Just *why* are we at war in Iraq? - Page 3

Past alliances make us complicit in past atrocities, and past atrocities are at least part of the justification for current events.

Cheers
Scott

And the justification is null because of that?

Well, any arguments based upon moral imperatives are, shall we say, extremely problematic. How can people, for instance, suddenly scream that we need to invade Iraq because he gassed his people 20 years ago, and hold any kind of moral high ground considering those same people didn't scream it 20 years ago?

It's a difficult situation all around, and is best expressed, I think, by something I saw on MSNBC the other day. They did a little bit on psyops, and showed a flyer that we've been dropping. It says "We won't abandon you this time."

When you have to drop leaflets like that, it's difficult to make an argument that past alliances don't have anything to do with current events.

Cheers
Scott

The anti-American Right?

The anti-American LEFT would like to see the enclosed description of Life In Pre-American Occupied Iraq continue on, apparently. I suspect that Hillary Clinton would particularly enjoy lording over such a population, Sammi Jo at her (left) side....

http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=2631

The news just gets better and better. First, Peter Arnett is publicly damned as a traitor. Second, Geraldo Rivera's lying, Clinton-supporting ass is kicked out of the Theater Of Operations by the United States Military. The 101st Airborne will enter Baghdad Geraldo-free.

And all the lefties are grinding their teeth that the war is going well, and that Victory shall be America's.

The Iraqi people haven't welcomed us with open arms? click on the link above to understand why.

Pre-emptive strike on a future aggressor, righting a wrong by which we needed to suck up to Saddam in order to keep him from entering Soviet Orbit, freeing the Iraqi people, whatever... this war is the right thing to do. Its end will be great.

Aries 1b

And you get to send the kids off to get shot at, which the right seems to enjoy.

Cheers
Scott

Oh my goodness, I thought this said account , not accountant.

Sorry about that bunge. I would be happy to refer you to him/her however first I would have to hire one.

Hope that first reply didn't seem too snotty, and you are full of goodwill and deserving of plenty as well.

Nick

Maybe it was something like the plot of the TV show '24'. They wanted to let them into the country and then nab them *right* before they were about to attack us and then say "Look! With our current budget we were BARELY able to find them in time! Increase our budget!". But then by the time they were in the country they lost them somehow and were like 'Oh shit!' and started to cover the tracks so that they wouldn't get fried for it. This seems more plausible than anyone ACTUALLY intending to have the terrorists blow something up. (Or maybe they didn't think the terrorists would hit something as big as the WTC with the airplanes was) The stakes would be too high for them to actually LET the terrorists kill 3000 Americans. This is all speculation though. I doubt that any of it is true.

As for this 'disprove my theory'... that's bullshit. Anyone can make claims and then say "It's true until someone disproves me". It's not like anyone in this forum has a top level government clearance to try and disprove your theories that only GW Bush and Dick Cheney know about something and no one else.

All these people with this 'proven/unproven' shit. It's not 'proven' until you see it with your own eyes or from someone that you trust. Most of these 'facts' that everyone has comes from the media. These are people you don't know. You're putting your faith in them that what they say is true, but some of you believe it and some don't. You're all just using bits and pieces of facts that you heard here or there. If the facts don't fit what you believe it either 'hasnt been proven' or is 'media propaganda'.


I sure as hell don't trust the media. I don't care if it's the media in france, germany, russia, britain, iraq, india,etc. ALL the medias are biased in one form or another or to one degree or another. Just take what you hear in the media with a dose of salt (I think that's the phrase). Seriously. Right now the media in America is 'Pro-Bush' because they are afraid of a public backlash or being viewed as 'extreme'. It's a "don't rock the boat" attitude. Here is a great link about how media changes their tune to the political climate. I'm sure that there are some 'you scratch my back , and ill scratch yours' deals going on in the media, but I think for the most part they just don't want to rock the boat and get viewed in a bad light.

No, I've made my case against SJO in the past. Go search for the thread if you care.

You know things aren't as black and white as you make them out to be.

No one on the American right enjoys sending 'the kids' (by the way, they're Men and Women; at least afford them that respect) off to get shot at. The majority of us on the American Right are heterosexual and inculcate our children with Patriotic Ideals. You should realize that these, by and large, are *our* children that you're talking about.

From time to time it is necessary to unleash the nation's warriors on the nation's enemies so that they can cut the enemy to pieces. Happily, we're no longer waiting around for the enemy to get strong enough to hit us; we're going out and stabbing the f**ker in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us. In short, we're not sending our brave men and women off to get shot at; we're sending them off to do the shooting.

But at least you seem to agree with the idea that that link describing life in Iraq closely matches The Left's Ideal; The Leftist's 'The Way Things Ought To Be'. Wasn't that a peachy picture?

I'll bet Hillary Clinton would love to have all of us under that kind of power.

Aries 1B

PS As I write this, American forces on the ground report seeing the skyline of Baghdad. Press on! And don't forget the ChemBio Equipment!

And you love them so much that you're out protesting in the streets that we're sending them into harm's way for reasons that are dubious at best. Oh wait. You're not. If you're not demanding, immediately, that the "men and women" (I don't know the demographics off hand, but lots and lots of the US infantry are in their teens and early 20s [those are kids, considering that many of them can't even buy alcohol]...just look at the casualty reports) be brought home and out of harm's way, then you must therefore want them to get shot at.

So then, if you think that they're worth losing in this battle, then you must therefore think that Iraqi lives/freedoms are worth more than American lives (since, of course, you don't think it's sufficient to let the Iraqis work out their own problems)? I'm with you! American lives must be lost for Iraqi freedom! We must sacrifice our sons and daughters so the Iraqis can be free! And if they rise up against us, we'll sacrifice MORE sons and daughters so they can be free!

Maybe you're out protesting in the streets that we're becoming the world's policemen? Nope? We should sacrifice MORE of our sons and daughters, of our husbands and wives, all around the world, to ensure that they are free!


It is necessary because some people like to see our sons and daughters get shot at. No? Then it's necessary because those in power lack the imagination to come up with solutions that don't put our sons and daughters in danger. Or perhaps because they secretly like to watch them get shot at. Or killed.



You'r'e kidding, right? You're suggesting that our brave men and women aren't getting shot at? That that's not part of the bargain? Of COURSE they're getting shot at. And we choose to put them in harm's way. And because we've chosen it, it is either a) because we like to see it or b) because we lack the imagination to come up with a way to avoid it.

And anyone who's not out there demanding that the soldiers come home is de facto supporting them getting shot at and possibly killed.

I'm not even going to TOUCH the "no longer" bit. Like we've always waited around.


I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one supporting an administration that demands that all kinds of documents be kept secret, and that locks up American citizens without charging them or providing them access to a lawyer. You're the one supporting an administration that wants to tap your phones and read your email. You're the one who's supporting an invasion of another country. You're the one who wants us to be the world's policeman. You're the one who wants us to send the kids in to get shot at.

That hardly seems patriotic or American.


I have no idea why you brought this up. Shoudl I start bringing up the Klan and suggesting that they're representative of your political beliefs?


You're urging on an urban war with the possible use of chemical weapons?

Aries1B sees this as a game and really gets off on it all. It's pretty sick.

You know what "stabbing our enemy in the heart before he has the chance to do it to us" is usually referred to as?

Paranoid. Pre-emptive. Intolerant. Self-righteous. Violence.

And unAmerican.

It might be unAmerican, but at least it's 'Merican.

16 days:

War: ~700 civilians
"Containment": ~4400 civilians

War is unjust.
We should listen to the UN.

I don't think he's "urging" as much as commenting on the inevitable. They're THERE, aren't they? When they get to Baghdad proper, it kinda automatically becomes "urban warfare". Not much anyone can do or say to make that not so, you know? "Good luck, stay safe, keep your head down..." is more the tone I took from it.

As far as bio-chem suits, that would be as protection against the OTHER guys using the shit that I'm sure you and others here would've bet your left nut they didn't have.

What...is the U.S. going to gas Baghdad and kill civilians left and right? Please tell me that's not what you're implying.

Anyone using chemical/bio weapons ISN'T going to be on the coalition side. It's important you understand that.

So the cop that shoots the criminal that pulls a gun on him is evil? He's "shooting the criminal before he has the chance to shoot him".

But GW needs it to seem like Iraq has chem weapons so he'll drop his own and blame it on Iraq ... wait a minute, my tin foil hat needs adjusting, can't have those SETI mind rays get me...

Now you link to the weekly standard?!?! Do you even realize what your sources are?

You are aware that there are many on the 'right' that consider the neo-cons to be insane, aren't you? Sorry. I guess I shouldn't expect that level of sophitication from someone that links to limbaugh's site.

I was reading an article just last week about how American forces have stated they intend to use internationally prohibited chemical weapons in the war in iraq. I think it was maybe quoted in a thread here.

I'll look it up later, unless someone else wants to step up. I have to go now.

What was causing the deaths of those ~4400 civilians and how has dropping bombs on Iraq magically prevented them from continuing to happen?

keep it up. Maybe you can make it 'true.'

Even if they were planning on doing this, then why would they announce it to the world? Especially since the reasoning for going into Iraq involves them having chem/bio weapons and there's all this "OGM! They will use them on us in the war!" talk. Bush would lose even US support if he went that far. I'll believe this when you can show me credible evidence of it.

The "chemical weapons" you're talking about have been mentioned here and are crowd control chemicals like pepper spray and calmative gas.

But if you just say "chemical weapons" it sounds more sinister and that's more fun.


UN economic sanctions cause those deaths. 500,000 from 1991 to 1995. Over 1 million from 1991 to today. (fact)

A successful war to oust Saddam and disarm Iraq will lift the sanctions. (fact)

I am perplexed by how the anti-war movement has so quickly forgotten how the leftist elite had spent the last 12 years bemoaning and denouncing the UN's method of "starving the people into submission" (Noam Chomsky) to suddenly do an about-face and obstinately ask, "What's the problem!!?"

Response to this:
*crickets chirping*

Those aren't crickets chirping, that's the sound of your own fingers in your ears. Why don't you go have a cup of coffee, it might wake you up.

Why on earth are you perplexed by someone not supporting moving from one extreme to another? You can't be that dense, can you?

One extreme to the other? By what rubric is the current route "extreme"?

It takes less lives than sanctions and will actually come to an end, relatively soon. Whereas sanctions had no clear end and lasted for over 12 years. At this rate 12 years of war would take 192,000 civilian lives. Sanctions took 1.2 million in 12 years.

It's not from "one extreme to the other". It's from one extreme to a much better situation.

The "peace" plan the UN had for Iraq took more civilian lives than the war plan the US has. Not that the anti-war movement actually gives a rat's ass about the people of Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...821306,00.html

you might want to note that among the programs are biological cluster bomb and anti-biotic resistant anthrax.

As for non-lethal gases, tell that to the ~115 people that died in moscow.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

go to page 60 (72 of the pdf) of Rebuilding America's Defences and note the following scentence:


CNN has also reported the use of napalm in Iraq:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CNN303A.html

I'm not sure what the legality is on that one, but I'd post some photos if it wasn't against AI rules.

Just a word about UN sanctions. I think it's a shortcut to said that UN sanctions killed 500 000 peoples.

Saddam did not comply to the UN resolution after GW1, and thus was economically sanctionned. These sanctions have a negative impact on the Iraqi economy and thus lowored the general level of hygiena and health in these countrie.

The starvation, the bad hygiena and low health are responsible to an estimated death ratio of 500 000 people. These estimation is calculated via, life expectancy, peri-mortality and others such feature. They compare these statistic features with "normal" statistic features (features , that we should find in those type of countrie) and they deduct how many lifes should be have saved, if the Iraq was complied with these normal statistic.

Nobody can say what will be these statistic features with Saddam in power and no sanctions , or with an another leader with sanctions or no sanctions and an another leader. it's like to said what will be the state of US economy if Gore have winned the election.

These 500 000 people is a statistic calculation, who said that comparing to an another similar countrie, Iraq should have 500 000 less deaths. The UN sanctions certainly not help, nor Saddam or the BAATH party, but we cannot give a precise number, because these over rate of death in Iraq have differents roots.
Imagine that US has economical sanctions, i doubt that there will millions of deaths, sure the economy will suffer, but due to a better management of this crisis there will be less deaths.

The problem that most of us have with the jutification for this war is that the logic behind it is murky at best. First it's Saddam has WOMD which have yet to be found. Then it's he has ties to AL Queda which has yet to proved. Then it's he's a terrible tyrant that must be stopped because of the atrocities he does to his own people. But there are many men just like him in the world. In countries that pose much more of an immediate threat to the U S. Are we going to do the same with them all? I'm sure even they realize that's not feasible.

Also we're doing this at a time of economic strife. This war will be fairly expensive at a time we can least afford it. Once again modern war doesn't help the economy. Only certain companies that make items for it.

Also we helped create this monster by supporting him in the 80's when he was the enemy of our enemy.

Ok, so we've gone over this ground before. But, the opposition just doesn't seem to hear ( or want ) to hear it.

You see murky. At best. I'm sure the conservatives can drum up some long and convoluted explaination. But it would just be more of the same in a different form. As far as I'm concerned They have yet to give a reasonable explaination.

What sane human being doesn't consider war extreme? If you don't mind me saying so, that would go a long way to explaining the general conservative fervor for war.

Powerdoc, even with a typo or two you've explained this very well. I'm not sure why some people talk around the issue though. I think the main problem is that if people were to honestly look at the situation, yet another motive for war would be destabilized.

So although your points are clear and accurate, I'm not sure there's an honest rebuttal.

giant:


We're talking about things that are in Iraq. Thanks.


Did we do that? Were those the chemicals we used and in the doses we use them?

What the hell does it have to do with the US military?


And the Pentagon denied it. They destroyed what napalm they had left in 2001.


Pictures of napalm attacks in Iraq or napalm attacks over 30 years old?

LOOK. DEAD BABIES!

--

powerdoc:


Well it's not 100% accurate but it's safe to say that's the reason. When you have an otherwise stable environment (Saddam as the iron-first ruler since the 70s.

The rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease is directly attributable to the sanctions.

These aren't numbers I made up, this is from the UN itself and aid and relief agencies.

To put it off as "it didn't help, but..." is disrespectful to the people who suffered under it and only guarantees that the UN will continue to allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

I must resist getting angry with this attitude. It's same one that allowed 800,000 Rwandans to be slaughtered in 1994. That kept the UN silent on Yugoslavia.

--

bunge:


War can, obviously, be more humane than some "peaceful" solutions.


Re: "It's not the sanctions fault!"

I guess those people jst disappeared and UNICEF is a war-mongering institution.

In all honesty groverat, your link supports oil-for-food more than it condemns it. According to the link the rise in poverty in Iraq is more accurately attributable to the United States, not the sanctions. The sanctions don't kill, the sanctions were probably very accurately created. The United States blocking the sanctions from functioning are attributed to the rise in infant mortality, malnutrition and disease.

That's not me speaking, that's your link.

sorry I guess I forgot that a) those weapons were not being developed for warfare and b) that we are not conducting warfare in Iraq. Thanks for straightening me out.


Ohhh....I see. The russian military is incompetent on every level and the US military is infallible. What was I thinking?

What does it have to do with the US military? Those chemicals are not safe, they are known not to be safe and they are proven in action not to be safe. It was discussed at length in the press after the incident in moscow.

I'm so glad I'm getting a lesson in our military capabilities from someone who doesn't even know what a secretary of defence is.

I agree that idiotic punitive sanctions, that seem designed to destabilize the regime by attacking the people, are the cause of deaths. So those deaths could easily have been avoided by lifting the sanctions. They have after all been singularly ineffective so what would we have lost?

And then where is the justification for war? And more importantly where was the the US and UK governments' incredible desire to help the Iraqi people when the sanctions where imposed? I don't remember them lifting a finger, much less risking the lives of their young cannon-fodder, to help the Iraqi people in that instance.

(edit: as bunge points out, your own link contends that the US and UK opposed smarter, less harmful to civilian sanctions, after international outcry about the death toll.)

And people wonder why the surviving relatives of those half-million dead (who where predominately under the age of 5-years-old) aren't lining up to shower the Allied troops with roses?


(Also: In relation to my earlier post about chemical weapons, there was a bit of back-and-forth but no-one picked up on the phrase "internationally prohibited" which is the only thing seperating Saddam's WMD from the US arsenal and applies to the weapons the US has stated it will use.)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...354475977.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...749944836.html

I wanted to check for myself. So there are multiple US officers that claim napalm has been used.

The pentagon denies a lot of things that are true (anybody turn on a news channel in the past couple of days since the war plan articles came out) and it's wartime. The last place you are going to find accurate information is within the official claims from the DoD.

here's a little FYI groverat:

http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_che...apacitants.pdf

http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_biodefense.pdf

Note also that all anthrax was claimed to have been destroyed in the 70s.

Um, you can suffocate on water too.... I guess that much be a 'lethal liquid'. You can suffocate on too much of ANY gas. The 'non-lethal' part means that the chemical isn't poisonous once it's in the blood-stream via the lungs.

bunge:


To the United States' influence in the formation of UN Security Council policy, yes. How soon you want to forget that it takes 8 yes votes in the Security Council to get things done and the US gets only 1.

Does the US share blame? Yes. Does the US even deserve *more* blame than the other nations that support the murderous sanctions regime? Absolutely.


The sanctions don't kill? You have reading problems. Just because the sanctions are for the large part created by the US does not mean that no one else within the UN shares blame. I would go so far as to say it's the UN bureaucracy that causes this sort of gridlock.

The sanctions DO kill. And every article in that link, even the most critical of the US, disagree with you.


"Blocking the sanctions from functioning"? What does that mean?

-----------

giant:


Perhaps we should scream about the possibility of nuclear war in Iraq then, as well.


Did I say that? (Go back and read)

And beyond that, the way Russia deals with terrorists is far more "kill 'em all" then ours ever has been. I've read accounts from people who were in the threatre. The Russian police forces don't take terrorists alive. If not the gas they were going to go in shooting.

And past that they screwed up the amount and potency. They made a mistake even from their own policy. It's is idiotic to apply that to a theoretical US action.

If I spray enough hairspray up my nose I'll die, we should protest Vidal Sassoon.


I suppose we should report the thousands of women across the world with pepper spray in their purses to Tom Ridge as terrorists with chemical weapons.

--

stupider


Lift the sanctions and Saddam once again has the means to produce WoMD. Which he actively pursued. There is little doubt he would restart his programs if allowed to. No reason to believe he has gone soft.

And, of course, the UN Security Council members who pushed for removal of sanctions stood most to benefit from Saddam reenergizing his oil production and, most importantly, his weapons programs.

No one's hands are clean, that is not a surprise to anyone. You try to act like they wanted to lift sanctions for those poor poor Iraqi people... what a joke.