Cost of War

[kaisersoze]

http://costofwar.com/index-immunization.html

A newpaper article lead me to this site, I thought I'd bring it here so we get a sense of how much we are actually spending.

[Zeiken]

chilling. Really makes me hate those war-mongering slimeballs. You just wait until i am super rich, and will be able to give my money away to those causes that were compared with the war costs.

[Yoda]

It's the seen and the unseen again. It's easy to sit and say "look at all that money; think of all the great things we could have done." But how many take the time to think about what would have happened, but didn't, because we spent it? If it's "chilling" that we spent money that could've been used in charitable ways, it's even more "chilling" that people suggested we not act, thus allowing a regime rife with murder, rape and torture to continue unchecked.

I've never understood how someone could try to oppose this war on humanitarian grounds. Genuine humanitarian sentiment would have no choice but to support it, as far as I can see.

But hey, that's just one "war-mongering slimeball"'s opinion.

[Zeiken]

Yoda, i sincerely apologize if i insulted you in any way. You make an amazing point, one that i didnt really see to begin with, and i honestly appreciate it. I fully support war on oppression, terrorism, and injustices, and i agree that a lot of what has happened has been necessary. Realize that i speak not only of americans, but mostly of Terrorists, dictators, and anyone else in opposition of the basic human freedoms. The term "War-Mongering slimeball" does not refer to simply anyone in favor of the war. It refers to exactly what it depicts: slimeballs.

[The Silver Bullet]

You must admit though, regardless of your stance on the war, that little ticker's an amazing thing to behold, isn't it? The amount! The speed at which it's climbing!

The magnitude of that sort of thing is unfathomable to me.

[Zeiken]

it really is quite insane. But when you think about the costs of every tank or jet or gun that they need, it could easily go up that fast. I just wonder when its going to slow down.

[7thson]

The big qusetion I have is : if that money were not spent on war and related issues would it have been spent on any of the other choices listed instead? I doubt it.

[Tea Barking]

Its not that chilling that america has to spend that much on invading and occuping another country.
The money could be spent helping the worlds poor, but how could they spend it while most of the poor are in countrys run by insane and corrupt dictaters/leaders.
If they spent less time building armys to stay in power or invading other countrys they could spend the money helping their own people.
And untill people like saddam and bin laden dont exist the west wont have to spend so much on warfare.

[LordSlaytan]

I've never understood how someone could try to oppose this war on humanitarian grounds. Genuine humanitarian sentiment would have no choice but to support it, as far as I can see.That's a good point that many people don't consider. If there was a clapping smilie available, I'd use it here.

[Zeiken]

And untill people like saddam and bin laden dont exist the west wont have to spend so much on warfare.

Which raises the question, When will they just 'not exist', or what will it take to eradicate them? That in itself can be considered justification of current events.

[Yoda]

Yoda, i sincerely apologize if i insulted you in any way. You make an amazing point, one that i didnt really see to begin with, and i honestly appreciate it. I fully support war on oppression, terrorism, and injustices, and i agree that a lot of what has happened has been necessary. Realize that i speak not only of americans, but mostly of Terrorists, dictators, and anyone else in opposition of the basic human freedoms. The term "War-Mongering slimeball" does not refer to simply anyone in favor of the war. It refers to exactly what it depicts: slimeballs.No apology necessary; I believe, and appreciate, your clarification. I suppose I've simply come to expect that "warmonger" would refer to supporters of the War in Iraq. On message boards, it's thrown around quite often.


You must admit though, regardless of your stance on the war, that little ticker's an amazing thing to behold, isn't it? The amount! The speed at which it's climbing!

The magnitude of that sort of thing is unfathomable to me.Exactly. That's why these things become so popular so quickly. The problem, however, is that certain numbers just get filed away under "really big numbers," and never get compared to other big numbers. Case in point: $100 billion is a lot of money compared to what you or I are likely to handle in our lifetimes, but is it a lot of money for a government whose GDP is a third of the world's? Not really.

It's like the national debt. Just spit out a number followed by a bunch of zeroes, and all of a sudden people are awed, without having any context, perspective, or even any idea what it really means. I'm not saying this is you, Gummly, I'm just noting that many share your amazement, but do not possess the necessary desire and curiousity to ever investigate beyond the gimmick.

[Equilibrium]

http://costofwar.com/index-immunization.html

A newpaper article lead me to this site, I thought I'd bring it here so we get a sense of how much we are actually spending.
Look at my tax money go bye bye :mad:

All those extra hours I spend working..and in half a second its gone.....for something I don't support... :rolleyes:

[7thson]

Look at my tax money go bye bye :mad:

All those extra hours I spend working..and in half a second its gone.....for something I don't support... :rolleyes:
This is not the only thing tax money is spent on, think of your money as going to something that you do support.

[Equilibrium]

Thats one way to look at it. But what if most people support one thing and don't the other. Yet the thing that isn't supported is getting more money??
Its happening.

[Zeiken]

yeah, its pretty sad, but unfortunatley, its the truth. I suppose it gives all the more reason to throw some support that way.

[Equilibrium]

yeah, its pretty sad, but unfortunatley, its the truth. I suppose it gives all the more reason to throw some support that way.
Its even sadder when you're forced to support something just because your money is going there anyways. Its called dictatorship.

[LordSlaytan]

Its even sadder when you're forced to support something just because your money is going there anyways. Its called dictatorship.No it's not. :rolleyes:

Whether you are for the war in Iraq or not, Bush was voted into office (unless you're a conspiracy theorist) and either have to accept the policies he lays out or vote him out of office in November.

[Equilibrium]

No it's not. :rolleyes:

Whether you are for the war in Iraq or not, Bush was voted into office (unless you're a conspiracy theorist) and either have to accept the policies he lays out or vote him out of office in November.
New avatar..woot like this one better.

Um, I don't have to accept anything hes doing, regardless of whether or not he was voted into office. I can object to what hes doing from the second day of his presidency. If I don't, then this isn't a democracy.

[LordSlaytan]

New avatar..woot like this one better.

Um, I don't have to accept anything hes doing, regardless of whether or not he was voted into office. I can object to what hes doing from the second day of his presidency. If I don't, then this isn't a democracy.I'm pretty sure you understood my meaning, but if you want to be literal I can bring out the dictionary.

[Equilibrium]

I'm pretty sure you understood my meaning, but if you want to be literal I can bring out the dictionary.

I wasn't trying to be a smartass and I still don't understand what you mean. You said we 'must accept the policies he lays out' or something like that and I disagree.

[7thson]

I wasn't trying to be a smartass and I still don't understand what you mean. You said we 'must accept the policies he lays out' or something like that and I disagree.Not trying to step on anyones toes here but Slay said you have to accept it OR change it when it comes to election time. I think you have alot of good convictions and I am sure you support our troops albiet not the mission or missions they are on now or will be. Alot of money has been spent on the war on terror and whether you agree with the philosophy that Iraqi has anything to do with terroism or not it is too late to change what has been done. Please feel free to disagree with the things the president has done because he has made some mistakes no doubt about it, but many people DO support the war, not because we like killing babies, (God I hate that remark), but because we enjoy our freedom and a "dictatorship" ( a thing you seem to despise as do I) is something we will not endure without a fight. Why should the Iraqi's have too? Anyway these are just my thoughts, I am not in to converting anyone and I respect your beliefs, I just wanted to pass along mine. Thanks.

[Yoda]

Just so everyone knows, Equilibrium is actually SPIDER. Why does this board attract such obsessive people?

I wasn't trying to be a smartass and I still don't understand what you mean. You said we 'must accept the policies he lays out' or something like that and I disagree.It's not complicated: he's pointing out that there's nothing even remotely dictatorship-like about the situation. America does not cease to be a democracy anytime its representatives do or say something you do not approve of.

If you want a recently example of a real dictatorship, take a look at the country whose liberation you opposed: Iraq.

[LordSlaytan]

Not trying to step on anyones toes here but Slay said you have to accept it OR change it when it comes to election time.Thanks. :yup:

[Equilibrium]

Thanks. :yup:

Okay, yeah I totally agree with that. Its the same concept as 'if you decided not to use your right to vote, then you also lost your right to complain'. And I'm totally with that, I just didn't get what you meant, sorry.

[Equilibrium]

If you want a recently example of a real dictatorship, take a look at the country whose liberation you opposed: Iraq.
Eh, I was never opposed to its 'liberation', I just hoped something more universally backed up would happen. Like, say they decided to assasinate saddam, and it was successful. THEN, they used troops with the UN's approval to invade the leaderless bath party. I know what you're thinking, that I'm crazy, but I was just giving an exmaple of what 'could've happened'.

So anyways I'm totally for liberating Iraq, but this is not whats happening over there right now.

BUT, someone said that its too late and that the future is what we can change, not the present, so let me be constructive and put forth an idea.

COMPLETELY wipe out that existing government, and setup something similar to what we have in the states. NOT putting a corrupt official as its president then 3 weeks later deciding he is a corrupt guy (If you don't know what I'm talking about, its the Iraqi guy who WAS going to be the leader of new iraq, Yoda probably knows his name).
Thanks for listening to obsessive people such as myself.

[LordSlaytan]

So you are SPIDER_MAN?

[Equilibrium]

Not that I know of? :)

[kaisersoze]

it really is quite insane. But when you think about the costs of every tank or jet or gun that they need, it could easily go up that fast. I just wonder when its going to slow down.


I don't think thats included in the cost because these things were already made years before the Iraq war was on the horizon. Even if we factor in the new vehicles that needs to be made to replace the old vehicles it would not be a big enough number to cover the bulk of the cost. I think the majority of cost is the payroll, food and the fuels to keep the war operatable, you know the cost of upkeep. Things like the cost of tanks is a one time deal....

In other words... the number will only slow down on the day U.S pulls out of IRAQ and wouldn't have to pay as many full time troops.

[Equilibrium]

I don't think thats included in the cost because these things were already made years before the Iraq war was on the horizon. Even if we factor in the new vehicles that needs to be made to replace the old vehicles it would not be a big enough number to cover the bulk of the cost. I think the majority of cost is the payroll, food and the fuels to keep the war operatable, you know the cost of upkeep. Things like the cost of tanks is a one time deal....

In other words... the number will only slow down on the day U.S pulls out of IRAQ and wouldn't have to pay as many full time troops.
Can't wait for it to slow down to ONLY a couplke hundred dollars a second....lol sarcastic post hehe :cool:

[7thson]

I don't think thats included in the cost because these things were already made years before the Iraq war was on the horizon. Even if we factor in the new vehicles that needs to be made to replace the old vehicles it would not be a big enough number to cover the bulk of the cost. I think the majority of cost is the payroll, food and the fuels to keep the war operatable, you know the cost of upkeep. Things like the cost of tanks is a one time deal....

In other words... the number will only slow down on the day U.S pulls out of IRAQ and wouldn't have to pay as many full time troops.
This is so true, the money spent back home to support the war is more than what is spent in the field. Now during heavy bombing that changes, at least this is information I got when I was in back in the late 80's maybe it has changed but I doubt it.

[Piddzilla]

You guys don't understand how someone can oppose this war on humanitarian grounds? About 10.000 iraqi civilians have died because of this occupation in one year. If I was an iraqi that had never in his life seen democracy, I would find it very hard to understand why so many people have to die because America wants to give it to me.

But who is asking the iraqis? The debate on here is always about whether it's worth the money and the lives of americans. I can think of a number of things to why I oppose this occupation on humanitarian grounds. I don't think it is worth the lives of 10.000 men, women and children (not counting the iraqi soldiers) just so USA will find out what some people allready knew, and a lot of people suspected, that there just are no WMD:s in Iraq.

And how come this is a humanitarian war all of a sudden? What happened to all the hawks that were oh so certain that Saddam was juuuust about to push a button somewhere in his by UN and USA heavily guarded country and bomb the crap out of USA? The hawks have all of a sudden turned to doves?? "The most important thing is that Iraq is liberated! And we don't know what Saddam MIGHT have done to America". Well, your incompetence MIGHT have caused the unnecessary death of thousands of people!

George W Bush... man, what a mess...

[7thson]

You guys don't understand how someone can oppose this war on humanitarian grounds? About 10.000 iraqi civilians have died because of this occupation in one year. If I was an iraqi that had never in his life seen democracy, I would find it very hard to understand why so many people have to die because America wants to give it to me.

But who is asking the iraqis? The debate on here is always about whether it's worth the money and the lives of americans. I can think of a number of things to why I oppose this occupation on humanitarian grounds. I don't think it is worth the lives of 10.000 men, women and children (not counting the iraqi soldiers) just so USA will find out what some people allready knew, and a lot of people suspected, that there just are no WMD:s in Iraq.

And how come this is a humanitarian war all of a sudden? What happened to all the hawks that were oh so certain that Saddam was juuuust about to push a button somewhere in his by UN and USA heavily guarded country and bomb the crap out of USA? The hawks have all of a sudden turned to doves?? "The most important thing is that Iraq is liberated! And we don't know what Saddam MIGHT have done to America". Well, your incompetence MIGHT have caused the unnecessary death of thousands of people!

George W Bush... man, what a mess...
I totally respect your thoughts but IMO you are a bit misguided. I will elaborate more later, I am at work right now and dont have much time.

[Equilibrium]

I totally respect your thoughts but IMO you are a bit misguided. I will elaborate more later, I am at work right now and dont have much time.
I'll be waiting to read your repsonse, I just don't see how someone could counter the points Piddzilla just made.

[Yoda]

Then you're not trying very hard. And please, drop the facade; we know you're SPIDER, your IP address matches exactly, as do (surprise) your political opinions.

You guys don't understand how someone can oppose this war on humanitarian grounds? About 10.000 iraqi civilians have died because of this occupation in one year. If I was an iraqi that had never in his life seen democracy, I would find it very hard to understand why so many people have to die because America wants to give it to me.And how many died under Saddam? Hundreds of thousands have been found in mass graves. Moreover, Saddam's oppression, while apparently tempered in recent years, was an ongoing, indefinite thing; the invasion was/is not.

Moreover, you make liberty sound like some sort of trinket, or American-specific desire, rather than a fundamental human right.


But who is asking the iraqis? The debate on here is always about whether it's worth the money and the lives of americans. I can think of a number of things to why I oppose this occupation on humanitarian grounds. I don't think it is worth the lives of 10.000 men, women and children (not counting the iraqi soldiers) just so USA will find out what some people allready knew, and a lot of people suspected, that there just are no WMD:s in Iraq.Almost nobody "knew" that. Virtually every major intelligence agency in the world that I recall hearing from on the matter claimed Iraq had WMDs of some sort sometime within the last 5 years or so, including France, and the previous American administration. The idea that the WMD claim was unique to Bush, or even America, is demonstrably false.


And how come this is a humanitarian war all of a sudden? What happened to all the hawks that were oh so certain that Saddam was juuuust about to push a button somewhere in his by UN and USA heavily guarded country and bomb the crap out of USA? The hawks have all of a sudden turned to doves?? "The most important thing is that Iraq is liberated! And we don't know what Saddam MIGHT have done to America". Well, your incompetence MIGHT have caused the unnecessary death of thousands of people!Now you're just arguing politics. I don't particularly care what some politicians or pundits may have shifted emphasis on. The reasons are there regardless of who thought them, when, or why. A discussion about the intent of our leadership is wholly seperate from a discussion about whether or not their actions were defensible.

As for "unnecessary" -- I guess that depends on how far your humanitarian sentiments go. Apparently civilian life is incredibly important to you when it is lost at the hands of an American force, but when these deaths come at the hands of a dictator like Saddam, the sympathy well dries up in favor of a doctrine of inaction. Why?


George W Bush... man, what a mess...Yeah. What kind of a moron invades despotic nations with atrocious civil rights violations and ties to terrorism? And I really hate living in the fastest growing major economy in the world. I'd much prefer the double-digit unemployment and roundabout pacifism of Europe.

Forgive my harshness. I feel I'm simply replying in kind.

[7thson]

Before I start on my rant here I want to say that these are my own personal thoughts and I do not expect many to agree with me. Please no one take what I say as a personal attack at all because it is not intended to be such.





Why is it every time I see someone defend Saddam in any way whatsoever that I get so frustrated I tend to either blow up or clam up? I am an extremely laid back person, but this always gets to me. Now I ask for just a moment (I know it is going to be very hard, but please humor me) for you to assume that the United States did not initiate the war with Iraq as of yet and things were pretty much the same as they were before the war. What we would have is a Dictator who uses everything and every tactic he can to achieve his goals. I don’t want to go into a list of the tortures I know of that this man has either carried out himself or had ordered done, and that I am sure many of you have heard of over the years because that would just be another laundry list of atrocities that I am quite frankly tired of remembering just to get a point across. Bottom line on Saddam Hussein is that he is a very very bad man and should have been ousted long before now WMD or not. I personally give less than a fat rats behind if he had the mother load of WMD’s or not. If he did, well then he can’t use them now, and if he didn’t, well then he can’t use them now…what’s the difference? Yes I know this was the foundation that the Bush administration used to launch this war and nothing has been found that amounts to much. Well actually a lot of things were found, nothing exciting enough to make people say “well damn he did have WMD” but it was certainly enough to violate many resolutions that the UN decided didn’t matter anyway. I mean so what if he has mustard gas, that’s no big deal, especially to the people who Saddam used it on in the past. They are either dead or disfigured or don’t matter I guess. In my opinion the first time that the cease fire treaty was violated the UN should have had the balls to enforce them and removed him then. We cannot go back in time and it took some more lives than we all wanted, but it is done and not doing so would have led to more deaths over the years. I of course understand that the “hatred of war” does not equal the “love of Hussein” so for those of you who oppose war on your convictions related to humanitarian rights. I must also say that “WMD” does not equal “the only reason to have removed Hussein” Will more lives be lost in the coming months, years, decades directly related to the war? Definitely. Will the amount of lives lost and the amount of a 0 quality of life exceed the amount of lives lost directly under Saddam’s power? I doubt it. There is a point in time when someone has to stand up and say “enough”. The majority of the everyday citizens of Iraq are glad he is gone, I know this from first hand experience. War sucks, people die and it effects individuals in a way that changes their lives forever. It is however sometimes necessary to go to war. I truly am sorry for those who have perished due to it, I honestly am. I cannot remember the amount of nights I have cried for friends and strangers that have died because of war, but compliancy and ignorance and lack of enforcement have killed more than any war. I wish war wasn’t necessary, I wish I had never been in war, I wish no one had ever had to die for freedom. More importantly, however is that I wish for freedom for those who do not have it. Unfortunately wishes are pretty much useless in themselves, its what you do to make wishes come true that makes life tough sometimes, but it also makes us who were are. There were many reasons for the war, I am sure there are many that we will never know of and many more that seem pointless and unfounded, BUT, I only needed one in order for it to have my support…Saddam Hussein.

[Equilibrium]

Then you're not trying very hard. And please, drop the facade; we know you're SPIDER, your IP address matches exactly, as do (surprise) your political opinions.
Everyone who opposes the war is now SPIDER. Got it.

And how many died under Saddam? Hundreds of thousands have been found in mass graves. Moreover, Saddam's oppression, while apparently tempered in recent years, was an ongoing, indefinite thing; the invasion was/is not.
No one is denying that many people died under Saddam (maybe not Hundreds of thousands..but surely thousands). No one is denying that something should have been done. The issue and pinnacle of debate is the way it was all carried out. I just don't see how murdering thousands of innocent children and women (eh, women and children is overdone, I switched the order for once) is going to help america's cause in 'liberating' another country. Now, a few years ago Clinton invaded Kosovo to stop Yugoslavian aggression. THAT was well planned and although its clear that Clinton was trying to redirect the media away from his personal problems, he still did some good in that area. I supported the war on Yugoslavia because it was done accurately, and with good taste. I mean good taste in that there were few big scale abuses and the soldiers were genuinly trying to help the refugees. Now I understand that Iraq is 180 degrees different, don't reply to this saying 'you don't udnerstand Iraq is not the same as kosovo'. I understand that completely. All I am saying is, this war that I opposed was 5 times as bad as I had imagined. I was against the war but didn't think all these problem s would come, and I thought the US would at least do a good job, which it certianly isn't doing.


Moreover, you make liberty sound like some sort of trinket, or American-specific desire, rather than a fundamental human right.

Well, its not up to you or me to decide what 'fundemental human rights' are. They have been defined accordingly and therefore I agree with you here. But I don't see why you pointed this out, I think Piddzilla was on the same track as you.


Almost nobody "knew" that. Virtually every major intelligence agency in the world that I recall hearing from on the matter claimed Iraq had WMDs of some sort sometime within the last 5 years or so, including France, and the previous American administration. The idea that the WMD claim was unique to Bush, or even America, is demonstrably false.
You're right, the idea that more than one country believed Iraq had WMDs is true. That doesn't make them right however. They were clearly wrong. What IS unique to Bush and his presidency is his selective aggressiveness. War on Afghanistan: Fine. But I remember people soon after going 'Iraq is next' and look what happened. Then I heard 'Syria is next' and well, we saw that come very close to it. The point is, Bush has an agenda in the mideast because of.....yes...you guessed it..OIL. Otherwise, he would have attacked the Koreans, as they are clearly more dangerous, or how about china and there largest army in the world...Do you see what I am saying? Whats unique to Bush is hes already got a plan, and whether its justified or not, hes going to go through with it.


Now you're just arguing politics. I don't particularly care what some politicians or pundits may have shifted emphasis on. The reasons are there regardless of who thought them, when, or why. A discussion about the intent of our leadership is wholly seperate from a discussion about whether or not their actions were defensible.
No comment.


As for "unnecessary" -- I guess that depends on how far your humanitarian sentiments go. Apparently civilian life is incredibly important to you when it is lost at the hands of an American force, but when these deaths come at the hands of a dictator like Saddam, the sympathy well dries up in favor of a doctrine of inaction. Why?

You must take into context what he said. He said listen to the Iraqis. The overwhelmingly majority would rather be treated like **** by one of their own, and at least have some sort of hope in the future for rightful restoration, than have an outside force occupy them and shove 'liberty' forcefully down their throat.


Yeah. What kind of a moron invades despotic nations with atrocious civil rights violations and ties to terrorism? And I really hate living in the fastest growing major economy in the world. I'd much prefer the double-digit unemployment and roundabout pacifism of Europe.
Well, some of us happen to think hes in it for the oil. But I don't disgaree with your other points. I'd rather live here, granted, another another more dignified president, but still rather live here.

[Golgot]

Then you're not trying very hard. And please, drop the facade; we know you're SPIDER, your IP address matches exactly, as do (surprise) your political opinions.

He's more eloquent. If he's Spider he's a very calm Spider.

And how many died under Saddam? Hundreds of thousands have been found in mass graves. Moreover, Saddam's oppression, while apparently tempered in recent years, was an ongoing, indefinite thing; the invasion was/is not.

Really? The invasion is guaranteed to come to a stable, none-populace-"terrorising" conclusion? We'll see.

Moreover, you make liberty sound like some sort of trinket, or American-specific desire, rather than a fundamental human right.

Liberty from what? Power-politics will always exist. Iraq will always be an oil-rich country (not to mention one tied up in the contingent "Arabic"-vs-West conundrum). As such it will always be an incredibly difficult place to extricate from the meddling hands of those who would like to dominate and influence everything. It's not a place that democracy can be easily empowered.

In what way has the invasion tackled these problems? In the most fundamental ways it hasn't. As invigorating as it was to see the international community able to reach accord (recently) on the benefits of pursuing a unified and stable Iraq, it only goes to highlight the previous failure to tackle Iraq's context. The situation that generated Saddam could well occur again, and the suffering he caused could well continue without someone like him.

As much as i'd like to believe otherwise, i still don't think "liberty" has been achieved yet for iraq, let alone that it is a likely outcome.

I won't even mention the nonsense of suggesting "liberty" is an American-only desire. Oh, actually, i will :p

Almost nobody "knew" that. Virtually every major intelligence agency in the world that I recall hearing from on the matter claimed Iraq had WMDs of some sort sometime within the last 5 years or so, including France, and the previous American administration. The idea that the WMD claim was unique to Bush, or even America, is demonstrably false.

Yes, but how many suggested Iraq was a threat to anyone outside of Iraq's neighbours? Only the US and their political-pet the UK as far as i can tell. And how wrong were they to suggest it? In the context of enforced UN inspections... very.

Now you're just arguing politics. I don't particularly care what some politicians or pundits may have shifted emphasis on. The reasons are there regardless of who thought them, when, or why. A discussion about the intent of our leadership is wholly seperate from a discussion about whether or not their actions were defensible.

Their actions are on dubious ground. Their motivations doubly so. There was clearly no threat to the US - so what was the adminstrations motive for this costly invasion?

That's the biggest question.

As for "unnecessary" -- I guess that depends on how far your humanitarian sentiments go. Apparently civilian life is incredibly important to you when it is lost at the hands of an American force, but when these deaths come at the hands of a dictator like Saddam, the sympathy well dries up in favor of a doctrine of inaction. Why?

You know full well Pidz is in favour of ousting Saddam. That's not innaction. The point is that it has to be done in such a way that the deprivations of Saddam's regime are replaced by a superior situation.

Yeah. What kind of a moron invades despotic nations with atrocious civil rights violations and ties to terrorism? And I really hate living in the fastest growing major economy in the world. I'd much prefer the double-digit unemployment and roundabout pacifism of Europe.

Ewwww, touchy ;). Come on Yods, you know full well that Saudi Arabia has far stronger ties to terrorist action, especially against America, and an atrocious civil-rights record. Why not invade them? I'll give you one guess ;) :p.

Don't mistake Russia/France (or China's) oil-interest for pacifism, but do recognise that it shares a lot with the the violent oil-interventionism of the US.

Oh, and doesn't your rapid-economic-growth depend on the buffer of international input? I believe it does. And how would economic success imbue you with greater moral decision-making even if it were generated entirely internally? It wouldn't would it.

Forgive my harshness. I feel I'm simply replying in kind.

Hopefully you know that the harshness that comes from the other direction is sourced in a deep doubt of the efficacy of the Bush-admins policies. Indeed, it's based in a belief that his approach is generally more destructive than constructive.

Time well tell, but a wise society takes action before the toll of the bell ;)

[7thson]

Seriously guys this is not a black and white issue here. There is not gonna be a cut and dry solution to the problem in Iraq. However the cease fire agreement signed by Saddam himself was violated, nothing short of military action would have made a difference. Where we go from here now that he is out should be the focus point. Everyone has made some very valid points, and some (including my own) made points based on their personal feelings. I for one understand and can accept the fact that my opion may be wrong and others may be right, but to do nothing at all or to keep the status quo just wasnt acceptable.

[Equilibrium]

Seriously guys this is not a black and white issue here. There is not gonna be a cut and dry solution to the problem in Iraq. However the cease fire agreement signed by Saddam himself was violated, nothing short of military action would have made a difference. Where we go from here now that he is out should be the focus point. Everyone has made some very valid points, and some (including my own) made points based on their personal feelings. I for one understand and can accept the fact that my opion may be wrong and others may be right, but to do nothing at all or to keep the status quo just wasnt acceptable.
At least you are open to the fact that there is a possibility you are wrong, it shows maturity.

[Tea Barking]

You smell

[Golgot]

At least you are open to the fact that there is a possibility you are wrong, it shows maturity.

He's an experienced man is our 7th, and wise with it. :) He's focused on results on the ground. I still don't really agree with his stance on the war, but i respect it ;)

And we could all be wrong on many things. The areas where we flounder most, and may never know the truth, are:

(a) Why exactly did the Bush admin push for this-war-in-this-way?

(b) Will this invasion make things better overall?

What aggravates me about hardline pro-war-ers is they normally insist that:

(a) The motivations either aren't important (even if they might involve pursuing objectives that lessen the chances of a decent resolution), or are actually altruistic.

and

(b) that things will certainly get better, despite the obvious flaws in the approach. (lack of resources due to narrowness of coalition; corresponding profit-motives interfering with potential iraqi autonomy; the fallout of both these things increasing support for Islamic-terrorists from otherwise-moderate Muslims etc).

It's not like any of us can do much about it. But it is exceptionally aggravating to hear specious either-or arguments like...

-If you don't-back-this-war-in-this-way then you wanted to do nothing about Saddam and his despotic behaviour
-We have provided Liberty, because we removed a dictator.
-This is all about Liberty.

Bull. It's about making Iraq a "Free Market", sure. It's aim is to achieve stability, certainly. But ultimately it's about power-play. Getting Iraq as a country to "play nice" in this way with those that want to have their way with her is all far more civilised than what Saddam had going on, that's all true too. The only problem is that the plan has gone wrong, and looks set to remain off-song. With a slightly different hymn sheet there'd be more hearts and minds won, and up for joining in with what's being sung.

(heheheh, i always have to end with some pretentious rhyme don't i ;))

[Equilibrium]

that things will certainly get better, despite the obvious flaws in the approach. (lack of resources due to narrowness of coalition; corresponding profit-motives interfering with potential iraqi autonomy; the fallout of both these things increasing support for Islamic-terrorists from otherwise-moderate Muslims etc).

Thats what bothers me the most. The fact that this war is making more and more people hateful towards the US. I think the decision by America to go through with this war has affected this great countries reputation adversely. Where is Eisenhower when you need him, an isolationist who only went to war when there was no other hope. Moderate people of EVERY race and religion have become zealots (and some argue that rightfully so) as a result of the US's rushing into the war. There was no attempt even to make it look like it was necessary. I didn't even have time to catch my breath from Afghanistan before I saw bombings on Iraq. Any war will make people angry, any decision will make some people angry, a WRONG war will never make this many people all around the world so angry. When a peoples of many nations stand in unison against a certain cause, then you start to wonder.

Yes, we could all be wrong. But yes, we could all be right too. Thus far, the way I see it at least, we have been proven right time and time again.

Only time will tell.

[Yoda]

Everyone who opposes the war is now SPIDER. Got it.Yeah, because that's all I said. :rolleyes: I didn't say anything about your IP address being a perfect match.


No one is denying that many people died under Saddam (maybe not Hundreds of thousands..but surely thousands). No one is denying that something should have been done. The issue and pinnacle of debate is the way it was all carried out. I just don't see how murdering thousands of innocent children and women (eh, women and children is overdone, I switched the order for once) is going to help america's cause in 'liberating' another country. Now, a few years ago Clinton invaded Kosovo to stop Yugoslavian aggression. THAT was well planned and although its clear that Clinton was trying to redirect the media away from his personal problems, he still did some good in that area. I supported the war on Yugoslavia because it was done accurately, and with good taste. I mean good taste in that there were few big scale abuses and the soldiers were genuinly trying to help the refugees. Now I understand that Iraq is 180 degrees different, don't reply to this saying 'you don't udnerstand Iraq is not the same as kosovo'. I understand that completely. All I am saying is, this war that I opposed was 5 times as bad as I had imagined. I was against the war but didn't think all these problem s would come, and I thought the US would at least do a good job, which it certianly isn't doing.This doesn't add up. In the above paragraph you admit that something had to be done, but complain about how poorly the effort has gone. But you opposed the war before we knew how the effort would go. You opposed it before we knew whether or not it had been well executed or not. If you say something should have been done, and Saddam refused to comply, and the UN refused to take any coercive action, then why did you oppose military action initially?


Well, its not up to you or me to decide what 'fundemental human rights' are. They have been defined accordingly and therefore I agree with you here. But I don't see why you pointed this out, I think Piddzilla was on the same track as you.I pointed it out because Pidzilla referred to freedom as "something we wanted to give them," as if it were something of little consequence. The Iraqis were not living in the Matrix, in blissful ignorance of the concept of freedom.


You're right, the idea that more than one country believed Iraq had WMDs is true. That doesn't make them right however. They were clearly wrong. What IS unique to Bush and his presidency is his selective aggressiveness. War on Afghanistan: Fine. But I remember people soon after going 'Iraq is next' and look what happened. Then I heard 'Syria is next' and well, we saw that come very close to it. The point is, Bush has an agenda in the mideast because of.....yes...you guessed it..OIL. Otherwise, he would have attacked the Koreans, as they are clearly more dangerous, or how about china and there largest army in the world...Do you see what I am saying? Whats unique to Bush is hes already got a plan, and whether its justified or not, hes going to go through with it.Attacking North Korea would be incredibly foolish; they have nuclear weapons. You can't just go invading a country with nuclear weapons unless you're willing to lose some major cities in the process. When it comes to nuclear weapons, we have no choice but to negotiate, especially with a lunatic like Kim Jung II in power. But what we can do is stop more Kim Jung's from sprouting up. Men who have demonstrated the explicit desire and intent to develop weapons that would force us to negotiate with them.

We have to pursue diplomacy with Jung because he was allowed to buy himself a hand in the world's poker table with his weaponry. We called Hussein's bluff, and we made him fold. That's one less potential Jung terrorising people.


You must take into context what he said. He said listen to the Iraqis. The overwhelmingly majority would rather be treated like **** by one of their own, and at least have some sort of hope in the future for rightful restoration, than have an outside force occupy them and shove 'liberty' forcefully down their throat.How can you shove liberty down someone's throat? You can't FORCE freedom...that's what makes it freedom. That's like saying "you're making someone do what they want to do."

Even if we were "forcing" freedom (which is basically impossible, by definition), the idea that Iraqis want to be ruled by a tyrant is absurd, and were I one of them, I'd be downright insulted at the suggestion. All people can appreciate freedom.


Well, some of us happen to think hes in it for the oil. But I don't disgaree with your other points. I'd rather live here, granted, another another more dignified president, but still rather live here.I'm not going to sit here and tell you oil played no role, because I honestly do not know. To be frank, simply citing oil seems like the easy way out. But even if it was a motivator, it doesn't mean there were not others, and it doesn't mean the war was not justified. If anything, we are fortunate that our economic interests coincided with our foreign policy interests AND a charitable act, all at once.

[Yoda]

He's more eloquent. If he's Spider he's a very calm Spider.Yep. It's also technically possible that this is just someone else on his computer, or (a bit more unlikely) someone on the same network. Either way, it's pretty clear that, if this isn't SPIDER, it's a friend who he encouraged to post. Far more likely that it's him, however, given that he's already created several accounts and has been repeatedly unable to stop trying to get the last word in.


Really? The invasion is guaranteed to come to a stable, none-populace-"terrorising" conclusion? We'll see.Oh, I said no such thing. But it's not exactly naive optimism to presume that, whatever comes of this, it's unlikely to rival what came before it. In a year of major combat, followed by repeated suicide bombings, the Iraqi civilian lives lost are still estimated at less than 1/20th of those found in various mass graves in Iraq...and those are just the ones we know of.

I think your objection would hold a lot of weight were I assuming that Iraq would become a nice, calm, peaceful nation anytime soon. But all I'm assuming is that the situation has improved, and is likely to remain better than it was before. That is not a particularly generous assumption.


Liberty from what? Power-politics will always exist. Iraq will always be an oil-rich country (not to mention one tied up in the contingent "Arabic"-vs-West conundrum). As such it will always be an incredibly difficult place to extricate from the meddling hands of those who would like to dominate and influence everything. It's not a place that democracy can be easily empowered.I don't think America was much easier. As you'll remember, there was quite a bit of "power-politics" and money/land-grabbing going on. Hell, we even had a civil war; if Iraqi were to devolve into civil war, I imagine you'd hail it as a failure in a heartbeat. But given that we came through one, wouldn't such a judgement be premature? Were American turmoils worth it, Gol?

As for "liberty from what" -- I hope you're not implying that international politics, even if pressure of some sort is involved, can even begin to approach previous Iraqi oppression. Things aren't perfect, but we should be able to agree that the modern concept of "liberty" -- even if you have your complaints about some of those at the top -- is infinitely more desirable than living under a dictator.


In what way has the invasion tackled these problems? In the most fundamental ways it hasn't. As invigorating as it was to see the international community able to reach accord (recently) on the benefits of pursuing a unified and stable Iraq, it only goes to highlight the previous failure to tackle Iraq's context. The situation that generated Saddam could well occur again, and the suffering he caused could well continue without someone like him.

As much as i'd like to believe otherwise, i still don't think "liberty" has been achieved yet for iraq, let alone that it is a likely outcome.I somewhat agree. I think we can say that they have "liberty" in one sense, because I think they're already freer than they were, but the job is not done; I don't deny that. We cannot pass much judgement before June 30th; and how much we can pass after that remains to be seen.


I won't even mention the nonsense of suggesting "liberty" is an American-only desire. Oh, actually, i will :pI think you've misunderstood me; I was saying that it wasn't an American-only ideal. That's why I objected to the idea that we're somehow imposing freedom on the Iraqi people, or something they were ignorant of, and which we're insisting they take, rather than someone all people innately desire, and have a right to.

There's a hint of that sentiment in the "freedom just won't work in Iraq" argument, which I don't buy. Historically, bets against freedom overwhelmingly fail, even if not immediately. It's a wild card, and it tends to trump all the others. Call me idealistic, but I believe it can override whatever cultural differences Iraqis might have with countries like ours.


Yes, but how many suggested Iraq was a threat to anyone outside of Iraq's neighbours? Only the US and their political-pet the UK as far as i can tell. And how wrong were they to suggest it? In the context of enforced UN inspections... very.This is more up for debate than I think you care to admit. Direct threat? Probably not. Indirect? Possible, and perhaps even likely. Saddam was like a murder suspect with a motive, and a really bad rap sheet who we just couldn't pin the murder weapon to. He supported terrorism, attempted an assassination, possessed ban weapons, and had weapons labs which were clearly part of an ongoing attempt to re-accquire WMDs, which he'd manage to do once before.

Imminent threat? No. Growing threat? I don't see how anyone could deny it.


Their actions are on dubious ground. Their motivations doubly so. There was clearly no threat to the US - so what was the adminstrations motive for this costly invasion?

That's the biggest question.I don't know that it is the biggest question, but let's assume for a moment that it is.

I won't pretend to have the answer, of course. But I think it's a safe bet that, whatever motive was involved, there were probably additional motives. Several, I would imagine. We're all reasonable people here, so hopefully we can agree, for example, that even if Bush was licking his lips over the thought of all that Middle Eastern oil, he still took the human rights violations into account. This should be a given, unless you're convinced that he's not only incompetent, but pure evil, as well.

Additionally, I think it's pretty clear that they honestly, genuinely expected to find WMDs. I've mentioned this before, of course, but the idea that they would so dramatically hype something they did not believe would ever materialize is a real force-fit of an argument. Bush, his cabinet, and his advisers would all have to possess a lack of foresign commensurate with a third grader to commit such a gaffe.

Even the idea that they knowingly exaggerated the claims feels a bit shaky, if you believe Woodward's claim that former CIA director George Tenet told a skeptical Bush that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."


You know full well Pidz is in favour of ousting Saddam. That's not innaction. The point is that it has to be done in such a way that the deprivations of Saddam's regime are replaced by a superior situation.Agreed. But, in all fairness, opposition to the war is damn near synonymous with inaction. Saddam wasn't about to put his hands up and walk out of the building, and he'd made a habit of deception and defiance.


Ewwww, touchy ;). Come on Yods, you know full well that Saudi Arabia has far stronger ties to terrorist action, especially against America, and an atrocious civil-rights record. Why not invade them? I'll give you one guess ;) :p.My answer (which I'm sure is different from your own) is that Saudi Arabia has shown a genuine willingness to cooperate with the war on terrorism; a stark contrast to the actions of Hussein's Iraq.

Remember, we're not just going after entire countries based on what some of their people do. We're going after the terrorists, and those that harbor them. If a country aligns themselves against those actions, and shows itself willing to help root out those responsible on some level, I don't see how they would qualify.


Don't mistake Russia/France (or China's) oil-interest for pacifism, but do recognise that it shares a lot with the the violent oil-interventionism of the US.

Oh, and doesn't your rapid-economic-growth depend on the buffer of international input? I believe it does. And how would economic success imbue you with greater moral decision-making even if it were generated entirely internally? It wouldn't would it.I was not suggesting that economic prosperity enhanced our decision-making abilities. I was merely responding to Pid's general statement that Bush was a "mess." My point was that the country, and the man, far from being a mess, have some damn significant achivements to its/his name over the last several years.


Hopefully you know that the harshness that comes from the other direction is sourced in a deep doubt of the efficacy of the Bush-admins policies. Indeed, it's based in a belief that his approach is generally more destructive than constructive. I think I understand why people oppose Bush, yes. What gets me is that people who oppose him are always ignoring or rationalizing his accomplishments, and denying any potential benefit or upside. I hate to say it, Gol, but I think you're guilty of this, too. I touched on this in a post a month or two back, wherein I noted that you've been critical of virtually every little step along the way in Iraq, and when Bush does more or less exactly what you think he ought to in regards to something like free trade, your only comment is to complain that he didn't do more, or didn't do it sooner.

That's the big red flag, in my mind: when a person seems unable or unwilling to concede anything to the individual who they oppose. It's barely even possible, statistically. I think emotions are running so high right now that people who have an overall opposition feel they need to back it on absolutely every front, rather than simply accept that they can oppose an individual without hating absolutely everything they do.

[Equilibrium]

Yeah, because that's all I said. :rolleyes: I didn't say anything about your IP address being a perfect match.
:o This isn't going anywhere.


This doesn't add up. In the above paragraph you admit that something had to be done, but complain about how poorly the effort has gone. But you opposed the war before we knew how the effort would go. You opposed it before we knew whether or not it had been well executed or not. If you say something should have been done, and Saddam refused to comply, and the UN refused to take any coercive action, then why did you oppose military action initially?

What doesn't add up to you? I am not a presidential advisor and I don't claim to be one, otherwise I wouldn't be here. So I really don't know what is best, but I just wish there was another way, and that war shouldn't even have been one of the priorities. I just got the feeling from Bush that regardless of what happened, that he was bent on destroying Iraq, which he has done successfully. I opposed military action because I saw no reason to go to war with a dictator who was beyond powerless.


I pointed it out because Pidzilla referred to freedom as "something we wanted to give them," as if it were something of little consequence. The Iraqis were not living in the Matrix, in blissful ignorance of the concept of freedom.
Ok, thanks for clearing up.


Attacking North Korea would be incredibly foolish; they have nuclear weapons. You can't just go invading a country with nuclear weapons unless you're willing to lose some major cities in the process. When it comes to nuclear weapons, we have no choice but to negotiate, especially with a lunatic like Kim Jung II in power. But what we can do is stop more Kim Jung's from sprouting up. Men who have demonstrated the explicit desire and intent to develop weapons that would force us to negotiate with them.

Thats one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. The true measure of a country is whether it can battle out with someone worthy of it. Anyone can step on little maggots and claim to be a conqueror and liberator and protector of the world. Not every president can say "I fought in the revolutionary war against the most powerful nation and won" and not every president can say "I stopped Hitler, who for a while was the most powerful man on Earth." Again the true measure of a President and his country is how much they truely believe in their cause. George Bush couldn't give a damn about liberating Iraq, freeing their innocent government prisoners, or restoring a once great nation to its rightful spot.


We have to pursue diplomacy with Jung because he was allowed to buy himself a hand in the world's poker table with his weaponry. We called Hussein's bluff, and we made him fold. That's one less potential Jung terrorising people.

So the US is a filter now. The bad seeds that get through are allowed to grow and oh well too bad we won't stop them anymore.


How can you shove liberty down someone's throat? You can't FORCE freedom...that's what makes it freedom. That's like saying "you're making someone do what they want to do."
Bush is FORCING freedom in a place where it needs to be discovered. Let Iraq rule their own country and let them discover freedom on their own. If I was a prisoner I wouldn't want anyone to come beat my ass until I yelled out "Okay I want freedom, Democracy is goood"

Even if we were "forcing" freedom (which is basically impossible, by definition), the idea that Iraqis want to be ruled by a tyrant is absurd, and were I one of them, I'd be downright insulted at the suggestion. All people can appreciate freedom.
No one said they weren't glad Saddam is gone. Most people are just questioning how the current situation is much better.


I'm not going to sit here and tell you oil played no role, because I honestly do not know. To be frank, simply citing oil seems like the easy way out. But even if it was a motivator, it doesn't mean there were not others, and it doesn't mean the war was not justified. If anything, we are fortunate that our economic interests coincided with our foreign policy interests AND a charitable act, all at once.

Again, the maturity of admitting you don't know something or could be wrong about it, is greatly appreciated. And I agree with you, here.

[Yoda]

Thats what bothers me the most. The fact that this war is making more and more people hateful towards the US. I think the decision by America to go through with this war has affected this great countries reputation adversely.My objection to this is that it assumes that, if a significant number of other countries object, that we must be in the wrong. What we should be asking ourselves is whether or not the action itself was justifiable. If it is, then you should be upset with those countries for not seeing that, rather than the US, for standing firm when they didn't.


Where is Eisenhower when you need him, an isolationist who only went to war when there was no other hope. Moderate people of EVERY race and religion have become zealots (and some argue that rightfully so) as a result of the US's rushing into the war. There was no attempt even to make it look like it was necessary. I didn't even have time to catch my breath from Afghanistan before I saw bombings on Iraq. Any war will make people angry, any decision will make some people angry, a WRONG war will never make this many people all around the world so angry. When a peoples of many nations stand in unison against a certain cause, then you start to wonder.We lack an awful lot of information, of course, but we have some which shows that some of the countries which opposed the war (France and Germany are among them, if I'm remembering correctly) had an economic interest in Iraq remaining under Saddam's control, in which case their opposition loses and awful lot of the authority you're trying to ascribe to it.

And, as you might recall, several dozen countries supported our efforts in Iraq (and please, no speculative accusations about how they all did so out of fear, or pandering of some sort; that's a cop-out).


Yes, we could all be wrong. But yes, we could all be right too. Thus far, the way I see it at least, we have been proven right time and time again.Who is "we," and how have you been "proven right time and time again"? Last I checked, modern warfare was riddled with instances of wars which many people were reluctant towards, or downright opposed to, but which are now almost universally accepted as necessary.

Here, for example, is a quote from a 1939 issue of Partisan Review:

"The last war showed only too clearly that we can have no faith in imperialist crusades to bring freedom to any people. Our entry into the war, under the slogan "Stop Hitler!" would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here ... The American people can best help [the German people] by fighting at home to keep their own liberties."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's possible, of course, that this situation is wholly different, but I find the idea that the sentiments you're expressing have been "proven right time and time again" to border on absurdity. Your sentiments exist prior to virtually every modern war, even those which are now quite obviously just.

[Yoda]

:o This isn't going anywhere.The only place it can go is towards an admission, but people can decide for themselves. And I'm pretty sure I know what they'll decide if no explanation as to the matching IP addresses is offered.


What doesn't add up to you? I am not a presidential advisor and I don't claim to be one, otherwise I wouldn't be here. So I really don't know what is best, but I just wish there was another way, and that war shouldn't even have been one of the priorities. I just got the feeling from Bush that regardless of what happened, that he was bent on destroying Iraq, which he has done successfully. I opposed military action because I saw no reason to go to war with a dictator who was beyond powerless.It doesn't add up to me because the only complaint that you're offering is that our execution of the invasion has been poorly managed. But that complaint can't have existed before we moved in; yet you opposed the war then, too, didn't you? But if you wanted Saddam gone, and he wasn't giving himself up, then why did you first oppose moving in?


Ok, thanks for clearing up.No problem.


Thats one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. The true measure of a country is whether it can battle out with someone worthy of it. Anyone can step on little maggots and claim to be a conqueror and liberator and protector of the world. Not every president can say "I fought in the revolutionary war against the most powerful nation and won" and not every president can say "I stopped Hitler, who for a while was the most powerful man on Earth." Again the true measure of a President and his country is how much they truely believe in their cause.This is just silly, to me. It's not as if our cause would suddenly become more righteous if Iraq were more powerful. It's not right or wrong based on the strength of the enemy. We shouldn't be foolishly taking on countries that can kill vast numbers of our civilians if we don't have to. But if we see a way to remove a dictator heading down that road BEFORE he has the ability to do that to us, it's sensible to take the initiative. You make it sound cowardly, as if America were a bully picking fights, rather than a body of individuals seeking to protect its citizens.


George Bush couldn't give a damn about liberating Iraq, freeing their innocent government prisoners, or restoring a once great nation to its rightful spot.You can believe that if you wish, but you don't know that, and I'm quite convinced that you can't produce much in the way of evidence for it. I don't know what's inside Bush's head, and neither do you. The difference between us, then, is that I'm not pretending to. I'm trying to judge the situation based on what we know to be true, and what is likely to be true. I think this is a far better way of deciding which stance to take than playing guessing games with a politician's motivations, which are probably not black-and-white anyway.


So the US is a filter now. The bad seeds that get through are allowed to grow and oh well too bad we won't stop them anymore.No, not "we won't stop them anymore," just "we can't stop them any way we want." We're not ignoring North Korea; we simply have the common sense to realize that you don't knock down the door if the guy's got a hostage. If a maniac is wielding a gun, you take him down. If he's got it pointed at an innocent bystander, you have no choice but to try to talk him out of it. I find it hard to believe we're even arguing about this; are you suggesting that we invade a country with nuclear weaponry?


Bush is FORCING freedom in a place where it needs to be discovered. Let Iraq rule their own country and let them discover freedom on their own. If I was a prisoner I wouldn't want anyone to come beat my ass until I yelled out 'Okay I want freedom, Democracy is goood"Freedom is not a set of dinosaur bones; it doesn't have to be "discovered." Freedom is a universal concept; do you think many Iraqis were not aware of such a concept? Do you think many of them did not desire it? Many people desire freedom, but do not have the means or ability to obtain it.

Think of the revolutionary war, if you want a historical parallel: we had help from the French in fighting the British. Granted, our role with the Iraqis is more significant, but the concept is the same. Don't you find it at all cold-hearted (as well as perhaps unrealistic) to advocate that no country is worthy of assistance in obtaining a modicum of liberty?


Again, the maturity of admitting you don't know something or could be wrong about it, is greatly appreciated. And I agree with you, here.Likewise. Thank you.

[7thson]

Can those who object to the war in Iraq please explain something to me, and I ask this totally out of curiosty more than anything else. Saddam signed a cease fire agreement (key words "cease fire") This agreement was broken, many times. Why is it that after he violated this treaty he should not have been subjected to military action for doing so? I say "he" and not Iraq, because "he" was a dictator. If you guys can remember this man invaded Kuwait with a "kill on sight" order to his military. Did any of you see the streets of Kuwait after what his military did? Scary how anyone can not see that he needed to be removed, and it was way past time IMO to do so.

[Equilibrium]

Can those who object to the war in Iraq please explain something to me, and I ask this totally out of curiosty more than anything else. Saddam signed a cease fire agreement (key words "cease fire") This agreement was broken, many times. Why is it that after he violated this treaty he should not have been subjected to military action for doing so? I say "he" and not Iraq, because "he" was a dictator. If you guys can remember this man invaded Kuwait with a "kill on sight" order to his military. Did any of you see the streets of Kuwait after what his military did? Scary how anyone can not see that he needed to be removed, and it was way past time IMO to do so.

Your question is easy to answer. The US has broken numerous treaties and UN resolutions in the past. Israel has had 17 Broken UN resolutions within the past 5 years, none of which have been met. Each country does what benifits it, no one really listens to anybody else. Why?

Because the US, who used to be a good example, is no longer so. This country needs to become a model society, and not just the most powerful nation on Earth.

But I don't think you understand....


Most people who oppose the war oppose Saddam as well. Anti-War doesn't mean Pro-Saddam, thats just a silly assumption.

[7thson]

Your question is easy to answer. The US has broken numerous treaties and UN resolutions in the past. Israel has had 17 Broken UN resolutions within the past 5 years, none of which have been met. Each country does what benifits it, no one really listens to anybody else. Why?

Because the US, who used to be a good example, is no longer so. This country needs to become a model society, and not just the most powerful nation on Earth.

But I don't think you understand....


Most people who oppose the war oppose Saddam as well. Anti-War doesn't mean Pro-Saddam, thats just a silly assumption.
Okay for the sake of argument lets say everything you say is true and backed up by facts.
Now I ask again, was it okay for Saddam to break the cease fire and not be held accountable?

[Equilibrium]

Okay for the sake of argument lets say everything you say is true and backed up by facts.
Now I ask again, was it okay for Saddam to break the cease fire and not be held accountable?
No it wasn't. But it also wasn't ok for the US to totally destory a country when other means where at hand.

[Tea Barking]

Iraq is destroying itself by various factions trying to get power.
The us is trying its best to get iraq to become a stable nation.
Wheter it was right or not to invade doesnt matter anymore, what matters is to get iraq back on its feet.
And thanks to the us it will probably be a nicer place to live in years to come, unless the iraq people destroy all that.
Surely even you cant be against that?

[7thson]

No it wasn't. But it also wasn't ok for the US to totally destory a country when other means where at hand.
The country is hardly totally destoyed my friend, I know I have been there.

[Equilibrium]

The country is hardly totally destoyed my friend, I know I have been there.

Then you haven't been there 20 years ago, in its prime. Bagdad, the most beautiful city on earth, now a ****hole.

[7thson]

Then you haven't been there 20 years ago, in its prime. Bagdad, the most beautiful city on earth, now a ****hole.20 Years ago? Well actually I was there in 1988 not exactly 20 years but close. I think you missunderstand my thoughts here, I am not trying to convince you of anything, especially since your beliefs seem to be seared into your brain. Thats your right and I respect that, but your preceptions are definitely skewed a bit. I sense a hatred for Bush here more than a concern for Iraq, but thats just on the surface, I am sure deep down that isnt true.

[Tea Barking]

I'm intrested to know where you live equilibrium.

[Equilibrium]

My hatred for Bush stems mainly from his actions in Iraq, I at the very least respected his father. I have NO respect for this new shadow of a president. I live in the US.

[Caitlyn]

Then you haven't been there 20 years ago, in its prime. Bagdad, the most beautiful city on earth, now a ****hole.


You will see that the U.S. did more harm than good in the newly occupied lands. Undoubtedly, the city has become a garbage can, everything is now ugly and defaced, garabge galore on the streets, no jobs, and a very unhappy population. What the U.S. DID do was take out Saddam and that is a good thing, but was the price worth it it? Was it worth destroying all the beautiful buildings and architectures in Bagdad just because? The city looks like a total ****hole now. Throughout history Bagdad has been the center of art and literature. Many Renaissance experts believe that the spectacular movement began in Bagdad and spread to Europe. Even 15 years ago, Bagdad was still a beautiful city to visit, with skyscrapers and modern buildings, all of which have been rendered ugly and useless by the bombings.

Source: WAR ON IRAQ:BIG mistake (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=149361&postcount=241)


Just in case anyone had any lingering doubts on exactly who Equilibrium is...

[Equilibrium]

Just in case anyone had any lingering doubts on exactly who Equilibrium is...
I don't exactly see the correlation actually. I can pull up many posts of other members saying the exact same thing as you, but that doesn't mean you are the embodiement of them. I just don't see how two coherent opinions draws you to conclude we are the same person. I have read his other posts as well and I can show you how most of what he has said DOESN'T correspond with what I am saying. You see this arguement can run both ways, now can we please drop the matter.

[LordSlaytan]

Dude, get real. Nobody wants to ban you or anything, so there's no reason to deny it like you did the last two times you pretended to be a new user.

[Equilibrium]

Dude, get real. Nobody wants to ban you or anything, so there's no reason to deny it like you did the last two times you pretended to be a new user.
Banned? What exactly for? No, you're right I don't need to deny anything, I have nothing to hide and I really believe in everything I say.

[Piddzilla]

Sorry about the late respond. I suppose the discussion has moved on since my last post, even if it appears to be mostly about Equilibrium's real identity. Anyway, I have to respond to the comments on my post, especially those by Yodle-La-HOO-HOOOO.

And how many died under Saddam? Hundreds of thousands have been found in mass graves. Moreover, Saddam's oppression, while apparently tempered in recent years, was an ongoing, indefinite thing; the invasion was/is not.

I don't think Saddam was immortal, but I know what you mean... Even though I think the "invasion" should have to last for at least a decade in order to make sure that when leaving Iraq they have a secure and well functioning nation to run on their own.

What in my post suggested that there was no reason to oppose Saddam on humanitarian grounds? You said you couldn't understand opposition based on humanity, and just because I can comprehend such a thing does not make me pro-Saddam.

So if I understand you correctly, as long as the numbers of dead civilians are lower during this one, two or three years of occupation than during Saddam's decades in power, you think the iraqis should be satisfied?

Moreover, you make liberty sound like some sort of trinket, or American-specific desire, rather than a fundamental human right.

When we were talking about different kinds of liberty while discussing the Patriot Act I and II you weren't that interested in fundamental human rights....

Anywayz...

I do believe that liberty is a fundamental right. I do not believe that America should be able to refurnish the world left and right because of unclear reasons and then try and justify it by saying it was all done in the name of liberty. Because, no matter how good of a job the most part of the soldiers are doing in Iraq, that was and is not the reason to why USA invaded Iraq. And even if the situation in Iraq is still chaotic in january 2006 (or whatever the date was) my guess is that USA will move out of there even if peace and liberty is far away.

Almost nobody "knew" that. Virtually every major intelligence agency in the world that I recall hearing from on the matter claimed Iraq had WMDs of some sort sometime within the last 5 years or so, including France, and the previous American administration. The idea that the WMD claim was unique to Bush, or even America, is demonstrably false.

Ever heard of Hans Blix, the man appointed by the UN to investigate the existence or non-existence of WMD:s in Iraq? Simple question: Did he find any WMD:s?

And why did Colin Powell reportedly say "I won't read this crap!" when he got the evidence he was supposed to present to the world in his hands?

Now you're just arguing politics. I don't particularly care what some politicians or pundits may have shifted emphasis on. The reasons are there regardless of who thought them, when, or why. A discussion about the intent of our leadership is wholly seperate from a discussion about whether or not their actions were defensible.

Politics?? So you do admit that the grounds that US went to war on was actually false? And of course it is politics! If your elected leaders tell the american people that they are going to war to secure the american homeland, while the reasons actually are something completely different, don't you think the people in a democracy like USA should have the right to know that??

If the numbers were the opposite, say a little under a thousand dead iraqi civilians and about 10.000 dead american soldiers, do you still think the actions would be defensible?

As for "unnecessary" -- I guess that depends on how far your humanitarian sentiments go. Apparently civilian life is incredibly important to you when it is lost at the hands of an American force, but when these deaths come at the hands of a dictator like Saddam, the sympathy well dries up in favor of a doctrine of inaction. Why?

I assure you that civilian life was just as "incredibly important" to me when Saddam was in power. It was just as "incredibly important" to me when US left Iraq the first time and turned their back on the kurds and the shia muslims, who they are now fighting (oh, I wonder why they don't trust americans), and it was just as "incredibly important" to me when UN decided that sanctions was the best way to deal with Saddam, only it didn't touch him, only hurt the iraqi people. I never opposed an invasion, read my post in the earlier threads before the war and you'll see that. I opposed a US-led invasion because it is not for the sake of liberation and I opposed it because I didn't think it would be carried out in such a way that Iraq would transform into a safer place. Which it hasn't.

Yeah. What kind of a moron invades despotic nations with atrocious civil rights violations and ties to terrorism? And I really hate living in the fastest growing major economy in the world. I'd much prefer the double-digit unemployment and roundabout pacifism of Europe.

Eh.. ok. I don't know what that last thing has to do with this... even if I don't know which european country you're talking about. What about Africa? Or Asia?

True. Bush would never invade a democracy. That would be very hard for him to justify. But the reason to why he invaded Iraq was not that it was a despotic nation with atrocious civil rights violations *cough cough* Guantanamo Bay *cough* or that he wanted to bring liberty to the iraqis. Saudiarabia is a despotic nation who does not give a damn about civil rights and Bush thinks they are kind of cool.

About the terrorist ties... What terrorist ties?

To 7thson. Don't get me wrong, I think you're basically right and I agree with you pretty much. I just don't think your leaders share your sincerity or your aims with their actions.

[7thson]

To 7thson. Don't get me wrong, I think you're basically right and I agree with you pretty much. I just don't think your leaders share your sincerity or your aims with their actions.
In relationship to the war I have to say you are probably right, but if the train is going in your direction anyway why not hitch a ride.

[Sir Toose]

Just out of curiosity... that little counter is tied into ...what?

I think everyone understands that war costs a lot of money. A pertinent question remains, though. Why weren't all those kids immunized when the military was shrunk down during the previous presidential term? Oh what great things could have been done with that surplus!

If you want to look at cost as a whole to this nation check out what happens with trade deficits and how those are somehow never reconciled.

[Caitlyn]

Just out of curiosity... that little counter is tied into ...what?


Their arses perhaps… sorry, but that whole site is a bit of a joke to me because it is very misleading… over half of the links that will supposedly support their claims don’t work, and if you look past their little “counter” it doesn’t take long to figure out their main objective is anti-war/anti-Bush…

Their claim over their counter states “The War in Iraq Cost the United States”… and then tries to substantiate that claim based on estimated Congressional Appropriations… the first appropriation was for 79 billion and the second for 87 billion…I haven’t checked out the first 79 billion yet but I did the 87 billion… and what that site neglects to make clear is the 87 million supported not only ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but relief and reconstruction efforts in both countries as well… reconstruction and relief that includes food, medicine, electricity, safe drinking water, irrigations systems, sanitation systems, roads, bridges, public housing, railways, airports, communication systems, etc. for the Iraqi and Afghani people…. The appropriation also includes funds to set up an Iraqi and Afghani government and the security needed to maintain those governments… plus relief aide to various surrounding countries for Iraqi and Afghani refugees…

Did anyone else notice that out of the eight options that site claims those funds could have aided, only three actually dealt with anyone/anything outside of the United States?

[Yoda]

Their claim over their counter states “The War in Iraq Cost the United States”… and then tries to substantiate that claim based on estimated Congressional Appropriations… the first appropriation was for 79 billion and the second for 87 billion…I haven’t checked out the first 79 billion yet but I did the 87 billion… and what that site neglects to make clear is the 87 million supported not only ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but relief and reconstruction efforts in both countries as well… reconstruction and relief that includes food, medicine, electricity, safe drinking water, irrigations systems, sanitation systems, roads, bridges, public housing, railways, airports, communication systems, etc. for the Iraqi and Afghani people…. The appropriation also includes funds to set up an Iraqi and Afghani government and the security needed to maintain those governments… plus relief aide to various surrounding countries for Iraqi and Afghani refugees…They also failed to neglect that the $87 billion voted on was to be spread out over five years, I believe.

It's a gimmick, plain and simple. A big number for people to become awestruck by.

[Equilibrium]

They also failed to neglect that the $87 billion voted on was to be spread out over five years, I believe.

It's a gimmick, plain and simple. A big number for people to become awestruck by.
Yes, but not entirely false. The number shown IS the cost of the war..regardless of the time span. It includes relief, reconstruction, everything, but it is the cost of this whole ordeal, no matter how you look at it.

[Yoda]

Yes, but not entirely false. The number shown IS the cost of the war..regardless of the time span. It includes relief, reconstruction, everything, but it is the cost of this whole ordeal, no matter how you look at it.Question: if Bush said something that you thought was misleading, and my defense of it was that it was "not entirely false," would you be satisfied?

[Yoda]

Not to be a stickler, but you never answered my post on page one (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=163747&postcount=47).

Your question is easy to answer. The US has broken numerous treaties and UN resolutions in the past. Israel has had 17 Broken UN resolutions within the past 5 years, none of which have been met.That's not an answer, unless you believe that UN resolutions are unimportant. That's like saying "so what if they broke the law? These other people did, and they got away with it." Consistency is needed, yes, but you can't excuse defiance by pointing to another instance in which it was not dealt with.

That's not even delving into the matter that each resolution is unique, and violating some is far more serious than violating others.


No it wasn't. But it also wasn't ok for the US to totally destory a country when other means where at hand.What other means? Is there a nice, clean way to invade a country and overthrow it's government that the U.S. military is unaware of?


I don't exactly see the correlation actually. I can pull up many posts of other members saying the exact same thing as you, but that doesn't mean you are the embodiement of them. I just don't see how two coherent opinions draws you to conclude we are the same person. I have read his other posts as well and I can show you how most of what he has said DOESN'T correspond with what I am saying. You see this arguement can run both ways, now can we please drop the matter.It doesn't run both ways at all, because those other members wouldn't have IP addresses identical to Cait's.

Drop the facade, man. We all see through it.

[Sir Toose]

but it is the cost of this whole ordeal, no matter how you look at it.

Repeat:
Your validating data source for that counter is?


Don't tell me that web counter is tied to some sort of governmental war expenditure database. If you said that I'd think that you were being ridiculous.

Plus, in accounting, there is no AP without an AR. There is payback... look at the dollars and where they go. They don't disappear into the desert never to be seen again.

[Sir Toose]

Your question is easy to answer. The US has broken numerous treaties and UN resolutions in the past. Israel has had 17 Broken UN resolutions within the past 5 years, none of which have been met.

The reason that the US is in Iraq is because Iraq broke the UN Treaty (cease fire) that it signed during the first Gulf War. There were 40+ resolutions and Iraq broke over half of them.

[Yoda]

I don't think Saddam was immortal, but I know what you mean... Even though I think the "invasion" should have to last for at least a decade in order to make sure that when leaving Iraq they have a secure and well functioning nation to run on their own.Perhaps so. Either way, the loss is more of a one-time thing, and at least is being done to grant liberty to those who live. That counts for something.


What in my post suggested that there was no reason to oppose Saddam on humanitarian grounds? You said you couldn't understand opposition based on humanity, and just because I can comprehend such a thing does not make me pro-Saddam.I'm not saying you are pro-Saddam, but if you opposed invasion, you're not really left with much in the way of overthrowing him, and therefore, there isn't really wouldn't be any adequate to stop him from doing what he was doing; which would be the primary aim of someone whose concerns were humanitarian in nature.


So if I understand you correctly, as long as the numbers of dead civilians are lower during this one, two or three years of occupation than during Saddam's decades in power, you think the iraqis should be satisfied?No. I can't put a number on it. But I do know that 10,000 killed in a war of liberation cannot be compared to over 200,000 killed at a dictator's whim.


When we were talking about different kinds of liberty while discussing the Patriot Act I and II you weren't that interested in fundamental human rights....

Anywayz...I'm plenty interested in fundamental human rights; I'm pretty sure I'm the one who brought it up when discussing the Patriot Act, while stating that the "rights" the Act infringes on are nowhere near "fundamental" rights.


I do believe that liberty is a fundamental right. I do not believe that America should be able to refurnish the world left and right because of unclear reasons and then try and justify it by saying it was all done in the name of liberty. Because, no matter how good of a job the most part of the soldiers are doing in Iraq, that was and is not the reason to why USA invaded Iraq.How do you know why the USA invaded Iraq? Many, many reasons were given (23, by one person's count). What method do you have of determining which ones played a role more than others?

As for unclear reasons; I've listed many very clear reasons, and so has the administration. Ties to terrorism first and foremost, followed by civil rights violations, and suspicion of WMD-possession. What exactly is unclear?


And even if the situation in Iraq is still chaotic in january 2006 (or whatever the date was) my guess is that USA will move out of there even if peace and liberty is far away.Can't argue with speculation. I guess we'll see.


Ever heard of Hans Blix, the man appointed by the UN to investigate the existence or non-existence of WMD:s in Iraq? Simple question: Did he find any WMD:s?No, he didn't. That doesn't really address what I said, though. The WMDs weren't there, and a few people thought they wouldn't be. MOST thought they would, include several other major foreign intelligence agencies, various U.S. politicians in both parties, and the previous U.S. administration. It is impossible, then, for the WMD-failure to be solely Bush's.


And why did Colin Powell reportedly say "I won't read this crap!" when he got the evidence he was supposed to present to the world in his hands?Source? Assuming it's truth, I'd say it's because he wasn't wholly confident in the intelligence. And neither was Bush, actually; he expressed skepticism of the evidence he was shown by CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee). Tenet described the existence of WMDs as a "slam dunk."


Politics?? So you do admit that the grounds that US went to war on was actually false?Uh, no. Where did I say that?


And of course it is politics! If your elected leaders tell the american people that they are going to war to secure the american homeland, while the reasons actually are something completely different, don't you think the people in a democracy like USA should have the right to know that??Sure they should. I'm merely pointing out that you've stopped arguing about the war, and started arguing about Bush. What you're saying now is true, but it isn't an argument against the War in Iraq.


If the numbers were the opposite, say a little under a thousand dead iraqi civilians and about 10.000 dead american soldiers, do you still think the actions would be defensible?Defensible? Yes. The same logic would apply.


I assure you that civilian life was just as "incredibly important" to me when Saddam was in power. It was just as "incredibly important" to me when US left Iraq the first time and turned their back on the kurds and the shia muslims, who they are now fighting (oh, I wonder why they don't trust americans), and it was just as "incredibly important" to me when UN decided that sanctions was the best way to deal with Saddam, only it didn't touch him, only hurt the iraqi people. I never opposed an invasion, read my post in the earlier threads before the war and you'll see that. I opposed a US-led invasion because it is not for the sake of liberationThat doesn't make any sense. You're saying that you can want something to happen, but oppose it when it does based on the reasons you THINK the person is doing it, even if they're doing what you want them to do.


and I opposed it because I didn't think it would be carried out in such a way that Iraq would transform into a safer place. Which it hasn't.What way is that? And on what grounds do you state that Iraq is not a safer place?

All polls show that most Iraqi people are glad Saddam is gone, and most letters from soldiers on the ground say that the situation is not nearly as violent and chaotic as it would appear based on the scattered news reports (which are obviously not going to report peace; you can't report non-events).


Eh.. ok. I don't know what that last thing has to do with this... even if I don't know which european country you're talking about. What about Africa? Or Asia?I didn't have a specific European nation in mind. I can grab specific bits of data if you like, but last I looked virtually every nation in Europe had a significantly bleaker economic picture than the United States. Not exactly war related, but it certainly speaks against the idea that Bush is a "mess," given the tremendous success of his economic policies.


True. Bush would never invade a democracy. That would be very hard for him to justify. But the reason to why he invaded Iraq was not that it was a despotic nation with atrocious civil rights violations *cough cough* Guantanamo Bay *cough* or that he wanted to bring liberty to the iraqis. Saudiarabia is a despotic nation who does not give a damn about civil rights and Bush thinks they are kind of cool.Because they've given in and agreed to cooperate with weeding out terrorism. Saddam, on the other hand, was defiant to the last.


About the terrorist ties... What terrorist ties?Exactly. You know quite well that we found no WMDs, and that there was no demonstrable connection between Iraq and 9/11 (though links to Al-Qaeda exist), but you probably haven't heard that Saddam was offering cash to the families of suicide bombers, or that he harbored one of the 1993 WTC bombers, or that he attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. All too often, we investigate selectively.

Bush declared war on terrorism; don't you think these sorts of things qualify?

Moreover, on Monday, an AP story from Cairo detailed a letter sent from some of the militant leaders in Iraq to Osama bin Laden, stating that "The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening."

Iraq is a clear, obvious part of the war on terror. It's benefits range from altruistic (the liberation of an oppressed people) to military (fighting terrorism) to diplomatic (establishing a second democracy in the other). I don't know which of these reasons, if any, served as the primary motivator for action. All I know is that these benefits exist, and they justify the action easily, on both humanitarian and pragmatic grounds.

[Equilibrium]

Question: if Bush said something that you thought was misleading, and my defense of it was that it was "not entirely false," would you be satisfied?

My main point is, while the number may be misleading (slightly), you must admit that its not an immense exageration and that at least 80% of that money on the counter is an accurate representation of money being spent, if not more. You don't need validating data and links to figure that one out. If you would like a website with a list of how much each weapon costs to manufacture upkeep and arm, as well as how many the US is using, let me know, I can dig up something. Its more than you think, not to mention things are cheaper when they go through ther military, those 'relief' packages come at 1$ a piece when if they were sold commercially...try 12$.So yes, the number is misleading, but in both ways....but saying that at least 80% if that money is actually being spent on this war is reasonable wouldn't you say?

I don't know about you, but even half that amount isn't worth spending for whats happening in Iraq now.

[Equilibrium]

The reason that the US is in Iraq is because Iraq broke the UN Treaty (cease fire) that it signed during the first Gulf War. There were 40+ resolutions and Iraq broke over half of them.

I don't do this often, but prove it. Show me the name of these 40 resolutions and a link to an explanation of each. Theres no way Iraq can break 40 resolutions when an embargo and sanction stricter than any before was implaced on it.

[Equilibrium]

Not to be a stickler, but you never answered my post on page one (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=163747&postcount=47).

Sorry, but I forgot about reading that, but that arguement can go on forever, and instead ill just answer this post, and hope to remember to recheck your reply, eh I'll make SURE I recheck it.


That's not an answer, unless you believe that UN resolutions are unimportant. That's like saying "so what if they broke the law? These other people did, and they got away with it." Consistency is needed, yes, but you can't excuse defiance by pointing to another instance in which it was not dealt with.
Well then, if its ok to let some people get away with something and not others..I'm going to choose to let hmmmm JAPANESE people steal at the place I work and not say anything, but if a SPANISH man steals, I am going to alert the manager of the store and get all up in his ass. It doesn't work that way Yoda, no one is going to respect a country with double standards, selective hearing, selective punshing, and what not. If I was being punished for a crime knowing that someone else was being let free having commited the same crime, I'm going to reject the US too and reject the punishment. Its time to grow up. You said it yourself, consistency is needed.


That's not even delving into the matter that each resolution is unique, and violating some is far more serious than violating others.
I'm glad you aren't my moral advisor or anything lol. Because according to you, I can steal a 1$ pack of gum but not the 2$ one. :(.


What other means? Is there a nice, clean way to invade a country and overthrow it's government that the U.S. military is unaware of?
I can't answer you, I've said this before, I don't know the best solution, but I do know this is not it. I thought it was at first, after afghanistan I didn't mind going for Iraq, but then (before the US actually went in) I became staunchly against it.


It doesn't run both ways at all, because those other members wouldn't have IP addresses identical to Cait's.

Drop the facade, man. We all see through it.

Well, then why don't I just become whatever you want me to be, since you just aren't getting the fact that I'm not who you think I am. And also if you can see through me, doesn't that mean you can't see me? :p

[Sir Toose]

I don't do this often, but prove it. Show me the name of these 40 resolutions and a link to an explanation of each. Theres no way Iraq can break 40 resolutions when an embargo and sanction stricter than any before was implaced on it.

Sorry, don't have time. Plus I don't feel like doing your homework for you. I gave you the pertinent data, look it up. Look at what Iraq signed with the UN including France, Germany, Russia et al in 1992-1993 to stop the Gulf War. It's on the US govt page as well.

Sheez! :rolleyes:

If you're going to be so argumentative the least you can do is have your facts straight.

Django:Part Deux.

[Equilibrium]

Sorry, don't have time. Plus I don't feel like doing your homework for you. I gave you the pertinent data, look it up. Look at what Iraq signed with the UN including France, Germany, Russia et al in 1992-1993 to stop the Gulf War. It's on the US govt page as well.

Sheez! :rolleyes:

If you're going to be so argumentative the least you can do is have your facts straight.

Django:Part Deux.
I take offense to that. All you had to do was say 'look it up yourself, because I am not entirly sure I can back what I am saying up'.

YOU'RE the one who made the claim, not me, therefore its YOUR responsiblity to provide backup. I can always backup what I say, if you ask for it, and I'd appreciate it if people did the same when I ask them.

BUT, since you don't have time, I'll let you slide this time and go look up the info for you. And drop the insults, please.

[Sir Toose]

I take offense to that. All you had to do was say 'look it up yourself, because I am not entirly sure I can back what I am saying up'.



Actually it's like this:

"I've argued this stuff to death and everything I'm saying has already been backed up on this site in various threads and you're just another one I'd have to repeat it for".

I actually MAY decide not to let you slide ... I'm not entirely sure about that yet. If animated counters back up your data then I'm not all that interested.

BTW, I didn't insult you.

[Equilibrium]

BTW, I didn't insult you.

Django:Part Deux.
:rolleyes:

[Sir Toose]

Yeah... that was more of a shot than I intended it to be. Sorry about that.

Anyways, f*ck it, Check this link... it describes 17 of the violations in question:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

[Golgot]

Yep. It's also technically possible that this is just someone else on his computer, or (a bit more unlikely) someone on the same network. Either way, it's pretty clear that, if this isn't SPIDER, it's a friend who he encouraged to post. Far more likely that it's him, however, given that he's already created several accounts and has been repeatedly unable to stop trying to get the last word in.

Fair enough. I know not about these technical things.

In a year of major combat, followed by repeated suicide bombings, the Iraqi civilian lives lost are still estimated at less than 1/20th of those found in various mass graves in Iraq...and those are just the ones we know of.

I think your objection would hold a lot of weight were I assuming that Iraq would become a nice, calm, peaceful nation anytime soon. But all I'm assuming is that the situation has improved, and is likely to remain better than it was before. That is not a particularly generous assumption.

If no stability can be established, then Iraq will continue in its current situation of being a hotbed for islamic-extremism/terrorism (far more than it ever was before. Notice the renewed recent evidence that Osama's attempts to work with Saddam never came to fruition. As much as militants obviously did manage to work within the superficially-secular Iraq, there's no evidence that they were endorsed or aided. In the current climate they're blatantly free to run amok and have a set of conveniently non-muslim targets to aim at)

All of this impacts significantly on the populace, who are still sustained by hope of improvement, as far as i can tell, more than by actual improvements in their lives. This is the central argument which runs against the "things-are-better-and-therefore-its-reasonable-to-expect-them-to-stay-better" argument.

I'm afraid your assumption that things are better conveniently ignores this aspect of contemporary Iraq (and the failings in the invasions' implementation which facilitate this situation)

I don't think America was much easier. As you'll remember, there was quite a bit of "power-politics" and money/land-grabbing going on. Hell, we even had a civil war; if Iraqi were to devolve into civil war, I imagine you'd hail it as a failure in a heartbeat. But given that we came through one, wouldn't such a judgement be premature? Were American turmoils worth it, Gol?

Of course it was worth it (throwing off us nasty Brit imperialists seems to have benefitted all the larger nations we lorded it over during our days of mass-world-influence ;))

But it's a distinct situation in several core ways:

(a) There was no comparable religious clash. And as history has constantly shown, when religion is the wedge between factions, resolution requires seas of blood. The culture clash between "West" and "Arabic" is far stronger than the "Old World" vs "New World" one of that time.

(b) The US was an established, nigh-on stand-alone, region. Iraq has a far more unstable make-up.

Interesting that you chose the example of a nation throwing off a self-profiting system imposed by an empire tho ;) :p

Comparably, i think the US might prove a lot easier. Iraq's context is a lot messier. Again, one of my criticisms is that we didn't address that context. Which is foolish.

As for "liberty from what" -- I hope you're not implying that international politics, even if pressure of some sort is involved, can even begin to approach previous Iraqi oppression. Things aren't perfect, but we should be able to agree that the modern concept of "liberty" -- even if you have your complaints about some of those at the top -- is infinitely more desirable than living under a dictator.

No, i'm saying three main things:

(a) Even the liberty to struggle towards a form of self-government, as the US did, is yet to be established. (and i have douvts about the proceedure, because...)

(b)This potential was damaged from the outset by the divisive political atmosphere in which the regime change was was enacted by the US. Better to recognise the role these influences have played in destabilising the Middle East in the first place and come to a mutually-benefitting accord to keep it as stable as possible.

(c)This has contributed to the lack of multi-national man-power on the ground that could have limited the levels of fundamentalist-terrorism which continue the legacy of fear in iraq. (i don't think that man-power would have necessarily avoided the mishaps we've seen in encarceration/intimidation terms, but again it would have had a alightly better chance of doing so)

I somewhat agree. I think we can say that they have "liberty" in one sense, because I think they're already freer than they were, but the job is not done; I don't deny that. We cannot pass much judgement before June 30th; and how much we can pass after that remains to be seen.

I think it's only the hope inspired by a Saddam-free-iraq, and the potential of a self-determining constituition, that distinguishes the situation for the average iraqi. Honestly. I still say the actual situation is genuinely comparable, currently, in that there is random fear and infrastructure destruction caused by the extremists, and the continued presence of sometimes arbitary torture.

That said tho, i'm hopeful of improvement. But from what i've seen, the hand-over is still relatively cosmetic. I don't see it as a definitive moment that will bring any great liberty to the average iraqi or seismic change to their political self-empowerment. But we'll see.

I think you've misunderstood me; I was saying that it wasn't an American-only ideal.

Ah, fair enough. My mistake.

There's a hint of that sentiment in the "freedom just won't work in Iraq" argument, which I don't buy. Historically, bets against freedom overwhelmingly fail, even if not immediately. It's a wild card, and it tends to trump all the others. Call me idealistic, but I believe it can override whatever cultural differences Iraqis might have with countries like ours.

I'm not saying that. But i still argue that the form the invasion took lessened the chances of an iraqi-empowering and politically conducisive outcome.

This is more up for debate than I think you care to admit. Direct threat? Probably not. Indirect? Possible, and perhaps even likely. Saddam was like a murder suspect with a motive, and a really bad rap sheet who we just couldn't pin the murder weapon to. He supported terrorism, attempted an assassination, possessed ban weapons, and had weapons labs which were clearly part of an ongoing attempt to re-accquire WMDs, which he'd manage to do once before.

Imminent threat? No. Growing threat? I don't see how anyone could deny it.


Oh, it's very up for debate, i agree. I'd certainly agree he was trying to aquire WMD, and could have gained some with the potential for ballistic local usuage earlier even than the 7-year-or-so projections that are touted now that we've looked at his facilities.

The question is: why did he want them. Certainly not for launch against the US etc. That's utterly unfeasible. It was for local leverage, almost certainly (the same reason he funded anti-israeli terrorism it seems. Staying in with the neighbours. As for trying to assissinate Bush senior, well, that was personal ;)). Now, he may have been able to use that leverage in ways which further destabilised the Middle East, and for that reason alone replacing him is certainly something I agree with.

And I agree with it because Iraq was one of the places where invasion could have the most positive effect. Saudi Arabia is already brimming over with extremists and terrorism-fomentation, and would have caused even greater uproar in the islamic world. Iran equally so. A secular and democratic iraq could have a highly beneficial effect on these borderline-insane nations. That's why it's such a shame we've potentially ballsed it up.

I don't know that it is the biggest question, but let's assume for a moment that it is.

I won't pretend to have the answer, of course. But I think it's a safe bet that, whatever motive was involved, there were probably additional motives. Several, I would imagine. We're all reasonable people here, so hopefully we can agree, for example, that even if Bush was licking his lips over the thought of all that Middle Eastern oil, he still took the human rights violations into account. This should be a given, unless you're convinced that he's not only incompetent, but pure evil, as well.

Additionally, I think it's pretty clear that they honestly, genuinely expected to find WMDs....

Even the idea that they knowingly exaggerated the claims feels a bit shaky, if you believe Woodward's claim that former CIA director George Tenet told a skeptical Bush that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."

There must be multiple motivations, certainly. I agree that Bush, as a born-again, is undoubtably motivated by the humanitarian aspect. As is Blair. The question is whether they've combined this general principle with the politically-expedient motivations for invasion, and convinced themselves this makes it alright (again tho, i think Blair pushed for the more workable appraoch to regime change, and as such i'm afraid he gets a touch more kudos from me)

Let's look at the politically expedient reasons for invasion:

a) ensuring access to oil, and prevention of a shift away from petrodollar trade. (both of huuuuuge economic importance)

b) an opportunity to nullify the present and future offensive potentials of Iraq, and put the frightners on the ruling bodies of local nations like Iran, S.Arabia and Syria. (yes, i think Bush-n-co thought they were some WMDs. Although Blair has certainly made it clear he thought Saddam having weapons capable of use on his own populace was reason enough to go in, in his mind. In this he shows a potential naivity that means he loses political-effectiveness-kudos with me. Heigh ho ;))

c) International terrorism? If this was a reason then the US-centric appraoch was incredibly naive. Currently i think it's been counter-productive on that front.

Agreed. But, in all fairness, opposition to the war is damn near synonymous with inaction. Saddam wasn't about to put his hands up and walk out of the building, and he'd made a habit of deception and defiance.

Opposition to war-in-this-way. How many times to me and Piddz have to explain our position? We, and so many other anti-this-war people, are up for the idea of removing Saddam. We just think it's been done in a counter productive way.

My answer (which I'm sure is different from your own) is that Saudi Arabia has shown a genuine willingness to cooperate with the war on terrorism; a stark contrast to the actions of Hussein's Iraq.

Its supposed willingness to combat terrorism has been shown frequently to be at best inept, and at worst superficial and a sham. Saudi Arabia has proved a very strong political ally for the US inside OPEC and the Middle East, while the US in turn has turned a blind eye to it's undemocratic and liberty-opressing ways (yes, we disagree ;)).

Remember, we're not just going after entire countries based on what some of their people do. We're going after the terrorists, and those that harbor them. If a country aligns themselves against those actions, and shows itself willing to help root out those responsible on some level, I don't see how they would qualify.

Saddam didn't harbour terrorists. The recent inquiry has just reiterated the evidence relating to this.

There are far worse culprits in international-terrorism terms. Saudi Arabian ministers have boasted of the amounts given to Palestinian terrorist groups previously, and nothing was done. Recently, 3 out of 4 terrorist managed to escape from a sealed building where they'd been killing none-muslims, despite being surrounded by police. The point about the Saudis rulers is, they're either paying lip service to the idea coz they don't want to upset the muslim hardliners in their country, or they're just too isolated and uninfluential to do anything.

All this action has shown is inconsistancy and inappropriateness, taken within the "we're fighting terrorism" argument.

A broad-based rescue-job on the iraq regime-change could send a far stronger signal out, which would get some moderates back on side, rather than polarising issues further as has so far been achieved. But there are still impediments which derive from the unilateral-US approach. (i'm feeling like a broken record here ;))

I was not suggesting that economic prosperity enhanced our decision-making abilities. I was merely responding to Pid's general statement that Bush was a "mess." My point was that the country, and the man, far from being a mess, have some damn significant achivements to its/his name over the last several years.

I understand your anger (and defensiveness ;)), but what do you say to the idea that, at the very least, Bush has messed up his handling of the US's relations with the world? And because those relationships impinge on everything from Iraq to the "war on terror", his administration is responsible for creating a mess which wasn't there before.

I think I understand why people oppose Bush, yes. What gets me is that people who oppose him are always ignoring or rationalizing his accomplishments, and denying any potential benefit or upside. I hate to say it, Gol, but I think you're guilty of this, too. I touched on this in a post a month or two back, wherein I noted that you've been critical of virtually every little step along the way in Iraq, and when Bush does more or less exactly what you think he ought to in regards to something like free trade, your only comment is to complain that he didn't do more, or didn't do it sooner.

Erm, i think you'll find i said it was good when he reversed idiotic protectionist measures of his own devising. I don't think you should really expect me to praise him for that. As for his management of your internal economics, i'm not informed enough to pass judgement, so as such i can't either praise or damn him. I feel your interpretations of his causal responsability for economic success are a touch biased, and so i'm reserving judgement.

Like many people, i'm angry at Bush's (political and economic)international policies, and his ecological approaches, so i'm as naturally biased towards doubting his efficacy and motives as you are to believing in them. But i do try to see positives where positives exist. :)

[Golgot]

Yeah... that was more of a shot than I intended it to be. Sorry about that.

Anyways, f*ck it, Check this link... it describes 17 of the violations in question:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Just a little comment - most of those violations related to the weapons teams and to civillian treatment.

They show the pressure to keep the weapon inspections working was there. They neglect the fact that sanctions were also majorly to blame for civillian strife (and a minimum 1/2 million extra deaths over the whole period).

These things show that, on humanitarian levels, things needed to change, certainly. On their own though, they just show that Saddam is as bad as many other dictators. He was just one we were keeping our eye on.

[Equilibrium]

Yeah... that was more of a shot than I intended it to be. Sorry about that.

Anyways, f*ck it, Check this link... it describes 17 of the violations in question:

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Well, most of those violations, as Golgot stated, are related to UN weapons inspectors and how acessible they are to Facilities and such. Actually I don't even know why I am replying, Golgot did a wonderful job.

But they have been broken nonetheless. Ok, back to finding the OTHER 23 violations you speak of.

[7thson]

Well, most of those violations, as Golgot stated, are related to UN weapons inspectors and how acessible they are to Facilities and such. Actually I don't even know why I am replying, Golgot did a wonderful job.

But they have been broken nonetheless. Ok, back to finding the OTHER 23 violations you speak of.I dont care if it was one or 40 he needed to go bottom line. I have seen what he has done.

[Zeiken]

Okay.......in with the good air.........hold.......hold......feel the chi......and breathe out. Feel better? Aight, as you were. :D

[Equilibrium]

I dont care if it was one or 40 he needed to go bottom line. I have seen what he has done.

Well see, that makes me a little bothered. When someone says he has 40+ resolutions that have been broken..then when confrronted about it, they back off and say "I don't care.." that kinda throws me off...

Am I the only one whose concerned about this, someone let me know if I am being unreasonable...

[Sir Toose]

Well see, that makes me a little bothered. When someone says he has 40+ resolutions that have been broken..then when confrronted about it, they back off and say "I don't care.." that kinda throws me off...

Am I the only one whose concerned about this, someone let me know if I am being unreasonable...

Did you read my post?

I said

"There were 40+ resolutions and Iraq broke over half of them."

Emphasis on HALF.

I showed you 17 of around 20. They were all cause to go to war as when that document was signed it was signed as a binding agreement to cease fire. No one said well, you guys can just obey half and we'll let the other half slide ok? You left guys whine and cry about the UN being so almighty important and then when it comes to supporting an actual UN resolution that was signed by the entire freaking council YOU backpedal and say that it's okay to do it.

With or without WMD's, with or without imminent threat the US (with ALL backing signatories I might add) had cause to continue the mission against Iraq due to violation of UN contract (that you hold so dear).

[7thson]

Well see, that makes me a little bothered. When someone says he has 40+ resolutions that have been broken..then when confrronted about it, they back off and say "I don't care.." that kinda throws me off...

Am I the only one whose concerned about this, someone let me know if I am being unreasonable...No I can easily back what I say up (and I do not remeber mentioning 40?), I just dont feel like I should have to, it is common knowledge and even admitted by the UN and others including Hussein. What I am mean when I am saying "I do not care if it was 1 or 40" is that DESPITE these violations he needed to go. I have first hand knowledge of alot of the things I mention and it is up to you to belive if I am lying or not. I may be alot of things but a liar is not one of them. When have I ever "backed off" btw? I have made many staements about my feelings toward this bastard. You look into the dead eyes of a child that was killed by this man's orders just because they were Kuwati and tell me if I should give a damn about a violated resolution or not. You can confront me about anything you want and trust me....I never back off, we can go as many rounds as you want, and if I am wrong I am first to admit it. My last few comments may have been short and flippant, but that is only because it does not matter if I lay out the details of what I think or not, some people are set in their ways and I am not into converting the thoughts of anyone. I still respect your thoughts and opinions, I would at least expect the same. If I think that he had to go reguardless of what happened before the first Gulf war then by God I have that right.

[Golgot]

Woa, guess the chi thing didn't work then ;)

7th, i think Equilibrium was talking to Toose.

You left guys whine and cry about the UN being so almighty important and then when it comes to supporting an actual UN resolution that was signed by the entire freaking council YOU backpedal and say that it's okay to do it.

Slight generalisation. Some of us centre-lefties actually point out that, as important as the UN is potentially, it has plenty of flaws, and these include contradictory stances caused by unresolved internal conflicts.

But then again, i agree that the resolutions show that something needed to be done about Iraq. Just as they show that the Israel conflict desperately needs coherent outside intervention.

With regards to the iraq invasion, a central criticism is that it has added to the divisiveness when there was a great opportunity for unity. The sanctions were sustained in an untenable form by divisiveness in the first place, but instead of using the invasion as an opportunity to reunify international action (and the best sides of the UN), the invasion divided it further. As such, we're left with an unfocused UN which is less able to tackle ongoing problems like the Sudanese crisis etc.

All the big vetoeing nations are to blame for not coming to accord on the issues which are most important to humanity as a whole. But the US, as the most influential player of all, has not fulfilled its role in the purely-positive way some of "you right guys" often suggest ;) :p

[Piddzilla]

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. But here we go...

I'm not saying you are pro-Saddam, but if you opposed invasion, you're not really left with much in the way of overthrowing him, and therefore, there isn't really wouldn't be any adequate to stop him from doing what he was doing; which would be the primary aim of someone whose concerns were humanitarian in nature.

The so called overthrowing couldn't have been done in a very different way. The first months of the war would probably have been exactly the same if it had been a multirateral, although US-led, invasion. It's the control over "winning the peace" that's slipped out of hand because of reasons that I have mentioned several times in the past plus a few other ones.

The US army is too small. There are too many rebellious groups in too many areas in different places in Iraq for the americans to control. USA needed UN and now needs UN more than ever for this project that wasn't the walk in the park that I think that the hawks thought it was going to be.

The Bush administration won the american public's support because they said USA was going to war to protect the american homeland from a dictator with WMD harboring terrorist aiming to hurt americans on their own ground. This was not only false but I don't even think it was the real reasons but only a way to win the support of the american public. In any way the motivation for the actions wasn't liberation of the iraqi people and an occupier with dishonest intentions (talking about the leaders, not the soldiers) will not be very devoted to reaching the goals that were nothing but cosmetics to start with. If it had been an invasion done by the world community, no matter how greedy all the big nations are individually it still would have been a compromise. No one would get more than the other and the the lowest common denominator would probably have been liberation of the iraqi people. It still could have been US-led to avoid the undecisiveness that comes along with everthing UN is involved with and simply because USA has the largest army and was the inventor of the project to start with. And the reasons to the attack would have to have been different (= true) from the start as well. Then it would have been easier to defend today.

The Bush administration incorporated this military campaign in the War on Terrorsim, which has proved to be something of a paradox. Not only are the ties between terrorist networks aiming to hurt America and the Saddam regime very thin. Saddam's men weren't terrorists primarily, they were protecting Saddam primarily. But the invasion, or the way the peace is being won to be more precise, has also upset those iraqi groups whose ties to terrorist network threatening to turn against USA and their allies are easier to spot. There are no way that a people who wants to fight or fight back against USA can do it with conventional armies. So what do they do? They use suicide bombing, guerilla warfare and terrorism. I said before the war that this invasion, the way it has been executed, would rather lead to more terrorist acts than to a decrease. And I think I have been right.

And one more important thing. If the invasion had been carried out by the world community it would have been oh so much harder for USA's enemies to target their hate against USA. Then it would have been The World against Saddam. Not USA against the Muslim World.

No. I can't put a number on it. But I do know that 10,000 killed in a war of liberation cannot be compared to over 200,000 killed at a dictator's whim.

It is being compared, that's not the issue. The issue, and the reason to why I wrote my initial post in this thread, is that americans, whether they're pro war or against the war, ask if the war was worth it - FOR AMERICA. When you said that you couldn't understand how someone could oppose this war on humanitarian grounds, you asked that question from an american point of view. I know for a fact that before the war there were iraqis living in exile here in Sweden which of some were against the invasion for some of the reasons that I have mentioned, being that the iraqi people are tired of war and chaos. Some also mentioned that this was a thing that they thought should be done by the iraqis themselves. I'm not saying that these guys were right or wrong, obviously a lot of iraqis welcomed the invasion, but I am saying that try and understand that from a iraqi point of view there are a lot of humanitarian reasons to oppose to the invasion, which a lot of the iraqis do whether you like it or not.

I'm plenty interested in fundamental human rights; I'm pretty sure I'm the one who brought it up when discussing the Patriot Act, while stating that the "rights" the Act infringes on are nowhere near "fundamental" rights.

Sure and I wasn't talking about fundamental rights as food, shelter and freedom either. That would be like saying that as long as you have those things you should not complain about anything your government does. But I guess I'll have to blame myself for talking about something that's besides the real issue here.....

How do you know why the USA invaded Iraq? Many, many reasons were given (23, by one person's count). What method do you have of determining which ones played a role more than others?

As for unclear reasons; I've listed many very clear reasons, and so has the administration. Ties to terrorism first and foremost, followed by civil rights violations, and suspicion of WMD-possession. What exactly is unclear?

I think that when you can question the truthfulness of a reason it becomes unclear.

There were no ties to terrorism and no WMD-possesion. If there had been USA would have stayed until these things were exterminated. There was and still is civil rights violation going on. Will USA stay in Iraq until this is exterminated? I hope so, but I don't believe it. Therefore, the statement that USA is doing this to liberate the iraqi people is unclear to me.

I don't know if I have a method that differs from your method. I read, listen and see and put the different factors together and simply use my head. If you ask me what the number one reason to USA's invasion in Iraq is I would say that USA wanted to strengthen its presence in the Middle East. Islamists are threatening to seize power in Saudiarabia and that together with Saddam in the area would have been too much for USA. That would have created the possibility of a new cold war, only this time the enemy would have had enormous wealth from oil to spend on their armies. I guess USA just want to stay close to its enemies.

No, he didn't. That doesn't really address what I said, though. The WMDs weren't there, and a few people thought they wouldn't be. MOST thought they would, include several other major foreign intelligence agencies, various U.S. politicians in both parties, and the previous U.S. administration. It is impossible, then, for the WMD-failure to be solely Bush's.

It's not a failure for Bush since he ignored the results of Blix's investigation and went to war anyway.

Look, there were a lot of reasons to look into what was going on inside of Iraq, especially since Saddam refused to let any outsiders into Iraq (just another sign of that he always put his Stalin-like ego before the benefits of Iraq). This was the reason for Hans Blix and his men going into Iraq - and they didn't find anything. This, of course, wasn't the answer that the Bush administration had hoped for since they were just looking for a reason to go into Iraq.

The whole point of Blix going into Iraq was to investigate the existence of WMD:s, an investigation that USA didn't want in the first place. Why? Maybe that they were fearing that the result wouldn't gain their plans of going into Iraq. The administration needed a reason that would win the american public over to their side. The WMD-threat is a far more powerful tool in winning the people over then simply saying "We need more people in the area".

Source? Assuming it's truth, I'd say it's because he wasn't wholly confident in the intelligence. And neither was Bush, actually; he expressed skepticism of the evidence he was shown by CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee). Tenet described the existence of WMDs as a "slam dunk."

I don't remember the title of the documentary but it was an american who I think used to work near Powell who said it. It was a long time since I saw it.

Talking about Clinton. I just learned during his time in office he and the CIA were going after Osama and Clinton evoked republican president Ford's decison that the CIA weren't allowed to commit murder. CIA claimed they needed to be allowed to kill him if they were ever going to get him. Clinton finally gave in for their demands in this single matter. I think this is pretty interesting considering a lot of Clinton haters blame him for 9-11. Of course Osama was later offered to USA by sudanese intelligence who wanted to make peace with USA but CIA were not able to obtain him because, to put it simple, it was against the law.

Uh, no. Where did I say that?

I'm asking you since you don't seem to care about how the politicians win the public over as long as you are pleased with the results. Even lies appear to be okay.

"A discussion about the intent of our leadership is wholly seperate from a discussion about whether or not their actions were defensible."

The intent is strongly linked to the result you want to reach. It is really the same thing. A leadership that expresses a desire to liberate the iraqi people as the reason to an invasion when the reasons are totally different and far more strategic then humanitarian, that leadership is manipulating the public. And in some ways manipulation is a big part of politics, but when it comes to war I think the tolerance towards manipulation should be a lot lower.

Sure they should. I'm merely pointing out that you've stopped arguing about the war, and started arguing about Bush. What you're saying now is true, but it isn't an argument against the War in Iraq.

That is ridiculous. How is the Bush administration manipulating the americans about the reasons to the war irrelevant in a discussion about the war? Yes, what I'm saying it is true and I am glad you think so too. I just don't understand then how you can be okay with political leaders using arguments which content of truth is highly questionable to convince the public that going to war is right.

Defensible? Yes. The same logic would apply.

If you say so.

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying that you can want something to happen, but oppose it when it does based on the reasons you THINK the person is doing it, even if they're doing what you want them to do.

No that's not what I am saying. First of all I am not sure that what is happening in Iraq is what I wanted to happen. Second of all I don't think the result I want to see in Iraq will ever be accomplished with this strategy, simply because I don't think the result I would like to see matches the result that the Bush administration would like to see.

What way is that? And on what grounds do you state that Iraq is not a safer place?

Well, for one thing the country is struck by a war threatening to develop into civil war. Furthermore, if I wanted to be very cynical I could point out the fact that when Saddam was in power at least there was order. The groups that are now rebelling and eager to seize power were being controlled by Saddam. Assassinations of politicians, attacks and suicidal bombings affecting civilians have become more common. Some degree of turmoil is of course something that needs to be accepted when overthrowing a dictatorship but I think there are some very important issues that were overlooked before the invasion started and that is now threatening to throw Iraq and its people into an unnecessarily long period of suffering.

All polls show that most Iraqi people are glad Saddam is gone, and most letters from soldiers on the ground say that the situation is not nearly as violent and chaotic as it would appear based on the scattered news reports (which are obviously not going to report peace; you can't report non-events).

All polls also show a dissatisfaction with the american occupation. Of course they are glad Saddam is gone! I would be too! Especially if I was a shia warlord looking to take his place. I just can't understand how you can be so naive to have thought and still think that if only Saddam is gone, then everything will be fine.

Where did you take part of the content from those letters? On a scattered news report?

I have seen all kinds of reports from the war and I think I am qualified to decide what is biased and what is useful info and what is not. I have seen american segments that's been pure propaganda to promote the american army and I have seen american segments that are the very critical about the war. Same with european news segments and documentaries, even if the european ones that I've seen tend to be slightly more objective than the american ones, the british ones possibly excluded.

And maybe 10.000 dead civilians doesn't sound nearly as chaotic as the news reports you watch make it appear to be. But I think it sounds like one more tragedy for the iraqi people.

I didn't have a specific European nation in mind. I can grab specific bits of data if you like, but last I looked virtually every nation in Europe had a significantly bleaker economic picture than the United States. Not exactly war related, but it certainly speaks against the idea that Bush is a "mess," given the tremendous success of his economic policies.

I think Bush a mess period, he stands for views that I think is crap. And when it comes to the war I think he is a total mess. But then again, Bush has nothing to do with the discussion about the war.

Because they've given in and agreed to cooperate with weeding out terrorism. Saddam, on the other hand, was defiant to the last.

So much for your desire to liberate a people. If democratic elections were to be held in Saudiarabia islamic fundamentalists like Osama would most certainly take power. Fact is that terrorist attacks within Saudiarabia have increased recently as a result from the saudi regime's collaboration with USA. Besides a complete stop of the relations with USA the fundamentalists want reforms for the people, i.e. increased democracy. These reforms for the people is something that to my knowledge USA hasn't cared for significally in its relationship with Saudiarabia. The increasing terrorist attacks on the other hand have led to the regime taking steps towards democracy reforms. This sends signals all over the arab and islam world that working with USA will lead to no democracy while terrorizing your own countrymen will. How does that help George W Bush in his war against terrorism?

Exactly. You know quite well that we found no WMDs, and that there was no demonstrable connection between Iraq and 9/11 (though links to Al-Qaeda exist), but you probably haven't heard that Saddam was offering cash to the families of suicide bombers, or that he harbored one of the 1993 WTC bombers, or that he attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. All too often, we investigate selectively.

Bush declared war on terrorism; don't you think these sorts of things qualify?

I do know about Saddam offering cash to suicide bombers, it was all over the news around here a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly I think a family was given $50.000. This was suicide bombers in Israel and giving money to families whose provider dying as a suicide bomber does not really qualify in my book for being a terrorist. Reagan paid the iranians milions of dollars to NOT release the american hostage before he was elected president and what about americans that supported the IRA? And America's financial supports of several other dictators all over the world? And don't you think that USA has ever tried to take out Saddam? Or Castro? Or Allende? Oh, right.. they did get rid of Allende.

Moreover, on Monday, an AP story from Cairo detailed a letter sent from some of the militant leaders in Iraq to Osama bin Laden, stating that "The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening."

That sounds like terrific news.

Iraq is a clear, obvious part of the war on terror. It's benefits range from altruistic (the liberation of an oppressed people) to military (fighting terrorism) to diplomatic (establishing a second democracy in the other). I don't know which of these reasons, if any, served as the primary motivator for action. All I know is that these benefits exist, and they justify the action easily, on both humanitarian and pragmatic grounds.

I would say that none of those reasons served as the primary motivator. As I said before, establishing a strong american presence in the area was the motivator, that is my guess. I would say that USA is aiming to obtain a similar relationship to Iraq as they have with Saudiarabia, but with greater influence over the country preferably.

[7thson]

Saddam's men weren't terrorists primarily, they were protecting Saddam primarily.
I read your last post and really find someinteresting views included. The above quote however is a bit disturbing. Could you please be specific on what you think a terroist is and how these men who invaded Kuwait and killed many innocents are not terroists? Please do not take this as a sound bite from your post, I read it all and this seemed to stick out. Thanks for any response.

[Piddzilla]

I read your last post and really find someinteresting views included. The above quote however is a bit disturbing. Could you please be specific on what you think a terroist is and how these men who invaded Kuwait and killed many innocents are not terroists? Please do not take this as a sound bite from your post, I read it all and this seemed to stick out. Thanks for any response.

I was talking about Saddam's National Guard. Sure, you can call them terrorists if you by that mean men who terrorized their countrymen. But when I used the term "terrorist" in my post I was referring to Al Quaida and suicide bombers, that kind of terrorists. Invading other countries and killing innocent people is terrible and disgusting, sure, but I don't refer to that kind of people as terrorists. Then all soldiers by definition would be terrorists to some degree. I don't use the word as an insult or nickname for a very bad person but as a definition of someone who is engaging in organized guerilla warfare targeted not only at soldiers but at civilians as well and who often is operating outside the borders of the homeland and with a political or religious motive.

I think you misunderstand that sentence. By saying that Saddam's men weren't terrorists I didn't mean "they are not so bad after all".