Give me a simple, straightforward reason to oppose the Iraq war [Archive]

View Full Version : Give me a simple, straightforward reason to oppose the Iraq war

Yoda

01-12-04, 01:46 PM

LordSlaytan

01-12-04, 01:54 PM

I would if I could. However, I'm glad he was deposed. Though I would have been happier with a more straight forward approach rather than the, "Axis of Mass Evil Destruction" angle. But really, who knows if any action would have been taken if the fear wasn't placed in our back pocket. Questions like these always have pro's and con's (do I need the apostrophe there?) and can't be answered with any clear cut case that leans perfectly either way. Regardless of the means, the Iraqi people are free, and there won't be any more mass graves created in any near future that I can see.

Golgot

01-12-04, 03:11 PM

LordSlaytan

01-12-04, 03:54 PM

Actually, what I meant to say was what Golgot said, but I was sleepy. ;D

Kong

01-12-04, 04:31 PM

That's a loaded question.

Piddzilla

01-12-04, 05:16 PM

Questions like these always have pro's and con's (do I need the apostrophe there?)

No ;D

That's a loaded question.

Kong may be right. However...

I have no problem with murderous dictators being removed from power by military force. I have problems with a lot of other things regarding the Iraq "campaigne" though.

Golgot

01-12-04, 05:49 PM

That's a loaded question.

Ah, "You're either with us or against us" remember? ;)

It's such a marvellously simple question on the face of it: How can attacking a bad guy be wrong? (surely it makes us the good guy by default, no? ;))

I put the very scantest over-view of some reasons why it's not that clear cut above. Not what we were asked for, but heigh ho - some things aren't that simple ;) :)

[and sorry Yods - but to ask us to answer such a question, without recourse to the political, historical and social context really is far far too simplistic - Unanswerable. The fact is, Saddam's actions, and this invasion, have a multitude of issues surrounding them. It's like me asking you: "How oh how can the US justify supporting the oppressive Pakistani regime? Aren't they basically murdering bastards by extention? Yes or yes?". Absurd, no? - Now we both know that Saddam is an evil bastard (from a bastardised land). But from my perspective, if I'm correct about motives and situations (and indeed outcomes), this invasion and its context are "evil" too. If you want to talk about the morality of the invasion, you need to look at all the elements. That's all.]

Caitlyn

01-12-04, 10:06 PM

The Bush admin supports and has supported totalitarian, population executing terrorist harborours (i.e. Saudis and Taliban etc - causing population death in numerous ways).

When and how did Bush support the Taliban?

Nikki

01-12-04, 10:19 PM

Can he answer this in 10 words or less........ :rolleyes:

Henry The Kid

01-12-04, 11:01 PM

It's much easier to assume I'm right.

Creed

01-12-04, 11:16 PM

When and how did Bush support the Taliban?

It was part of the listed contradictions (maybe he was refering to outside the US opinion and maybe my post and reputation counts are too low to be getting into this thread), wasn't it?

I think that the actions should have been carried out by the Iraqies themselves (but that would've taken ages), as there was just far too much politically to gain by invading Iraq (not the only reason) for Bush, and the rest of the world knew or percieved it. As such the political turmoil it caused (did I just repeat someone?).

Piddzilla

01-13-04, 07:04 AM

Golgot

01-13-04, 08:47 AM

When and how did Bush support the Taliban?

Bush didn't, to my knowledge, support the Talibans in person. But the official USA is responsible for things that went on also before the time of the current president. It's not like a certain amount of responsibility of the american nation ends with a presidential era. That would mean that the president had all the power, a 100% of the power, and the president of USA is not a dictator, is he?

USA supported the Talibans when they were fighting a guerilla war against the soviet occupation forces. CIA trained and equipped them personally.

Yeah, the Taliban have recieved historical support from the US. But I've tried to limit myself to Bush-admin swipes recently - and I was referring specifically to the way Bush-n-co had no qualms about funding the Taliban and dealing with them (and if you believe the Brisard/Dasquie source - bribing and then threatening them into compliance with oil interests, while neglecting security/Osama issues)

Ok, so the direct funding the Taliban recieved from the US was to reward them for apparent limiting of the heroin trade on the face of it (tho in fact, trade seems even to have increased, across the Tajikistani border for example. The argument is that the Taliban probably did stop their farmers cultivating, quite possibly by force, but knowing full well that they had stockpiles that would increase in worth when the market reacted to the initial drop in supply). At 43 mil dollars, that's a big reward to hand out without checking the result - a reward that would have a big impact on such a weak economy.

But according to the ex-intelligence/journo team of Brisard and Dasquie, there was also an implicit bribe in this donation of money and the promise of further aid, designed to keep the Taliban away from the planned Turkmenistan-Pakistan pipeline (i.e. not attacking it). In fact, they say the bush-admin saw the Taliban as a source of stability in this region, as far as constructing the pipeline and moving oil-influence out of russian hands was concerned. [although it's worth mentioning that Russia, the US and six bordering countries also met with the taliban, via the UN, to try to get them to enter the political arena]

Their book claims that the Bush-admin initiated contact with the Taliban as soon as they came to power, and had numerous meetings with them. The Clinton admin had dealt with them from 94-97, but stopped thereafter.

A more damning claim about the nature of their involvement comes from ex-F.B.I. deputy director John O'Neill (yes - another O'Neill - those tricky irish ;)), who resigned over the following issue....as he allegedly said to Brisard: "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia." (and this included limitations of his powers to pursue Osama/al Qaeda in Afghanistan it seems, as well as Yemen and Saudi Arabia originally). O'Neill died in 9/11, so he can't really comment further. He seems to have been a bit of a zealous operator, but it's clear he was frustrated by the political acceptance of regimes like the Saudis and Taliban.

If the book's facts and assesments are correct, the US admin seems to have been far more interested in establishing this pipeline (which shifts oil control towards the US and away from Russia in central asia) than dealing with terrorism and repression in the region. This alledged quote from one of the meetings speaks volumes about the nature of the negotiations..."either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,"

Now, if they'd been discussing human rights issues at the time, I wouldn't mind so much (although it's not a very good negotiating technique is it? If anything, it's a bit of a terrorism-encouraging turn of phrase really). But the US-Taliban meetings had a clear oil agenda.

So, overall, in the sense that the Bush-admin were happy for the Taliban to exist, as long as they facilitated the switch in oil fortunes in the region, and happy to attempt to bribe them into compliance, that all amounts to support (or at the very least, cynical, self-interested engagement with their regime). The 6+2 (UN) meetings, as they we called, were more about establishing the old king if possible, and therefore a basis for further negotiations (and also therefore reducing Osama's influence - altho it was a naive objective which the Taliban rejected). The US-Taliban meetings seem to have been about oil, and how they could come to an amicable agreement, king or no king.

Golgot

01-13-04, 01:49 PM

It was part of the listed contradictions (maybe he was refering to outside the US opinion and maybe my post and reputation counts are too low to be getting into this thread), wasn't it?

I think that the actions should have been carried out by the Iraqies themselves (but that would've taken ages), as there was just far too much politically to gain by invading Iraq (not the only reason) for Bush, and the rest of the world knew or percieved it. As such the political turmoil it caused (did I just repeat someone?).

yeah, but it was just my opinion. Caitlyn always likes her facts, bless her ;) - and don't you worry about rep and post stuff. Most of us can't count anyway ;) Throw yourself into the debate :)

Can he answer this in 10 words or less........

Erm, yes....if you add a few more zeros in :)

Caitlyn

01-13-04, 02:28 PM

Bush didn't, to my knowledge, support the Talibans in person. But the official USA is responsible for things that went on also before the time of the current president. It's not like a certain amount of responsibility of the american nation ends with a presidential era. That would mean that the president had all the power, a 100% of the power, and the president of USA is not a dictator, is he?

USA supported the Talibans when they were fighting a guerilla war against the soviet occupation forces. CIA trained and equipped them personally.

While I agree a certain amount of responsibility is carried over from one Presidential administration to another… I disagree that the USA supported or funded the Taliban, as we know them today, during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Why… because the Taliban never fought against the Soviets… they didn’t even arrive on the scene until the mid 90’s and were mainly comprised of men who were the children of Afghan families that fled to Pakistan in the wake of the Soviet invasion… The majority of the male children in these families were housed in Pakistan and educated by religious parties… unfortunately those religious parties taught Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam…the most puritanical, restrictive and harsh interpretation of Islam… even the name Taliban means student.

Historically, the US did supply arms to and train the Mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviet army during the early 80’s… and it is entirely probable that some of the Mujahadeen did join the Taliban during their rise to power in the 90’ s… and since the US did provide humanitarian aid to the Afghan refugees during the Soviet invasion which would have included the children being taught by the religious parties… I guess it could be said the US did fund the Taliban at that time… but not in the capacity most journalists, etc. make it appear

Yoda

01-13-04, 04:07 PM

Simple (uncontextualised) reasons to object to this war (which outweigh the potential rescuing of Iraqis from a violent and undemocratic life)

-Invading countries to protect US profits is not acceptable (i.e. trying to prevent the end of the outrageous petrodollars system - after Saddam had converted to Euro-based oil-trade)
Dude, what part of "no motivations" was hazy? :) And is this claim about petrodollars speculation, or proven fact? Because from what I understand, there is no petrodollars "system." There's no centralized institution or anything of the sort...it's just the name we give money used in the buying and selling of oil.

-Invasions like this can only claim success if they don't leave the country in internal/violent struggle (still a very strong possibility in Iraq. You tell me how they're going to set up a sustainable governing system that won't get overthrown, cause mass rebellion, or cause racial tension which leads to violence).Listing this as a reason implies that you believe the current struggle to be worse than the injustice before. That seems pretty extreme to me, to say the very least.

-The Bush admin has increased international tension massively (i.e. polarised it into US vs "The World" pretty much) through their mishandling of US influence/power, and this can lead to no good. (and even a lot of bad i.e. suffering [economic], even death [military] - if it is continually handled this ineptly)Finally, a real reason. :) Okay, so you think that the benefits of freeing a brutalized people is outweighed by the animosity moving in has caused between the United States and other countries. Now, setting aside the fact that I believe "US vs The World" to be a very gross exaggeration, if your complaint is that we moved in without support, does that mean you think we should've had support? Shouldn't the international community have concurred with the notion that Saddam had to be removed from power?

A small amount of contextual stuff on the same issues - question anything you like and I'll give more reasons (and a greater percentage of facts/sourcing-to-verbage ;))..........

The big motive beyond compassion: Stopping iraq oil-trade in Euros and returning it to the Petrodollar system:

This is of huge economic benefit to the US, and is the most logical geopolitical reason for this invasion. If it is the major motivating factor there are two main problems:

(1) It heralds the start and possible extention of unilateral US military action to achieve selfish ends (Wesley Clarks assertion in his book that there is/was a plan to follow Iraq with invasions of Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan lends credence to this idea). Terrorising other nations into submission through military might (and replacing their oppresive regimes with puppet ones for the States we can hypothesise) is hardly spreading democracy and peace.

And remember that many thousands of innocents, (enforced) combatants, and some US soldiers, die in these unequal conflicts - not to mention the numbers that die during "regime-changes" like that of Iraq (and the potential slaughter/in-fighting that will follow if it fails).

(2) Ineptness

The bad handling of regime change still mitigates against declaring the people of Iraq free from a life of in-fighting and death just yet. [or for a long time to come potentially. Ditto Afghanistan]

In another sphere, as Russia's hints about changing to the Euro show, this show of force may have backfired. Although the US can frighten the smaller nations of the middle east in this way (on a political/military level - all the while increasing international Arabic terrorism [remember that terrorism comes from adversity - and having an easy enemy too ;)]), a combined will is growing amongst non-US countries (lead by those with the autonomy/size/power not to be forced to comply with US wishes). This unilateral policy of the Bush-admin is polarising international politics into the US vs the world.

Given the Bush-admin's confrontational approach, there is the possibility that this could escalate to large-scale military confrontation (or possibly just an international economic war which could produce instability that would be far more damaging to the world at large than the petrodollars system is as things stand). Basically, it looks unlikely that "the world" will put up with the Bush-admin wielding American influence in the way it currently is forever.

Also worth noting are: Contradictions:

-UN sanctions were kept oppressive in nature by the US and UK primarily in the "118" security council meetings. (causing iraqi deaths in significant numbers)
-The Bush admin supports and has supported totalitarian, population executing terrorist harborours (i.e. Saudis and Taliban etc - causing population death in numerous ways).
-Deception and democracy reductions: O'Neill's recent revelations have demonstrated yet again that the Bush admin lied about reasons for war (ironically claiming it was tackling world terror while actually increasing its existence it seems). And to hear Bush banging on about freedom and democracy just lowers non-US opinion of the US even lower.

And finally, some speculation:

-If the Bush-admin does invade other countries in the middle-east, and attempt more regime changes - surely the fallout from that will be equal over time to the massacres that Saddam perpetuated, but will affect more countries? There's no exit date for iraq as it is, and no guarantee that it won't fall into violent internal-strife. And Afghanistan looks very unlikely to move away from violent local tryanny, neglected overall as it is (not helped by all the attention being focused on Iraq)

[EDIT - moved some "positive" speculations to another post, to stop this getting incredibly, ridiculously long :)]C'mon, Gol. I asked you to judge the action itself, independent of motivation, and you list contradictions about its stated purpose? That's a knock on the administration, not the action itself.

And why would Clark have any credibility in such matters? He is not, to my knowledge, affiliated with the administration.

As for O'Neill: I'm familiar with the situation, and it does not "demonstrate" that in the least. The only thing it demonstrates, from what I've read, is that Bush had it in his head that Saddam had to go fairly early on. This is, in my mind, as much to his credit as to his detriment. This exaggeration is eerily reminiscent of your misstated claims about Rumsfeld's leaked memo. I think you're generally pretty fair, but when it comes to your sources (and I hope I do not offend you by saying this), I feel you put quite a slant on them sometimes.

Unfortunately, the way things are, there is a still a strong possibility of: uncontrollable, violent chaos emerging in Iraq; similar inept and potentially counter-productive disruption being inflicted on the neighbouring area (thus increasing all the related downsides); and increased international terrorism - all caused by the invasion. There were better ways to tackle the problem of Saddam and help the iraqis gain a better life.What ways did you have in mind?

Very very basically: The bush-admin is rocking the boat too much. Something's gonna get spilt.This is the only real answer to my question I can find in your post; the statement that the action, right or wrong, causes too much animosity. Which begs the question: since trying to free an oppressed nation is clearly an admirable, noble thing, are you saying that such a thing should be compromised simply because its unpopular?

-So, sorry, it's just not as simple as "we rescued the iraqis from a dictator that put them to death in great numbers". You haven't rescued them yet, there's reason to believe you won't, and there are plenty of ways in which you have very possibly created further suffering and death by this action.I'm not saying any such thing. But if it's admirable to free them, then it's also admirable to try to free them. And I think you'd have a tough time making the case that, with all the problems we've faced, things aren't better for the Iraqis. And that's assuming things won't get any better, though I think we would all acknowledge that they likely will.

That's a loaded question.Why? It's only loaded if you think I'm going to pounce on you after answering it, as if I'd somehow proven that you had no reason to oppose it. I'm not suggesting that by admitting the action to be a good thing, you must renege on your opposition. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that, for all the protesting, the action itself was a good thing, and that matters far, far more than opponents of the war give it credit for. They harp on what they don't like about it, conveniently ignoring the most important aspect of the action.

Ah, "You're either with us or against us" remember? ;)

It's such a marvellously simple question on the face of it: How can attacking a bad guy be wrong? (surely it makes us the good guy by default, no? ;))

I put the very scantest over-view of some reasons why it's not that clear cut above. Not what we were asked for, but heigh ho - some things aren't that simple ;) :)I hate to sound like an argumentative tyrant, but I didn't ask whether or not there was more to the situation than the technical result. I asked about the action itself. Of course there's more to it than that, but I'm doing this to make a point. You're using a very straightforward question as a launching pad for a answers I'm not asking for.

We've gone back and forth on the other aspects of the war time and time again, and presumably will continue to do so. I didn't create this thread because I think we need a nice, even 286 to discuss the issue in. ;) I created it to demonstrate just what people actually oppose about this war.

[and sorry Yods - but to ask us to answer such a question, without recourse to the political, historical and social context really is far far too simplistic - Unanswerable. The fact is, Saddam's actions, and this invasion, have a multitude of issues surrounding them. It's like me asking you: "How oh how can the US justify supporting the oppressive Pakistani regime? Aren't they basically murdering bastards by extention? Yes or yes?". Absurd, no? - Now we both know that Saddam is an evil bastard (from a bastardised land). But from my perspective, if I'm correct about motives and situations (and indeed outcomes), this invasion and its context are "evil" too. If you want to talk about the morality of the invasion, you need to look at all the elements. That's all.]Sure it can be evil. But evil motivations leading to good results, while not bearing well for the future, do not cease to make the action itself good.

Yoda

01-13-04, 04:11 PM

While I agree a certain amount of responsibility is carried over from one Presidential administration to another… I disagree that the USA supported or funded the Taliban, as we know them today, during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Why… because the Taliban never fought against the Soviets… they didn’t even arrive on the scene until the mid 90’s and were mainly comprised of men who were the children of Afghan families that fled to Pakistan in the wake of the Soviet invasion… The majority of the male children in these families were housed in Pakistan and educated by religious parties… unfortunately those religious parties taught Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam…the most puritanical, restrictive and harsh interpretation of Islam… even the name Taliban means student.

Historically, the US did supply arms to and train the Mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviet army during the early 80’s… and it is entirely probable that some of the Mujahadeen did join the Taliban during their rise to power in the 90’ s… and since the US did provide humanitarian aid to the Afghan refugees during the Soviet invasion which would have included the children being taught by the religious parties… I guess it could be said the US did fund the Taliban at that time… but not in the capacity most journalists, etc. make it appearCait hit the nail on the head with this one. To say we "funded" them makes it sound like we knowingly assisted terrorists who intended to attack us.

In reality, it's little more than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes this is a wise course, and sometimes it is not. For some odd reason, though, people have it in their heads that if we support anyone in any capacity, we are therefore responsible if they ever go bad (or worse). As Steve has so eloquently stated in the past, the fact that we've unintentionally had a hand in the creation of some of our opponents is all the more reason for us to take it upon ourselves to deal with them.

Not to mention that the origins of such a group are more or less irrelevant when discussing how best to handle them. It's an anti-US ad hominem argument. It does not speak to the issue, because the topic of discussion is not "list as many US mistakes as possible."

Caitlyn

01-13-04, 04:32 PM

Ok, so the direct funding the Taliban recieved from the US was to reward them for apparent limiting of the heroin trade on the face of it (tho in fact, trade seems even to have increased, across the Tajikistani border for example. The argument is that the Taliban probably did stop their farmers cultivating, quite possibly by force, but knowing full well that they had stockpiles that would increase in worth when the market reacted to the initial drop in supply). At 43 mil dollars, that's a big reward to hand out without checking the result - a reward that would have a big impact on such a weak economy.

43 million would be a big reward… if it were true… but it is not. The 43 million dollar grant was in humanitarian aid and distributed in Afghanistan through International agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental relief agencies… it was aimed to help alleviate the famine that threatened the lives of millions of Afghans and the United States made every effort to keep the aid out of the hands of the Taliban… they definitely did not hand over 43 millions dollars to them.

I am not trying to claim that the United States is perfect by any means but to accuse them of monetarily aiding the Taliban when in fact they were attempting to aid in the prevention of millions of people starving to death is absurd… Personally I think it is criminal the way journalists are so intent on sensationalism now that the truth is glossed over in their quest for celebrity status… and if this were not true, the journalist would have gotten their facts right in the first place… and mentioned the fact that the Clinton administration granted 114 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan the previous year through the exact same agencies for the exact same reasons…

Golgot

01-13-04, 07:56 PM

43 million would be a big reward… if it were true… but it is not. The 43 million dollar grant was in humanitarian aid and distributed in Afghanistan through International agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental relief agencies… it was aimed to help alleviate the famine that threatened the lives of millions of Afghans and the United States made every effort to keep the aid out of the hands of the Taliban… they definitely did not hand over 43 millions dollars to them.

I am not trying to claim that the United States is perfect by any means but to accuse them of monetarily aiding the Taliban when in fact they were attempting to aid in the prevention of millions of people starving to death is absurd… Personally I think it is criminal the way journalists are so intent on sensationalism now that the truth is glossed over in their quest for celebrity status… and if this were not true, the journalist would have gotten their facts right in the first place… and mentioned the fact that the Clinton administration granted 114 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan the previous year through the exact same agencies for the exact same reasons…

Ah, whoops, i didn't check the specifics of this one very well then. All i really know is that, if the french-duo's accusations are accurate (from commentaries and interviews i've read - i haven't read the book : :blush: ) then some form of financial carrot has been waved at the Taliban to get them to comply. I just had a quick check for money that seemed to have gone the taliban's way during that period and assumed that was it, or a big part of it.

I would never categorise humanitarian aid as a bribe or support for the taliban. I'd still consider it dodgy if it was involved in some of the more unsettling aspects of international oil dealings, but i wouldn't consider it support.

I'll try and check out any other funding that may have gone their way, or been promised to them, that would explain comments like the alledged "carpet of gold..." one.

Caitlyn

01-13-04, 08:13 PM

Ah, whoops, i didn't check the specifics of this one very well then. All i really know is that, if the french-duo's accusations are accurate (from commentaries and interviews i've read - i haven't read the book : :blush: ) then some form of financial carrot has been waved at the Taliban to get them to comply. I just had a quick check for money that seemed to have gone the taliban's way during that period and assumed that was it, or a big part of it.

It’s really not your fault… some journalist (I can’t think of his name right now and will have to look it up) wrote a very damning article accusing the US (Bush) of supporting the Taliban without bothering to check his facts out… unfortunately several other news agencies picked up on the story and ran with it until the thing was blown totally out of proportion and the truth lost in the headlines…

Golgot

01-13-04, 09:57 PM

And is this claim about petrodollars speculation, or proven fact? Because from what I understand, there is no petrodollars "system." There's no centralized institution or anything of the sort...it's just the name we give money used in the buying and selling of oil.

The terms petrodollars and system are a bit misleading - but what it amounts to is that oil is almost wholly traded in dollars, which provides massive support for the US economy (allowing massive trade and federal deficits for example, it seems ;)). I'm a bit hazy on the origins of this "system", but as i understand it's due to many things: the oil industry being born in texas; the international clout of the US at the time of oil replacing the gold standard as a fundamental definer of international currencies/economics; their influence at the end of WW2 when international relations had to be reappraised etc...stuff like that. Now firmly in place, the extremely high prevelance of the dollar in oil trade seems to be strongly tied to this situation: "Two-thirds of world trade is dollar-denominated. Two-thirds of central banks' official foreign exchange reserves are also dollar-denominated."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,900867,00.html

It's a self-fulfilling cycle. By being the staple currency for oil trade, the dollar is put in a position of artificial strength to some extents, helping it become the international trade currency by default, adding further artificial strength to it (as i understand it).

Some say that one of the many reasons for setting up the euro was to act as opposition to this self-fulfilling cycle of advantage that the dollar enjoys in the area of oil trade. I believe countries like Russia and China do about 5% of their oil trade in euros, and are looking to shift upwards. (in fact Putin seems to have talked about a radical shift to the euro recently while in germany). Most of the OPEC countries have looked at the possibility of using the Dinar, and are also understood to be keen to see a shift away from dollar domination of the market i.e. towards the euro.

To discuss the "petrodollars" issue concerning iraq, you need to accept two things first: That the dollar is far and away the dominant oil-trading-currency. And that if the dollar were to lose its place as the oil-trading-currency-of-(non)choice, there would be significant negative effects to the dollar's international position, and correspondingly to the US economy.

A key thing that make's the invasion so suspicious is Saddam's move in Nov 2000 to do all oil-trading in euros. Although he didn't convert his dollar-reserves, to my knowledge (the move was economically crazy as it was, considering the weakness of the euro at the time), what he did was seen as a possible first step on the road to "petroeuros" - or at the very least, a severe challenge to the "petrodollars system".

Feel free to address these points, here or elsewhere, and then we can get into some nitty gritty ;).

Listing this as a reason implies that you believe the current struggle to be worse than the injustice before. That seems pretty extreme to me, to say the very least

Well, what I'm saying is that, the death toll and living-in-fear perpetrated under Saddam's long and ****ed up regime could be equalled over a similar time span (accidentally - and not at the hands of one orchestrating group) if this intervention destabilises the region. We disagree wildly on the possibilities for a stable situation emerging from iraq - but my reasons for expecting the worst hinge on several inappropriate (even inept) actions by the US admin in how they approached this regime-change - the central one being their insistance on a basically unilateral approach - i.e. making this regime-change US-led. Here are some of the issues and contingent actions that drastically lessen the chances of success IMO:

The regime-change is liable to be strongly contested by the locals, and has made Iraq an easy focus for terrorist action and fermentation (which it wasn't b4). The reasons being multiple:

Iraq-Hate-of-US: It was the US specifically who encouraged the uprising after gulf-war-one and promised support, but then left the uprisers to be slaughtered by Saddam (that's the whole Shi'ite majority pissed off with you then ;)). Not to mention the US being viewed as having helped Iran against Iraq during their war. Basically, the iraqi population are very very suspicious that you'll double-cross them again in one way or another.

The US as a terrorism magnet: For whatever reason, you're islamic-fundamentalism's favourite enemy. Although the UN may have been nearly as unpopular in Iraq, the advantage of a broad-based attempt at regime-change is that any terrorist attacks on it would only draw the international community closer and make them more determined to fight terrorism, while simultaneously exposing the extremists as being against the majority of the world (including other "arabs" and muslims etc) - hence strengthening anti-extremist feelings amongst muslims in desperate situations - whereas now they have one easy enemy they can see simplistically as "the enemy" (i.e. to non-iraqi arabs especially). [NB that, according to some sources, anti-UN feelings amongst iraqis connected to sanctions were/are still focused on the US's role in them]

Add to this that US soldiers just don't seem cut out for "peace-keeping", and there's another reason to have made sure this regime-change broad-based if it was to have a good chance of succeeding. An incredibly difficult task anyway for people trained for killing, or for anyone for that matter, it shows how the presence of soldiers and professionals with experience of prolonged "peace-keeping" would have been preferable.
It's not really possible to compare british success against US in this area, because of the brits being in a much less volatile area (but we have followed our experiences of N.Ireland and respected local customs/microcultures a bit better it seems). One worrying difference tho, is that since the US-admin knows that high soldier casualties would see heavy pressure for a withdrawl, there seems to have been a policy of shoot-first-ask-questions-later which has angered the locals most of all. It's hard to gauge, but there does seem to be an element of the hawkishness/bullishness evident in the likes of Rumsfeld which has extended to both individual and policy responses on the ground.

As another example of the above, we could look at the heavy-handed control of the media: i.e. newspapers, tv and radio channels being closed down. The new pentagon-initiated tv station banning vox-pops because they're often anti-US, or koran readings (exactly the sort of thing they shouldn't be doing - interference with muslim passtimes is one thing the locals will react most agressively too). These type of things are an example of the military practice of "information dominance" being used idiotically it seems. i.e. in a military mode where they should be shifting their thinking. If the stations were calling for uprisings, sure, there's reason to shut them down. But if they were just being critical in some cases, it's very difficult to justify - and almost certainly counter-productive.

When it comes to actual political infrastructure, all i can say is that i'm glad Sistani is calling for individual voting.

Finally, a real reason. :) Okay, so you think that the benefits of freeing a brutalized people is outweighed by the animosity moving in has caused between the United States and other countries. Now, setting aside the fact that I believe "US vs The World" to be a very gross exaggeration, if your complaint is that we moved in without support, does that mean you think we should've had support? Shouldn't the international community have concurred with the notion that Saddam had to be removed from power?

No - i believe the three strands i've mentioned, intertwined, are what outweigh the prevention of further travesties by Saddam (if future travesties we have indeed prevented - it's still not in the bag - though you keep talking like it is).

In the case of the increased polarisation between US and the rest of the world caused by this action (which is a more accurate appraisal, sure ;)) there are various damaging over-tones for the potential of sustainable peace in iraq and the middle-east region (and for concerted action to combat terrorism):

-no chance of wide-scale, meaningful, international political/military/professional aid (as Blair found out when he tried to get the UN to come in on it - as he naively seems to have thought would happen). And indeed, a lack of desire for any US-led initiatives in the future.
-If i'm right that this is viewed as a US attempt to ensure continued oil-trade in dollars - an escalation in political and trade "wars" aimed at the US to express political anger at such an action - and indeed, further attempts by the big "unattackables" to shift agressively to a different form of oil trade. This also maintains the middle-east as a chessboard for oil-hungry nations, and hence also maintains the anger of those being used as pawns (anger which will be directed at the US more than others). Although an oil-trade currency-change wouldn't lessen the strategic oil-importance of this area, this invasion may have increased the possibilities of political and terrorist offensives.

As far as nations are concerned, their patience might get worn out and they might start acting as bullishly as the Bush-admin. The overall picture can possibly tear apart the middle-east yet further - while also providing a negative international environment that can impact on economies and international-cooperation in life-degrading ways.

C'mon, Gol. I asked you to judge the action itself, independent of motivation, and you list contradictions about its stated purpose? That's a knock on the administration, not the action itself.

I'm disagreeing that the action is as clear-cut as you describe - mainly because you ascribe a too rosey a future to it. (furthermore, the bush-admin's approach is strongly tied to reasons for doubting a happy resolution in iraq)

And why would Clark have any credibility in such matters? He is not, to my knowledge, affiliated with the administration.

As for O'Neill: I'm familiar with the situation, and it does not "demonstrate" that in the least. The only thing it demonstrates, from what I've read, is that Bush had it in his head that Saddam had to go fairly early on. This is, in my mind, as much to his credit as to his detriment. This exaggeration is eerily reminiscent of your misstated claims about Rumsfeld's leaked memo. I think you're generally pretty fair, but when it comes to your sources (and I hope I do not offend you by saying this), I feel you put quite a slant on them sometimes.

All i wanted to say with this was that it's very possible that this admin has an intent to dominate oil-preceedings through military force - tho i recognise that you could attribute this invasion and potential future ones to a desire to free repressed peoples of the world if you want (in which case, i suggest you write to them and get them to sort out Afghanistan before they move on to the next one ;)).

EDIT: But yeah, i did state the O'Neill stuff too strongly/slantedly (hey, it was 2 in the morning ;))

What ways did you have in mind?

Very briefly:
-mass in-fighting between Sunni's, Shi'ites, Kurds etc etc because of perceived inequality in the political process (or simply because they don't get the result they want ;)). It's worth bearing mind that artifically cobbled-together states like iraq, with diverse ethnic/religious groups, fall into internal war very easily without a "strong" unifying hand.
-united muslim uprising against occupation forces that remain to keep the peace/enforce the political set-up.
-continued influx of extremists from Saudi arabia/Iran etc etc, causing terrorism designed not to allow the society/infrastructure/changes to settle.
-economic/social collapse if free-trade principles are enacted before there's enough of a social support structure in place to deal with potential unemployment etc.
-people get sick of the poor infrastructure and just riot
-complete breakdown between new government and occupying forces if they try to: trade oil in euros/enforce oppressive-or-extreme interpretations of islamic law/reject the pre-arranged rebuilding contracts etc.

That'll do for now...

This is the only real answer to my question I can find in your post; the statement that the action, right or wrong, causes too much animosity. Which begs the question: since trying to free an oppressed nation is clearly an admirable, noble thing, are you saying that such a thing should be compromised simply because its unpopular?

Only if you really "free" them and deliver them from a life of unacceptable death and strife. Still not achieved/secured. I hope i've dealt above with why it's about more than just "unpopularity".

I'm not saying any such thing. But if it's admirable to free them, then it's also admirable to try to free them. And I think you'd have a tough time making the case that, with all the problems we've faced, things aren't better for the Iraqis. And that's assuming things won't get any better, though I think we would all acknowledge that they likely will.

Nope :)

I hate to sound like an argumentative tyrant, but I didn't ask whether or not there was more to the situation than the technical result. I asked about the action itself. Of course there's more to it than that, but I'm doing this to make a point. You're using a very straightforward question as a launching pad for a answers I'm not asking for.

It's like saying - isn't it it good to give gifts to people. And I say say yes, but you just killed that man so you could give me his watch. And you say - stop changing the subject - is gift giving a good thing or what?

EDIT: The point is that, coz of our part in causing death and suffering amongst innocents through sanctions, and because the nature of the invasion may lead to future chaos that damages the infrastructure further, this action you want to focus on hasn't necessarily been achieved. Yes, Saddam is gone, but i'm literally saying we have not "freed" them from death and suffering yet. (and indeed, have played a role in it that undermines the moral standpoint you're taking).

Sure it can be evil. But evil motivations leading to good results, while not bearing well for the future, do not cease to make the action itself good.

As i think you might have guessed, i'm arguing about whether the overall action is good in this case (including the debateable point of having "freed" the iraqis)

Piddzilla

01-14-04, 06:24 AM

Cait hit the nail on the head with this one. To say we "funded" them makes it sound like we knowingly assisted terrorists who intended to attack us.

Which is exactly what USA did only USA didn't know, and probably not the terrorists themselves either, the terrorists' future intentions during the time USA was assisting them. And that is where the preventive attacks tactics come from.

In reality, it's little more than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes this is a wise course, and sometimes it is not. For some odd reason, though, people have it in their heads that if we support anyone in any capacity, we are therefore responsible if they ever go bad (or worse). As Steve has so eloquently stated in the past, the fact that we've unintentionally had a hand in the creation of some of our opponents is all the more reason for us to take it upon ourselves to deal with them.

You think America has no responsibility regarding arming certain groups but at the same time you justify american preventive strikes because America should clean up the mess they played a big role in creating?

Not to mention that the origins of such a group are more or less irrelevant when discussing how best to handle them. It's an anti-US ad hominem argument. It does not speak to the issue, because the topic of discussion is not "list as many US mistakes as possible."

So when you complimented Cait for hitting the nail with her post in which she cleared out the origins of the Talibans, which you think is irrelevant, what is it really you think was so good with it? I mean, I don't think who is who in the terrorist hall of fame is very important either. The Talibans was not a terrorist group, but they supported terrorist groups, and those terrorist groups got some or a lot of their training, equipment and financial support from America - who of course didn't know then that even terrorists, just like americans, think of themselves first and old friends second.

And how are we supposed to give you any reasons to why we oppose the execution of the Iraq war if we are not allowed to list the mistakes made in it? (Or rather before it, since it is there the biggest problem lies, if you ask me...).

LordSlaytan

01-14-04, 10:38 AM

Piddzilla

01-14-04, 11:28 AM

Golgot

01-14-04, 11:51 AM

Golgot, you do realize that you alienate a large crowd of people who would join except for your propensity for essay length replies to questions like, "give me a simple straight-forward answer". :laugh:

I know i know. I've set up a "swear-box" in my room. I have to put a pound in everytime i write a thousand-word-plus post by mistake ;) (i'll keep it set aside for the day someone's retina detaches from bothering to read them, or someone tracks me down and hospitalises me ;)).

Erm, there's nothing stopping other people throwing in their two cents concerning the main theme. But now Yods has re-engaged with my forays, i don't think the word count is gonna wilt just yet. So sorry. :blush: :rolleyes:

I'll try and be more concise, and leave out some of the spicier stuff. ;)

Piddzilla

01-14-04, 11:53 AM

While I agree a certain amount of responsibility is carried over from one Presidential administration to another… I disagree that the USA supported or funded the Taliban, as we know them today, during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Why… because the Taliban never fought against the Soviets… they didn’t even arrive on the scene until the mid 90’s and were mainly comprised of men who were the children of Afghan families that fled to Pakistan in the wake of the Soviet invasion… The majority of the male children in these families were housed in Pakistan and educated by religious parties… unfortunately those religious parties taught Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam…the most puritanical, restrictive and harsh interpretation of Islam… even the name Taliban means student.

Historically, the US did supply arms to and train the Mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviet army during the early 80’s… and it is entirely probable that some of the Mujahadeen did join the Taliban during their rise to power in the 90’ s… and since the US did provide humanitarian aid to the Afghan refugees during the Soviet invasion which would have included the children being taught by the religious parties… I guess it could be said the US did fund the Taliban at that time… but not in the capacity most journalists, etc. make it appear

Oh, sorry.. I was distracted by Yoda trying to use The Force on me so I totally forgot to reply to this. ;)

Yes, the Talibans didn't seize power until the mid-90's but that doesn't mean that groups that later formed the Taliban regime didn't operate in the country fighting the Soviets before that. And Osama himself left Saudi Arabia as early as 1979 to fight against the Soviet forces. The Afghan guerilla was not only backed by american dollars but also had the support of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Maybe you are right in that USA didn't support the Talibans directly. But they did support the groups that later planned and executed the terror attack on WTC. This doesn't tell us that much about what kind of responsibility USA itself has in this mess as much as it tells us what kind of people USA has a habit of supporting.

LordSlaytan

01-14-04, 02:17 PM

Ah, you wouldn't be who you are unless you wrote in meth induced tangents. Carry on! :)

(but force yourself to eat, man...you dunna wanna get sick and all)

7thson

01-14-04, 11:18 PM

Golgot

01-15-04, 03:46 PM

My 2 cents worth:

Nothing we say or believe matters. Seriously it does not. Not to the citizens of Iraq. What do they think? I have heard differing beliefs, however, the majority has informed me directly or indirectly that Iraq is moving forward not backward, or remaining staus quo. If they believe they are moving forward then I do also. The rest is just politics. IMHO anyway.

Fair enough. (a lot of my probs with the situation are on a wait-and-see basis anyway. If things go wrong tho - our opinion in the US/UK should be used to make governing-opinion sway a little. Methinks)

Django

01-15-04, 05:01 PM

This is a citation from www.michaelmoore.com. It is a letter to Michael Moore from a combat soldier in Iraq:

This letter was sent by mail from Iraq from Specialist Mike Prysner:

Dear Mr. Moore:

I’m writing this without knowing if it’ll ever get to you. I’m writing it not knowing why, or knowing what I’m going to say. I’m writing it not knowing if I’ll ever finish it or mail it. I’m writing it from the trenches of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m here or when I’m leaving. I’ve toppled statues and vandalized portraits, while wearing an American flag on my sleeve, and struggling to learn how to understand.

I was in Vicenza, Italy when I heard your Oscar acceptance speech. It was the day before I boarded a plane and experienced a “combat landing” in uncharted territory in northern Iraq. It was such a surreal feeling—the only light came from a red bulb—we sat shoulder to shoulder in silence. We were told to expect heavy artillery/chemical attacks. I can’t say I know what was on the minds of those men packed next to me, but I assume it was thoughts of family and religion. But me, a single 20 year old, I was thinking about what you had said. I joined the army as soon as I was eligible – turned down a writing scholarship to a state university, eager to serve my country, ready to die for the ideals I fell in love with. Two years later I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip, ready to charge into a country I didn't believe I belonged in, with your words repeating in my head.

My time in Iraq has always involved finding things to convince myself that I can be proud of my actions; that I was a part of something just. But no matter what pro-war argument I came up with, I pictured my smirking commander-in-chief, thinking he was fooling a nation. I discovered that the result of the war and the actions of G.W. cannot be treated as the same issue. Bush accidentally did a good thing for the Iraqi people. After the fact he's starting to claim humanitarian intentions for going to war - obviously bull****. But he realizes that that is the only positive outcome. I could explain what I've seen here; a people forced into poverty & ignorance – but I'll spare you. I try not to think about the ultimate future of this place. I'm sure we'll cause them to fall victim to Banana Republic and Joe Millionaire, with a puppet president and monopolized oil industry. But there will be plenty of time in the future to worry about those things.

I can't say I know what I believe. I am willing to accept that my opinions are a result of a given subconscious, not sufficient knowledge. Do I support care for the low income class because I truly understand the system, or because I've personified inadequacies and identified with those who experience struggle. Does a conservative oppose gay rights because he genuinely understands the issue or because he's scared to face deeper levels of humanity? What if you could be given a reason for everything you believe, but the reason is unrelated to the topic – the result of a life and a psyche? Will we believe those things the same way we used to? I call myself a liberal because I've been moved to tears by the words of Paul Wellstone, scenes in "The Awful Truth," the funeral of Matthew Sheppard, and the homeless people in the city I once lived in. It's not what I know, it's what I felt. It's dangerous to rely on emotions to guide your moral compass – but it’s the only way to be honest. I understand everything I believe may be wrong; that I believe for a reason, and that reason may not be reality. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. Maybe just that I can't look at this war politically. I can only look at it as an experience that has taught me that life is dictated by seconds and inches; one that has caused me to face death and loss and fear. And at its core, stripped of the WMD's and no-contest contracts, it's been about one thing: serving my country. The most difficult thing has been learning how to be proud of that. This country, I'm serving,…is it America? Has it ever been? It's always bothered me that, despite the American philosophy, it became NECESSARY for a civil right movement, it became NECESSARY to form the ACLU. I've simultaneously battled Saddam loyalists and these questions. Kind of an odd setting for suddenly doubting my patriotism. But while my fight with those trying to kill my friends & I is far from ending, the fight within myself has ended.

I found what I've been fighting for. It's been you, all along. I hated you on a plane ride in the dark with shaking hands. But you've been the roof of my loyalty, my bravery, and my dignity. Mr. Moore, you are America. This isn't a "I'm a hip liberal & I'll be cool if I get an autographed copy of Stupid White Men" letter. I've faced every weapon, from SCUDs to swords, and I've had to face why. And you've been the answer. I'm serving a country in which you live; where you're allowed to speak and PEOPLE LISTEN; where you're allowed to write and PEOPLE READ. What a beautiful country – every injustice has a prosecutor – every struggle has a defender. We are still a country being born. Compassion will never lose to conservatism…the country could be ruled by Jerry Falwell and Dick Cheney – but there will always be tears, as long as there is injustice and oppression and greed and hypocrisy. And there will always be you, the people you've taught, the lives you've influenced. You reminded me that America exists, and I suppose this letter is meant to thank you for that. I can't explain the pride you've instilled in me, and the comfort you've given me, to know that if I find myself fallen on the battlefield, I gave my life serving something I loved and truly believed in.

Sincerely,
Mike Prysner

Caitlyn

01-15-04, 06:57 PM

Yes, the Talibans didn't seize power until the mid-90's but that doesn't mean that groups that later formed the Taliban regime didn't operate in the country fighting the Soviets before that.

There were seven different gorilla groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan… so yes, it is possible some members from one of or all of those groups eventually joined the Taliban…

And Osama himself left Saudi Arabia as early as 1979 to fight against the Soviet forces.

Yes, Osama left Saudi for Afghanistan around 1979 and founded the Maktab al-Khidimat, one of the seven gorilla groups that were fighting against the Soviets… Osama recruited members from all over the world for the Makab al-Khidimat, much like he has for al-Qaeda…

The Afghan guerilla was not only backed by american dollars but also had the support of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The Afghan guerillas were the Mujahideen… a resistance group made up of Afghan nationals and were indeed funded and trained by not only the Americans but the British as well… however, Osama bin Laden was not part of this group... And this is where a lot of confusion comes in… because these different gorilla groups were all fighting the Soviets at the time, people tend to group them all together… but the end of the Soviet occupation was all they had in common and these groups even fought each other at times…

Maybe you are right in that USA didn't support the Talibans directly. But they did support the groups that later planned and executed the terror attack on WTC.

Saudi Arabia and bin Laden funded the Makab al-Khidimat… the Saudis even specified they would match the US dollar for dollar but that all their funds had to go exclusively to the Makab al-Khidimat… and bin Laden was widely known, even then, for his anti-American views…

Somewhere along the line (especially after 9/11), several politicians and the majority of the media went from saying the US “may have” or “could have” funded and trained bin Laden and his group to “did” train and fund without producing one ounce of evidence to back up such a statement other then bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time and fighting to remove the Soviets… bin Laden, himself, has even stated several times he was never friends with the Americans because they supported the Jews in Palestine…

This doesn't tell us that much about what kind of responsibility USA itself has in this mess as much as it tells us what kind of people USA has a habit of supporting.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, there was not a military or political expert in the world that thought Afghanistan would not eventually be incorporated into the Soviet Empire… and that once that was accomplished, the Soviets would then move on to neighboring countries… and the general consensus was that nothing short of a full scale global war would alter that fact… however, instead of fleeing in fear of the invading army, many of the citizens of Afghanistan armed themselves and fought back… some only armed with outdated flintlock muskets to use against Soviet tanks… and out of these determined citizens, the Mujahideen emerged… and I’m sorry, but to me, any guilt would have been in not supporting these people who were so determined to defend their homeland…

Piddzilla

01-16-04, 11:41 AM

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, there was not a military or political expert in the world that thought Afghanistan would not eventually be incorporated into the Soviet Empire… and that once that was accomplished, the Soviets would then move on to neighboring countries… and the general consensus was that nothing short of a full scale global war would alter that fact… however, instead of fleeing in fear of the invading army, many of the citizens of Afghanistan armed themselves and fought back… some only armed with outdated flintlock muskets to use against Soviet tanks… and out of these determined citizens, the Mujahideen emerged… and I’m sorry, but to me, any guilt would have been in not supporting these people who were so determined to defend their homeland…

...but only against communists, right?

Golgot

01-16-04, 07:32 PM

Well it seems that the CIA funded more than Afghani islamic extremists. They also encouraged militant islamic extremists from other countries to come to Afghanistan to fight the Commies.

In that sense there's a strong case for claiming islamic extremism has been funded and trained by the US (and ok, the UK too. Doesn't surprise me. It was the Maggie years. What can you expect when a nutty gun-running family's in No 10 eh? She was probably just trying to follow past governments and **** the place up some more :rolleyes: )

Either way, facilitating the banding-together of all those nutters in one country (not to mention arming/training/funding them etc) must have contributed to Afghanistan's extreme and terrorist-facilitating nature today.

Selig Harrison (Director of the National Security Project at the Centre for international Policy), who seems a pretty wise head, says he had meetings with the CIA at the time and warned them that they were "creating a monster". He claims: "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets"

I don't think all that can really be claimed as a sensible way to defend international freedoms. I recognise that going toe-to-toe with the USSR would have been a real-test of the nuclear-stand-off, but those involved could have stuck to funding and training the locals to defend themselves, rather than this short-sighted move.

sunfrog

01-17-04, 12:13 PM

Because it was b.s. His dad lied about the first one and Bushy lied about the second one. Because it was classic bait and switch. Osama is from Afghanistan. Because the terrorist were from Saudi Arabia and we didn't do a thing to them. Because everyone is getting rich off the war 'specially the Vice president. Because there is so much b.s. going on right now if you don't stand up against it it'll only get worse.

Yoda

01-17-04, 02:29 PM

Anyone else getting the impression sun didn't actually read the first post in this thread?

LordSlaytan

01-17-04, 03:38 PM

I don't think he does much research either. Following the popular uninformed opinion is rather easy.

Caitlyn

01-17-04, 04:41 PM

...but only against communists, right?

No… I thought someone should help the Kuwaiti people when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait too…

sunfrog

01-19-04, 01:50 PM

There's no research needed. It's simple, it's straightforward, it's true.
No, I didn't read this thread. It's too long. I was responding to the title of the thread.

Golgot

01-21-04, 09:47 AM

Well, ignoring Sunny's assertions of truth....(sure you ain't actually a Sunni fanatic Sunny? ;))...

Anyone got any opinions on these things?...

If you search www.timesonline.co.uk for this story - "Iraqi tells of torture in US prison camp" you should still be able to see it for a short while.

I'll quote some of the pertinent points:

Rahman claims that in the three months that followed he was beaten frequently, given shocks with an electric cattle-prod and had one of his toenails prised off. Rations were often laced with pork — forbidden to Muslims — and scorpions were a menace around the tent in which he slept.

Stung by such testimony and supporting evidence from some US servicemen, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of American forces in Iraq, has ordered an inquiry into the “reported incidents of detainee abuse at a coalition forces detention facility”.

Although American officials declined to give details of where the alleged abuses occurred, a spokesman for Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, described the reports as “serious and credible”.

Some of the worst treatment of prisoners is said to have occurred at Camp Cropper, a makeshift prison camp at Baghdad international airport where hundreds of Iraqis were crowded in tents throughout the scorching summer. Although US authorities insisted conditions were in line with international law, the camp was closed in October.

Equally notorious is Abu Ghraib, one of the most feared jails of Saddam’s era, which has been taken over by American forces. Najim Abdulhussein, 52, a grocer who was arrested with his son, claimed he had been ordered to stand upright for 13 hours until he collapsed during his time at the jail. He also said interrogators had spat in his face and burnt his arm with a cigarette.

So, it seems that beyond beatings that have lead to army personal being dismissed etc, there may have been concerted physical torture going on.

Whether or not this is confirmed, there's still the established case of psychological torture...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3042907.stm

Now, using kids tunes and heavy metal to cause sleep-deprivation may sound kind of funny - but with prolonged use it's torture, whether it causes long-term damage or not (we Brits have apparently used sleep-deprivation as a "humane" form of torture for decades, but if we're using it now the officials seem to be being evasive about it)

Either way, when we add this to the understandable amount of accidental false-arrests, we have to imagine such actions are generating fear and hatred - and therefore lessening cooperation with coalition attempts at constructive acts/increasing the potential for violent backlash and terrorism fostering.

sunfrog

01-21-04, 09:29 PM

No intentions. No motivations. Nothing about vague, potential downsides a decade from now. To opponents of the military action, please give me, as succintly as possible, a reason why we should have let the Iraqi people continue to suffer under what has now been proven to be a despicable, brutal regime. Case in point:

Set politics aside and please tell me, in a simple, straightforward manner, how a person can justify a belief in freedom and justice, yet advocate that we do not put a stop to these sorts of actions.

Because our intention when we invaded Iraq was not to bring freedom to that country. That was the excuse they gave you to make you swallow it. We invaded because Saddam was about to gas us, or nuke us or whatever. They also said he blew up the Twin Towers so we should get him for that. This freedom thing is just excuse #3 of many. It's called rationalization.

ra·tion·al·ize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rsh-n-lz)
v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es

To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): “Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments”

The real reason is hidden from us and will be shown on the History channel in about ten years. Was it oil, or finishing daddy's business, or cleaning up a huge mess, or something else? Whatever it was, it had NOTHING to do with freedom.

sunfrog

01-21-04, 09:35 PM

Part II
Why shouldn't we free people? Because we'd have to attack most of the world and that freaks me out.

meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mg-l-mn-, -mny)
n.
A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

What you're saying is we should take over the world and set it straight. This is more than a little scary. If it should happen the U.N. should set countries free not the US. We should mind our own business because we have a conflict of interest.

r3port3r66

01-21-04, 09:57 PM

My Reasons:

1) No Weapons of Mass Destruction

2) US doesn't get in involved with every "3rd World country" with weapons of mass Destruction, so why Iraq?

3) US has problems of its own to fix: poverty, embezzlement, health care, equal rights, teen pregnancy, drugs, suicide, homelessness, etc.

4) My friends in the military, fighting for something most of them don't understand, and possibly dying for it.

5) Overall national Morale. Let's face it, war is not as uplifting as a baseball game.

6) The future. No one knows how our envolvement in Iraq will affect my future, the future of your children, the future of the country.

7) There was never a peaceful alternative, unless you count the weapons inspectors--who found nothing! And still find nothing.

8) And finally, Sun is right; it's damn scary!

LordSlaytan

01-21-04, 11:19 PM

Because our intention when we invaded Iraq...Who's this "we" you keep talking about? Are you, or were you, in the military during one of the two Iraq wars?

...for something most of them don't understand...No offense to your opinion, you know I respect you...but I find that hard to believe. Once you're there and see the people, you understand why.

r3port3r66

01-22-04, 01:49 AM

Once you're there and see the people, you understand why.

You know Bri', that is very true. Of course when I was in the military, all I did was take orders; I wasn't privy to classified info. Hopefully the young men and women who are serving there now have a broader picture of their rewards.

Piddzilla

01-22-04, 05:32 AM

No offense to your opinion, you know I respect you...but I find that hard to believe. Once you're there and see the people, you understand why.

I think the foot soldiers for sure are motivated by the fact that they are helping the iraqi people. But say that the iraqi people is ungreatful, how do you motivate the soldiers to fight for reasons that seem to become more and more abstract for every day that goes by? Before the war the Bush administration convinced the american people that this was a war that had to be fought for the sake of USA:s homeland security. Now, all of a sudden, it is a liberation war for the sake of the iraqi people. "No, we didn't find any WMD but we did the most important thing - we set the iraqi people free!". As reporter66 said, US is not getting involved in every 3rd world country with WMD so why Iraq? Now thanks to the rethorics of Bush et al we can also ask ourselves the question: "US is not getting involved in every 3rd world country with a dictator - threat to US or not - so why Iraq?". Oil? Personal Vendetta? Demonstration to the world of the american war machine? Building a foundation to an american Middle East military base? Probably a combination between all of the above, and several other things, but I think the military base together with the demonstration are the key issues. America wants respect. They want everybody to know that no matter where you are in the world, they will be in your backyard within ten minutes if you try something. Unfortunately, the war doesn't really seem to want to end which has caused two major problems. 1) Big BIG expenses. I think that the american hawks had planned that the war would kind of pay itself by now. 2) Americans are still dying in Iraq. Not good in the eyes of the american public, but also encouraging for those who want US to fail.

The way I see it this all was bound to go not so well because of several reasons. First of all, the reasons to the war seem more and more unclear and they also change. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has turned to "Significant Equipment". And, as I said before, the terror/nuclear threat/preventive strike aspect has slipped down the ladder to make way for the more humane "Free Iraq" reason. In short, the sincerity and honesty of the Bush administration are not so reliable. The biggest reason to why this felt wrong to me from the beginning though is that US was so determined to do this on their own. (American/British is as far as I can stretch myself). The problem with this is that instead of having the World taking care of Iraq we have USA invading another country for dubious reasons. If it was the UN or a coallition of the "big" countries and then some, the terrorists and the enimies of USA wouldn't have all this free fuel to their fire. USA is only making things harder for themselves in this war against terrorism. If it had been Collin Powell and not Bush who was in charge I think that things had been different. Powell knew the importance of a strong coallition, the importance of unity within the Free World, but the other hawks didn't listen. I was not surprised at all when I heard that he wasn't doing four more years with Bush. Internationally, I think the Bush administration has been making mistake after mistake. Isn't it odd that even though America had 99,99% of the sympathy of the world after 9-11, the antiamericanism around the world appears to be worse today than as far back as I can remember?

Golgot

01-22-04, 08:39 PM

You know Bri', that is very true. Of course when I was in the military, all I did was take orders; I wasn't privy to classified info. Hopefully the young men and women who are serving there now have a broader picture of their rewards.

I think if anything things must look even worse now than when Bri was there, due to sanctions (not belittling your time there tho big man, and what you saw - not that i know the full picture).

If things i've read recently about UK/US involvement in targeting health aspects of society in iraq are true to the extent they're alledged, we've played a massive part in causing social-breakdown and suffering there. According to this article from Harpers we used both airstrikes and sanctions to target things like water processing, electricity supply, and medicine.

http://www.harpers.org/CoolWar.html?pg=1

If there's any truth to the bigger allegations of this nature (and it's hard to tell on some of them, coz the sanctions are mainly managed behind closed doors) it adds a false note to the feeling of "we're-here-to-rescue-the-downtrodden" that most soldiers must feel during occupation.

7thson could probably give us some interesting info on current Iraqi opinion, but from investigations i've read, many Iraqis hold the US mainly responsible for the ferocity of the UN sanctions. And on the flip side, i think Pidz is right to say that the obvious lack of gratitude from some areas of iraqi society must cause anger in the soldiers (and even more so if the soldiers see themselves fully as "good guys-benevolantly-saving-old-enemies-laid-low").

With such polarisations of opinion abounding, i find it easy to believe the reports of counter-productive iraqi terrorism-support and US heavy-handedness (including the impromptue prisoner-beatings which are garnishing the apparent offical torture).

And that's one of the problems of this basically-unilateral approach that Bush-n-co have adopted. There's a lot of bad feeling still hanging around. And a lot of mistrust.

As for frightening foreign policies and unilateralism generally: i take it that you've all noticed how the Project for the New American Century's policies are being "followed" pretty faithfully by the Bush-admin (well, with founders like Cheney, Rumsfeld Wolfowitz and Perle abounding in the White House i guess that's no surprise ;)). On their website they're making some fairly reasonable statements about how best to handle iraq....but....they're doing so by via analogies with the Phillipines, and gleefully pointing out that US soldiers are there "still", 100 years later (tracking down al Qaeda supporting groups no less.) Aside from various apparent inaccuracies (i.e. i think US soldiers haven't been there consistantly as they seem to imply - and hell, the Phillipine islands weren't surrounded by the complexities, terror-trainees or racially-linked US-hating malaise that Iraq is).....they seem to LIKE the idea of long term military control around the world.

Now that's frightening. I don't even see this little jaunt ending prettily at the moment.

Creed

01-22-04, 11:29 PM

"...Like, violence begets violence..."

Um, yeah...Never liked Bushy (no intended offence guys), He always came off as a bit of a prat. To be honest, my primeminister called him an idiot or some such when asked if we'd follow the US into the Liberation of Iraq and the War on Terror in Afgan. He's always seemed to have some (seemed too, anyhoot) kind of ulterior motive in his approach to issues. Which isn't a good quality when asking other nations for help, so we said no thanks when push came to shove. And the conservatives in the country (including my own father) called the rest of us traitors for not wanting to defend the US actions. So it's a pretty hot potato around the world as you can probably imagine.

Anyway my mate's from Iraq, his family fled Iraq after his father was introduced to Saddam. And his families opinion of the whole thing was that they're glad that the liberation happened, they just wish it wasn't Bushy.

Anyway I'll let you big heads get back to it.

sunfrog

01-24-04, 02:19 PM

Who's this "we" you keep talking about? Are you, or were you, in the military during one of the two Iraq wars?

No offense to your opinion, you know I respect you...but I find that hard to believe. Once you're there and see the people, you understand why.
"Because our intention when we invaded Iraq was not to bring freedom to that country. " We meaning the US, which I am a part of.

What happens once you're there. (http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/1120036p-7790408c.html)
Suicide has become such a pressing issue that the Army sent an assessment team to Iraq late last year to see if anything more could be done to prevent troops from killing themselves. The Army also began offering more counseling to returning troops after several soldiers at Fort Bragg, N.C., killed their wives and themselves after returning home from the war.

Winkenwerder said the military has documented 21 suicides during 2003 among troops involved in the Iraq war. Eighteen of those were Army soldiers, he said.

<snip>
The military has nine combat stress teams in Iraq to help treat troops' mental health problems, and each division has a psychiatrist, psychologist and social worker, Winkenwerder said. Of more than 10,000 troops medically evacuated from Iraq, between 300 and 400 were sent outside the country for treatment of mental health problems, he said.

The military prefers to treat mental health problems such as depression by keeping troops in their regular duties while they get counseling and possibly medication, Winkenwerder said.

Does anyone use <snip> anymore?

LordSlaytan

01-24-04, 08:04 PM

Because our intention...You didn't intend anything, the President of the United States did.

...when we invaded Iraq...You didn't invade Iraq, the US military and her allies did.

It's a pet peeve, nothing personal.

sunfrog

01-24-04, 10:19 PM

Huh?
How do you know I didn't use mind control?

LordSlaytan

01-24-04, 10:24 PM

Huh?
How do you know I didn't use mind control?

There are so many zingers I wanted to use in reponse to this, but I'm really much too nice for that.

sunfrog

01-24-04, 10:27 PM

I made you not say that.

LordSlaytan

01-24-04, 10:30 PM

That was pretty funny.

Sedai

01-25-04, 01:03 PM

I made you not say that.

I like this guy, keeps me laughing all day. Has half a brain on his shoulders as well ;)

wha...huh...Who made me say that????/

;)

(I meant that actually)

Hondo333

01-28-04, 09:46 AM

Ok, My 2 cents

Its i great that Saddam is gone.... But i think questions need to be asked

Why Iraq? Why support one tyrannous regime but disempowered the other?
Why Now? Why is now the right time to bring Saddam to justice? Why not 5 years ago? Why not 20 years ago?
Who Will Be The New Leaders? The USA have a history of putting [I dont know how to put it..... Not nessacarly "Dictators" but just....... Shady :rolleyes: ) rulers in power.
WMD? If Iraq do/did have them, Why is it ok for the USA to but Iraq not? Why is it the USA's responsabillty to say who can and who cant have them?
Democarcy? Why is democarcy the right thing? Who put the USA in charge of making the world a "Democaracy"?, If Democaracy is the right thing why do the US support countrys that are not Democratic?

Theres still alot more questions to be asked and to be answered

I beleive every one Pro and Anti the war need to watch John Pilger's Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389817/)

kaisersoze

01-29-04, 10:39 PM

The ends are positive but the means are not that is why the IRAQ war is not justified. You want to say Saddam is a bad man and want to remove him from power....... fine by me. You want to sell me the idea of war and pass it off as the best way to do it... there I'm not so sure. I admit, I don't know what other ways there are of removing someone from power but certainly there has to be more than one way.

As for the arugment of our own safety... about the weapons of mass destructions.... plz, don't you think while they were fighting down to their last days and "on the ropes" they would have made plans to used them? and along the same line........why are we not say, BOMBING SOUTH KOREA right now, who made headlines violating the treaty agreeing not to pursue the nuculear weapons and who freely admits to having them???? I guess what I'm saying is WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS and why did we stop asking questions about them.

Golgot

01-30-04, 10:47 AM

Yods wants to talk soley about this moral aspect that has become the sole argument for invasion.

So i've been doing some investigating to check some thing's i've read, and there are two main problems with it (I'm gonna start another thread for the whole intelligence/WMD theme...hehehe)

Here are two big problems with the moral argument - the troubling past and the possible future (altho only the second one bears on the validity/feasibility of the actual regime-change):

1) The history of US/UK facilitating and causing death in Iraq:

All of these things undermine the impression given by people like Yods that Saddam alone did lots of bad things, and then we finally stepped in. In fact we facilitated Saddam's regime, and caused extra deaths that go beyond the number of people he slaughtered. It takes the gloss off the general moral arguement....

-Nation-building:

The Brits are responsible for creating a divisive nation of multiple ethnic and religious groups. Such nations historically need a strong, and even totalitarian, hand to maintain them as a coherent nation. We acted that way, and the Baathists did too when the socialist governments couldn't hold on to power.

-All the mass-slaughter by Saddam took place under US auspices:

All of the mass-slaughter perpetuated by Saddam took place while receiving the political (and chemical ;)) support of the US (remember Rumsfeld's little 82 visit - opening up trade with Saddam and even supplying anthrax spores. And the continuing support given during the Iran/Iraq war).

-Sanctions used as a "weapon" by US with the help of the UK:

More pertinently, the airstrikes of the first gulf war were designed to back up the civillian-targeting aspects of sanctions - according to Pentagon sources.

People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'. Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions-help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions.

Much was made of the accuracy of strikes avoiding civillian targets....and yet, the reduction of Iraq's electricity producing capacities down to about 25% of previous levels was a deliberate attempt to undermine water purity and social infrastructure like hospitals. This, when combined with sanctions targeting the same areas, was predicted to result in mass illness and death. And it did. UNICEF and the WHO claim that between 1/2 million and 1 million Iraqis have died as a direct result of sanctions.

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/c56876817262a5b2c125695e0050656e/$FILE/G0014092.pdf

Now obviously this is an insane strategy. No population is in a fit state to rise up against their government when in such poor health.

Many people will happily try and pin the failings on the UN alone. But unfortunately there's ample evidence that the US, with the help of the UK, has brought this situation about, by:

*using its veto in the 661 security council to stop motions that sought to end the more vicious sanctions put in place.

*blocking contracts for "dual-use" items which would have helped with
water purity and medical-care problems, even when UNIMOVIC, EU-weapons experts, and many UN members insisted there was no weapons application for said products. (And this the US finally conceeded when Smart sanctions were finally introduced by July 2002, but only after UN weapons experts had poured over the "Goods Review List" and pointed it out. And only after an abortive first attempt where the US tried to keep the civillian-targeted sanctions and item-blocking in place.)
The US/UK even went as far as blocking a contract for flour, with absolutely no justification at all.

*Processing dual-use blocked items incredibly slowly due to under-staffing, despite knowing that the delays of years this imposed in each case was costing hundreds of thousands of lives.

Given the context of Pentagon intentions to use sanctions to specifically target the civillian population and health-care infrastructure, we have to imagine there were strong forces at work within the US decision-making machine that assured the most devestating application of sanctions possible.

That's a very hard policy to justify. Especially in moral terms. And the Bush-admin continued it (only moving to Smart sanctions after public outcry over the unwarrented blocking of medical supplies, it seems).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) The future outcome of Iraq.

This is the most constructive area of debate. How likely is it that Iraq will gain a stable political and social system?

Yoda seems to think it's a certainty. That's definitely over-stating the case.

Here are some reasons why we haven't "saved" the Iraqis yet from chaos, terror, in-fighting, out-fighting and other life-threatening circumstances.

The Kurds-Between the basic divisions of Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, there's a huge set of antagonistic differences and troubled history. The possiblity of them coming to a consensus that they are all happy with seems slim. The Kurds want independence anyway, but the Turks don't want to see that happen, and there'll be all kinds of guerilla action and international strife if it does.

The Shiites-One favourable aspect for regime change is that the majority Shiites don't want to lead a rebellion, as they did in the 20s, only to see the Sunnis benefit. So long as the clerics have a broad range of influence, we can hope that the Shiites will continue to play ball with regime-building efforts, especially if they're based around ballots. However, the US obviously wants to construct a governing body that they can deal with on the international stage. Whether a Shiite majority, with strong links to Iran, is something they'll try and block or interfere with remains to be seen. One of the things that holds the greatest potential for backlash amongst Shiites is anything perceived as western values being forced onto Islamic social-organisation.

US interests-Any new government that looks like it might reverse contracts or rules instigated during interim government might be opposed by the CPA/US etc. This would be a good time to change oil trade back to the Euro for example, but the US loses out financially if that happens, and might use it's peace-keeping presence as a bargaining tool to prevent this.

The Sunnis-The majority of the Sunnis are going to fight against balloted elections all the way, and generally just fight.

Economic fragility-Beyond the political dynamics, there's the economic. The US seem to favour shock-entry into a free-market economy. Iraq is in a mess after years of internal protectionism and industrial/educational delapidation through sanctions. They're not prepared for the free market and don't have the social-security system to deal with resulting unemployment.

US-led occupation and terror- Although much of the terror would have happened under any occupation, a unilaterally-led invasion like this (let's not kid ourselves that Britland really has a say in the CPA etc etc) invites terrorism support internally, and further migrational terror. The US is quite clearly the most hated country in this region (it's good that they moved off Saudi soil while tempers were getting so hot there, but i don't think plonking themselves just next door has helped that much). Although establishing a broader coalition would have been difficult (with Russia/China and France pursuing greed-principles as dubious as the US's) only in that way could we have stemmed some of the anti-US-terrorism that has exacerbated the problems already there.

Global-greed-and-need -No matter what happens in Iraq, the greed/need issues surrounding the oil producing countries haven't been resolved. In fact it's been polarised even further. An attempt to gain consensus on invasion would have required a consensus on how to deal with oil-trade (currency denomination for example) and OPEC-World interactions. That would have been a massive step forward. Instead Bush has pursued a unilateralist line, leaving carey-Blairy to try and forge a link with the world community. That desire for consensus had to come from the US. Whatever happens in Iraq, it's still going to be smack-bang in the middle of massive political power struggles. I pity the new government that has to do what's best for it's own while surrounded by that kind of pressure.

All of these things combine to making the issue far less clear cut than Yoda would like to paint it. I hope we don't get a "Somalia scenario" of total fragmentation. I hope we can do better than the "Afghanistan scenario" of tribal grouping (and at least the money/effort seem to be available this time). But as a commentator in (South) Korea put it, this really doesn't look like turning into a "Japan scenario". We haven't secured a happy ending for these people yet.

Yoda

02-06-04, 12:32 PM

Still moving into the new house (would you believe I got on the Internet before I'd even finished constructing my desk?), but I'd like to address one thing: the alleged petrodollar motivation behind the invasion.

The more I read about it, the less sense it makes.

As we all know, the Bush administration has deliberately devalued the dollar. What's significant about this in this particular context is that Gol is accusing the United States of invading Iraq to prevent Saddam from switching from dollars to euros for oil trade...a switch which would -- you guessed it -- devalue the dollar. Why, then, would they oppose such a change? The two complaints contradict one another.

Golgot

02-06-04, 01:27 PM

(Argh, just lost a long answer when i pressed the preview button. Ah well, here's a short one ;))

Well, Bushy has managed to facilitate the dollars continued decline quite happily during a time in which Iraq's financial dealings have been entirely in dollars, as i understand it - i.e. since the CPA/interim-council established themselves (NB Saddam had changed to "petroeuros" in Nov 2000 it seems).

But beyond that, there are far greater advantages to maintaining oil trade in dollars, compared to the gain of facilitating dollar-devaluation (which is influenced by numerous things it seems). Let's look at them:

The advantages of "petrodollar" trade:

-Oil-producing countries re-invest their oil-revenues in the US (no currency-exchange probs etc), providing constant support for national infrastructure/growth etc.

-The most precious product on the planet being traded in dollars 95% of the time has several knock-on effects. It facilitates this situation: "Two-thirds of world trade is dollar-denominated. Two-thirds of central banks' official foreign exchange reserves are also dollar-denominated."
( http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,900867,00.html ). Other countries find themselves with lots of dollars on their hands, which it only makes economic sense to reinvest in the US economy. And the reserves situation turns the dollar into something of a "blank-cheque" currency, helping to "under-write" its value.

What could we expect to see if Iraq had continued to trade in "petroeuros"?:

-OPEC joining in. They've been looking for an alternative to the dollar for some time. Anti-US sentiment in these regions has meant a certain affront at having to re-invest in the US. The emergance of the Euro has provided an alternative that's more preferrable than the Dinar. And how long would Saudi Arabia have continued to block OPEC moves in this direction considering their increasingly obvious animosity to US interference in their affairs?

-A shift to "petroeuros" could reasonably be expected to affect other dollar-dominated trade-agreements and currency-reserves, seeing them shift towards the Euro too - with the overall result of lots of money being invested in the European economies instead.

This, combined with an end to the "blank-cheque"-dollar set-up, would undermine certain key strengths of the US economic infrastructure. And hence the US would lose the ability to run huge deficits, and to play protectionist silly-buggers with its international trade-value knowing full well know one can play the same games back at them.

You dig? Does maintaining "petrodollars" seem like a vital support for US economic strength now? Or do you think the admin would rather just have the one-off benefit of help with devaluing the dollar? (What happens if they want to strengthen it again in the future? Would they politely ask for everyone to return to petrodollar trade? :p)

Yoda

02-09-04, 10:36 AM

C'mon, Gol; I'm familiar with the petrodollars system, and even if I wasn't, I didn't ask for a tutorial. It's not as if you have to recap your entire worldview to support a single statement. :)

Anyway, I can't help but notice that your claim here is exhibiting all the classic "symptoms" of a conspiracy theory. Namely, the fact that when a seeming contradiction like the one I mentioned rears its head, you add another layer of complexity to the theory. Oh, they wanted to devalue the dollar? Well, in that case, they decided to simultaneously devalue it and stop it from being devalued, in case it goes too far.

This isn't even to mention the fact that, as I've pointed out, Iraq itself shifting to euros is in no way capable of having any major effect on the U.S. economy. So to go along with this, one would also have to believe that Iraq was, for some inexplicable reason, a tipping point in international trading currencies. But why would it be, except to allow this theory to survive? They're not economic trendsetters. The more sizable countries -- the only ones we'd reasonably be worried about when it comes to trading currencies -- are not going to march to the beat of Iraq's drum. Suggesting otherwise is akin to claiming that killing Socrates could've stopped the development of modern philosophy.

As for our "ability to run huge deficits" -- I see no reason why a devalued dollar would hinder our ability to sell treasury bonds. The only thing that would effect that is a wildly fluctuating dollar. Investors care about stability, first and foremost.

Golgot

02-09-04, 07:07 PM

Anyway, I can't help but notice that your claim here is exhibiting all the classic "symptoms" of a conspiracy theory. Namely, the fact that when a seeming contradiction like the one I mentioned rears its head, you add another layer of complexity to the theory. Oh, they wanted to devalue the dollar? Well, in that case, they decided to simultaneously devalue it and stop it from being devalued, in case it goes too far.

Erm, first off man, that's not even vaguely my argument. I was trying to point out that your argument is fairly specious (so sorry :)). As i understand it the dollar has actually been devaluing for about 2 years now. Certainly it's devalued both during Iraq "petroeuro" trading, and now that oil-trade has returned to dollars. This makes your argument fairly redundant.

Agreed?

Secondly, i still don't understand your problem with me giving further justifications for my point of view. (If i just repeat myself, fine, that's me going about things the wrong way - but as you said, i merely delved deeper into the issue)

This isn't even to mention the fact that, as I've pointed out, Iraq itself shifting to euros is in no way capable of having any major effect on the U.S. economy. So to go along with this, one would also have to believe that Iraq was, for some inexplicable reason, a tipping point in international trading currencies.

I'm going to ignore the rampant exagerrations that followed this (;) :p)

Firstly, i take it you agree that if oil-trade were to shift substantially away from dollar-denomination this would hurt the US economy to a large extent? Yes? Or no?

Secondly, you're right - Iraq shifting to "petroeuros" alone can't do that. But as you should know, my argument is that that situation, if sustained, would have encouraged other countries moving in the same direction, and strengthend the political and economic incentives for OPEC countries to follow this route (not only in trade, but critically, in pricing too). I'm talking about change over time.

You patently don't seem to accept this point (and therefore, don't accept that the invasion might have had an inhibitive effect on such a movement). Let me try and give you some reasons to consider it.

Desire amongst big oil-producing nations to shift to Euro trade

http://europe.tiscali.co.uk/index.jsp?section=Business&level=preview&content=160462

Iraq, Iran, Russia, Venezuela and OPEC itself have all broached the notion of pricing oil in Euros rather than US dollars to some extent

(you'll like this article. It calls the iraq connection a conspiracy rather than a theory ;) :rolleyes: . But it's also unconvinced about it being a disproved conspiracy ;) :)).

OPECS open-ness to a Euro/multiple-currency/non-dollar trade-shift

Here are some snippets from a speech called - "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill", by Mr Javad Yarjani, Head, Petroleum Market Analysis Dept (OPEC), ["The International Role of the Euro" (Invited by the Spanish Minister
of Economic Affairs during Spain’s Presidency of the EU)
April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)]

http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm

So what is the OPEC position on this critical questions? Can the Organization consider switching its crude oil pricing from dollars to euros? Or will a basket of currencies be used?

Because crude oil contracts are currently traded in dollars, and the prices of OPEC crudes are determined by using complex formulas derived from marker crudes, such as Brent and WTI, there is not much the Organization can do unilaterally until, and unless, there is a switch of denomination in these markets.

...

The underlying imbalances in the existing system as to the denomination of the oil bill could be ironed out partially with the inclusion of other currencies in the trade of oil. Ultimately, for every scenario that may emerge, there is a note of caution, and that is oil market stability should not be jeopardised or threatened in any way. The existing oil pricing and payments system, despite its known deficiencies, is a system that functions smoothly. Should the euro challenge the dollar in strength, which essentially could include it in the denomination of the oil bill, it could be that a system may emerge which benefits more countries in the long-term. Perhaps with increased European integration and a strong European economy, this may become a reality. Time may be on your side. I wish the euro every success.

Of course he's not going to say outright that politically the majority of OPEC's members would prefer to alter the petrodollars system. He points out that stability is their most important aim. But i don't think i'm reading between too many lines when i say that even this economic speech supports claims that OPEC are not happy with US domination and unfair-advantage due to "petrodollar" trade (read the whole text). At a minimum, these quotes show that they're attracted by the possibility of trade-change over time (despite pointing out British/Norweigan and US strangleholds on key pricing "platforms" inhibit such a move - and other inherent economic obstacles)

Could Saddam's shift have encouraged everyone from key European nations, to countries like Iran (to even lone "basket" trader Venezuela, or who knows, the increasingly US-hating Saudis) towards establishing some level of "petroeuro" trade? You must admit it's a possibility. This move alone, if taken up, could have aided the Euro to gain the strength it needs to fulfill OPEC requirements for pricing-change.

And with the current weak dollar, Russia must be sorely tempted to engage in heavy "petroeuro" trade, a step whose risk would be minimised by having willing trading partners (like their old friends Saddam ;)).

The point is it's a long road. The point is, someone took a step down that road...

related point - military disuassion of Euro-shift

This invasion put the fear of God (and fear of the US) into nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela as far as considering the Euro switch.

That, whether you like it or not, even believe it or not, is a message that has been transmitted to any nations considering the Euro-switch.

It stymied any possible move in that direction from the smaller players (that would have facilitated the desires of the biggers players, or permitted a break-away trade-group).

There are many permutations to how petroeuros or multi-currency oil-trade could be established. Saddam took one big step in that general direction - and got his foot cut off.

As for our "ability to run huge deficits" -- I see no reason why a devalued dollar would hinder our ability to sell treasury bonds. The only thing that would effect that is a wildly fluctuating dollar. Investors care about stability, first and foremost.

I never said it was the devalued dollar silly. Please read what i write :p (this is why i have to repeat myself so much ;))

I said a situation where "petrodollar" trade was being undermined/replaced would damage the US ability to run huge deficits.

Please ask me if you want back-up to this claim. I don't want to inundate you ;)

nebbit

02-13-04, 09:47 AM

War is stupid. http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage30/19.gif

ashdoc

08-09-17, 04:28 PM

-KhaN-

08-09-17, 04:30 PM

EDIT: Just re-read the first message and I think I might have missed the point.

One can argue that you cannot force democratic standards on everyone and tell them this is how you live from now on, be happy. It can be argued as well that now its even worse.

Yoda

08-09-17, 04:38 PM

Bush and Blair should be both tried as war criminals for removing Saddam ( who was keeping the crazies in check ) and unleashing mayhem in the middle East.
1) This thread is over a decade old.

2) You're clearly using this as an excuse to talk about Islam again.

3) You didn't actually answer the question.

4) He was not "keeping the crazies in check." That's not even close to true. He was funding suicide bombers and the containment strategy used to keep him in check was explicitly cited in Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa as a reason for targeting the United States.

-KhaN-

08-09-17, 04:40 PM

1) This thread is over a decade old.

Wow. :eek:

Camo

08-09-17, 04:44 PM

Message Board Iraq War discussions are like portals into a lost time now. Every forum that's been around since 2003 has one and they are so weird to read.

Also i didn't read the thread but i'm guessing this was the best post:

War is stupid.

Mr Minio

08-09-17, 04:56 PM

mark f

08-09-17, 05:06 PM

Isn't that the Twin Peaks Award?

ashdoc

08-09-17, 05:19 PM

1) This thread is over a decade old.

2) You're clearly using this as an excuse to talk about Islam again.

3) You didn't actually answer the question.

4) He was not "keeping the crazies in check." That's not even close to true. He was funding suicide bombers and the containment strategy used to keep him in check was explicitly cited in Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa as a reason for targeting the United States.

I will go back to 2003 and answer the question. I was 28 years old and used to discuss international politics with a group of young men like myself at a park in evenings at that time. Now that group has split up since years ago . All gone seperate ways .

When I heard that the war was going to be launched I instantly predicted quagmire for US back then 2003 . I understood the character of these Muslim people even then . For them an infidel power like USA trampling on Muslim territory was the ultimate sin and all would united to fight the infidels . Also , while the Iraqi insurgents would use any dirty or even horrible trick in the book to kill US soldiers , the US would be bound by rules to keep the fighting civilized. That would give advantage to the rebels.

You ask for reasons not to attack Iraq and seem to justify attacking it because it was being ruled by a tyrannical regime. But so many other countries are being ruled by tyrants. Why pick Iraq only ? Because it has oil and bush was greedy for it , isn't it .

Again in 2011 I predicted that the Arab spring would go wrong and removal of rulers like gaddafi would bring Islamic fundamentalists to power . I was proved right . Amazingly you westerners seem to believe that western values can be imposed upon these Muslim people , and so western air power was used to topple gaddafi . France used it's latest rafale fighter jets to bombard Libya. How wrong you are !! Western values can never be imposed on Muslims and any artificial attempt to impose these values is madness . Only convinces me that I am right and all westerners opposing me are wrong in all those terrorist discussions.

Citizen Rules

08-09-17, 05:23 PM

Thread Closed....please?

ashdoc

08-09-17, 05:23 PM

And the Golden Shovel reward for reviving a 13 years old thread goes to...

http://i.imgur.com/oxaISw6.png

ashdoc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bix44C1EzY

Good job, ashdoc! But can you beat your own record? Can you revive a 9/11 thread made on September the 11th?

I was reading about the Iraq war and just wondered if a thread is there on this forum for discussing the war , since it is an old forum. And the search button was there.....

Yoda

08-09-17, 05:35 PM

For them an infidel power like USA trampling on Muslim territory was the ultimate sin and all would united to fight the infidels .
Yeah, as I just pointed out to you, they were already accusing the U.S. of this for their containment policy (https://www.911memorial.org/sites/default/files/Osama%20bin%20Laden's%201998%20Fatwa%20declaring%20war%20against%20the%20West%20and%20Israel.pdf). The invasion of Iraq did not cause this, and the idea that Saddam was suppressing it is false: he actively supported terrorism.

cat_sidhe

08-09-17, 05:45 PM

cat_sidhe

08-09-17, 05:45 PM

Sorry, but for real. :lol:

ashdoc

08-09-17, 05:58 PM

Yeah, as I just pointed out to you, they were already accusing the U.S. of this for their containment policy (https://www.911memorial.org/sites/default/files/Osama%20bin%20Laden's%201998%20Fatwa%20declaring%20war%20against%20the%20West%20and%20Israel.pdf). The invasion of Iraq did not cause this, and the idea that Saddam was suppressing it is false: he actively supported terrorism.

The terrorism Saddam was supporting was a minor pinprick . Does not justify Bush's decision of sending thousands of US soldiers to their deaths .

You will say it wasn't expected that thousands of US soldiers would die in Iraq . That's where you don't understand Islam and I do . I fully predicted their deaths before they actually died .

Still my sympathies were with US . Having understood Islam , I could not bring myself to sympathise with the Iraqis even when their land was being invaded . My calling bush and Blair as war criminals is because they unleashed hell for the occupying forces of Iraq and sent many US troops to their deaths.

ashdoc

08-09-17, 06:03 PM

Copy paste about US casualties ---

As of June 29, 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Citizen Rules

08-09-17, 06:57 PM

Saddam was a bully, a tyrant and killed his own people, especially the Kurds. However, I do agree removing him unleashed Islamic-political factions in the middle east, that he helped keep in check by the very presences of a strong Sunni controlled Iraq. The best way to keep your enemies in check, is to make them fight. And that's what Saddam's Iraq did, especially to neighboring Shiite Iran.

With the threat of Saddam removed the middle east stability was reduced. Much like when Roman controlled Europe fall, resulting in various chieftains and strong men fighting for control. Saddam was a bad egg, but he kept the balance of power.

Stirchley

08-09-17, 07:33 PM

Yoda

08-10-17, 10:21 AM

The terrorism Saddam was supporting was a minor pinprick .
Suicide bombers can't be existential threats to society in one thread and relatively unimportant in the next, as the needs of your argument change.

Does not justify Bush's decision of sending thousands of US soldiers to their deaths .
Taking the position that it did not justify invasion is fine. That's a reasonable position. What's not reasonable is saying that he was "keeping it in check," when he was actively supporting it and the sanctions on Iraq are cited by Bin Laden himself as one of the reasons jihad was necessary. Frankly, it sounds like you weren't even aware of his history with terrorism, since you actually implied he was fighting it, rather than simply saying he was the lesser of two evils, as you are now.

You will say it wasn't expected that thousands of US soldiers would die in Iraq . That's where you don't understand Islam and I do . I fully predicted their deaths before they actually died .
No, I would not (and did not) say that. That's a straw man.

Still my sympathies were with US . Having understood Islam , I could not bring myself to sympathise with the Iraqis even when their land was being invaded . My calling bush and Blair as war criminals is because they unleashed hell for the occupying forces of Iraq and sent many Us troops to their deaths.
So now someone can be a "war criminal" if you think they make strategically unsound decisions?

I don't really buy into your self-compliments about having predicted the violence, as if it reflects some deeper understanding of Islam. Virtually everything you're saying could have been said about Vietnam, too, so I don't think religious fervor is the explanation. The explanation is that it's always hard to achieve social and cultural change through war, and it's always hard to invade and occupy a foreign land in a hostile part of the world. This is Sun Tzu stuff, for crying out loud: they're general truths of war and occupation, not commentary on Islam, specifically.

ashdoc

08-10-17, 12:20 PM

My deeper understanding is due to growing up seeing Muslim behaviour all my life . Not only my nation has 20 percent Muslims , I grew up in a Muslim dominated area of Mumbai/Bombay. In contrast your exposure to Muslims is less because they are hardly one percent of your nation .

If you don't understand Muslim religious fervour you are totally disconnected from Islam. They Are the greatest believers in God in the whole world and religious fanatics.

The strategically unsound decision of bush and Blair was opposed by the whole world and protest marches were held everywhere. The UN was also sidelined .

Anyway, I won't argue further. Haven't got time at present.

Yoda

08-10-17, 12:26 PM

I didn't dispute the idea that you had a deeper understanding of Islam than I did, nor did I dispute the "religious fervour" you're talking about. What I disputed is the idea that Iraq is an example of either, because it follows the same broad patterns as other attempted occupations where Islam isn't involved. All of the things you're saying you predicted because of Islam could have also been predicted by anyone who understood the difficulties inherent in any military occupation.

ashdoc

08-13-17, 05:29 PM

Amazingly , history itself teaches us that the lessons of history are never learnt and therefore history is condemned to repeat itself. In 2011 the western powers intervened to destroy the regime of another dictator/tyrant---muammar gaddafi of Libya . Result---another failed state and death of the US ambassador Stevens, who was killed by insurgents.

Just saw the movie '13 hours' on the killing of the US ambassador and the harrowing time US personnel living in Benghazi had trying to fight with an overwhelming number of insurgents. Several US personnel were killed too . The movie shows all the fighting in gory detail. Seeing the movie made me revisit the mistakes made by the western powers in the so called Arab spring and forced me to reopen the topic. I would rate the movie as good and give it three and half stars out of five .

Guaporense

08-14-17, 07:14 PM

US intervention also produces bad reactions among locals: if the US opposes a dictatorship and does concrete actions against it the domestic opposition to that dictatorship gets labelled "US's agents", which in turn makes the dictatorship stronger. US attempts at imposing regime change from top down have mostly failed as well.

The reason is Democracy doesn't emerge from foreign occupation but from domestic evolution, when the population becomes prosperous enough to care about political rights. The best policy for the US is a policy to open up trade with these countries so that their population realize how good is life in the democratic world and then they will want democracy as well.