the USA may have wanted all along as an exit strategy?

 

I can't wait until democracy works in Iraq like it has worked in all the countries that the US has "liberated."

 

But really, there's too much claptrap in your 'analysis' to go further (tonight at least), and it's scary that a large number of American's think this way.

[Guest MikeSC]

Over a thousand US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been murdered as a direct result of terrorists operating within Iraq's borders. These criminals use suicide bombings, target civilians, and regularly kidnap & behead foreign workers and journalists. They do all this to fight against democratic elections for their own country. They are amoral fanatics by any definition. But, somehow, the US has been painted out to be the "bad guys" by many members of the media and other foreign countries.

I just love how you try to account for the number of Iraqi deaths as a result of 'terrorist operations' while completely ignoring the fact that tens of (maybe hundreds of) thousands of innocents were directly killed by another nation fucking bombing their country.

 

Well, it's the curse of going with numbers that are ACTUALLY verifiable, not just simply pulled out of your ass.

But I guess it's more convenient to think of it the other way, however imaginary you go about anaylzing such things. Good to see Dubya's rhetoric has flourished nicely in the feeble minded.

So, at what point did you start hating democracy? Exactly when did it happen?

It's also amusing (in a twisted pseudo-masochist sorta way) the way you try to depict the insurgence rationale as thinking "grrr, we hate freedom!" when infact I can asure you the majority don't want their country occupied by another nation, especially when most who voted in the elections did so to get the troops out (which of course, will never happen, the bases are there to stay).

I know, you must have missed Zarqawi's comments that democracy was basically evil, huh?

 

God knows why ANYBODY would think that the terrorists don't like democracy.

But that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have done it. Saddam Hussein was bad. Removing him & instituting democracy was good.

You mean when the new ruling parties take over, vote on having a new dictator and getting revenge on the sunnis for years of torture?

So, you're angrier over POTENTIAL humanitarian crises than ACTUAL humanitarian crises?

 

Got it.

Or when all parties realize that democracy doesn't work, which leads to a serious civil war, which my ultimately be what the USA may have wanted all along as an exit strategy?

And C-Bacon's view on democracy becomes clear.

I can't wait until democracy works in Iraq like it has worked in all the countries that the US has "liberated."

Germany and Japan are SUCH non-democratic countries.

 

Ditto France.

But really, there's too much claptrap in your 'analysis' to go further (tonight at least), and it's scary that a large number of American's think this way.

Well, somebody HAS to do the thinking, apparently.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Mike pretty much refuted what needed refuting. But C-Bacon, let me leave you with this: I don't like George W. Bush. I think he is one of the worst public speakers & diplomats we've had for a President in this century, I violently disagree with most of his social policies, I didn't vote for him either time, and I wish we had a different president in general. But removing Saddam Hussein from power and instituting a democracy in his place is a good thing.

[cbacon 0]

Mike:

 

Invading a country, disposing of it's government and leaving the nation in dire straights with a dismal economy and increasingly volatile situation is not conducive to democracy.

 

Germany, France and Japan are hardly comparable examples to what I'm speaking of. I was thinking more along the lines of Central America. Sorry if it was too general for you, but somehow I think you knew that in the back of your mind anyway.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike:

 

Invading a country, disposing of it's government and leaving the nation in dire straights with a dismal economy and increasingly volatile situation is not conducive to democracy.

Removing a humanitarian nightmare and allowing the people to choose their own fate is something liberals are supposed to pretend to give two shits about.

Germany, France and Japan are hardly comparable examples to what I'm speaking of.

Because NONE of those 3 countries had economic problems. I mean, hell, those 3 countries didn't have considerable physical damage done due to a war, right?

I was thinking more along the lines of Central America.

You might wish to stop trying to think. It doesn't benefit you.

Sorry if it was too general for you, but somehow I think you knew that in the back of your mind anyway.

No, you simply want to focus on the negative and ignore the positive.

 

Tough shit.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

Saddam Hussein and his Bathist party were evil, evil men. They used poison gas, a real live 100% official Weapon of Mass Destruction, on his own people.

 

Where did Saddam Hussein get chemical weapons from? If your answer is "The United States of America, while the first George Bush was president and several key members of the current Bush administration were in important positions" you win the grand prize. Otherwise you should refer to a dictionary and look up "hypocrisy".

 

If you just wanted Saddam out, there were easier ways. Ease the sanctions, which strengthen Saddam's grip on his own people, to start, and he'd probably be tossed out by Iraqis within ten years. He probably would have been tossed out by now, if not for the sanctions.

 

Also, it's very hard to swallow talk about the noble intentions, instilling democracy, etc, when the people talking haven't even publicly admitted that they kept Saddam in power for years, that by his worst crimes were committed when he was a friend of the US, that he remained a friend for years before he became an official enemy, that there was a chance to let the people of Iraq overthrow him after the first gulf war but the US chose not to do so because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, etc. Given the lack of talk of all this (most of this wasn't even mentioned, or was barely mentioned, in the supposedly "left-wing" mainstream media), there was absolutely no reason to be optimistic about the true intentions of the administration, especially given that it's a lot of the same people.

 

Finally, there's still no reason to be optimistic. Yes, there has been an election. The point is that the US comes in, obliterates the existing power structure, allows a new one to be built up, but there's an understanding that they'll be reaping the benefits, in control of oil, which they are. You can give Iraqis the pretense of elections as long as they don't get any silly ideas, like nationalizing oil. If that happens (already unlikely given the US military presence and influence), you can bet it won't be allowed to stand.

 

Re:Central America

 

You might wish to stop trying to think. It doesn't benefit you.

 

Touchy subject, eh? I know I’d feel the same if my country were involved with such atrocities. Ignoring crimes of the past are so convenient, just as they are of the crimes today.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I like how Mike is allowed to flame people all day but I got suspended repeatedly because I stated how I don't care if Bush dies. Which I still don't...I'd be more than happy to comfort his daughters though should that happen.

[Guest MikeSC]

I like how Mike is allowed to flame people all day but I got suspended repeatedly because I stated how I don't care if Bush dies. Which I still don't...I'd be more than happy to comfort his daughters though should that happen.

Is your back sore?

 

I mean, wielding that cross and all?

-=Mike

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I post for your sins

[Highland 0]

The points Jingus raised is why I was supportive of the war. Democracy, even a fledgling one, is a good thing.

Edited February 14, 2005 by Highland

[Guest MikeSC]

I post for your sins

Wow, I am almost touched.

-=Mike

...Really...