Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist threat to the US
POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 22:55
VIEWED: 12725
PAGE 4 of 7
snicker
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your answer begs the question: Who ARE "our enemies"? In your mind, eveyone who is fighting us in Iraq is an enemy and "therefore" a terrorist. I know this is hard to keep in mind, but Iraqs were not "our enemies" until we invaded. Their interests are vitally different from the (less than 5% of) foreign fighters, who really are terrorists and who migrated into Iraq specifically to fight the great Satan. If you lump them all together, you will eventually find that every Iraqi becomes an "enemy" in any policy that you might propose, and you simply can't win that kind of fight.
It's a matter of resolve, of will, and more importantly, of sacrifice. We have proven ourselves weak in the eyes of our enemies because our compassion for human life. Our enemies are willing to sacrifice five, even ten of their lives just to end the life of one of us and they would still view that as a victory. If China was fighting the war in Iraq, the insurgency would have given up because China values human life even less than the terrorists. The Chinese would be more than willing to sacrifice twenty lives to end the life one of terrorist. Their media is state controlled; it would only report victories, no losses, no setbacks, no casualties. The entire country would be united against the terrorists.
So, in your mind... Do we have any FRIENDS in Iraq?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*LynchAJ sits at his computer, shaking his head. "Why is it every time I start a Pro-Bush thread, it gets turned into a discussion about how he's not doing a good job?", he wonders to himself. He starts a new thread entitled: "Bush is a modern-day Christ; he's sacrificing himself for us, don't you see that?" "There, now they'll finally understand", he mutters.*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey, I'm ready to be wrong about anything, anytime (Some see this as a weakness, or wishy-washy-ness), and if I am, I'll accept it.
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I know I will never change your mind (or Rue or SignyM, HK, et al). You are too invested in your positions to ever consider anything else. I am trying to stimulate discussion and thought on the topic with those that are still open to the possibility that the US did the right thing.
I am thrilled with the quality level of discourse so far. It is the best one yet.
I am willing to see that Saddam would have to be dealt with eventually, maybe even forcefully. I am not opposed to the capture or killing of a murderous tyrant. I am opposed to the U.S. creating these tyrants in the first place, though.
The overall results of our actions in the Middle-East just might be a good thing in the end, but those results could be achieved with a lot less death and violence IMHO. Sort of like a heroine addict getting his arms chopped off to help cure him, sure, it would force him to stop jabing his veins, but ain't there an easier way?
I think there is/was.
I agree though, good thread here. Kudos, AJ!
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with SignyM.
Russia has promised the EU whatever oil it needs in the upcoming energy crunch from its westward flowing pipelines. Japan is vying with China for Russia's eastward flowing oil. (As an aside, in the meatime, the large influx of oil money, whether in Euros or US dollars, is causing severe inflationary pressure in Russia.)
Meanwhile, Russia is dealing with its own Muslim issue.
Between oil and uprising, Russia is not a disintered party in the intelligence game.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This seems like a farfetched scenario. Despite Saddam's weakened central authority, there were/are three indingenous power groups in Iraq, none of whom were particularly receptive to AQ: the Kurds, who had been operating a virtually autonomous state for the past ten years and would really want to hang on to their potential oil revenues, the Sunni power structure built up under Saddam (military, intelligence, police) who were mainly secular and loathe to give up their power, and the Shias who were less organized but numerically stronger and who are in the opposing religious camp and also reluctant to give up their oil fields. (AQ is nominally Sunni). I guess what I'm saying is that there was no serious power vacuum to fill, which was the problem in Afghanistan. Being numerically small, it's doubtful that AQ could have overtaken Iraq and its established power structures/ interests.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was tremendously weakened and susceptable to an internal takeover by the AQ "insurgents" we are presently fighting. Now AQ would possess Iraq like it did Afghanistan, but with Iraq's oil wealth, its WMD industrial capabilities, its vast armaments and intel. Then don't you think AQ would have presented a major terrorist threat?
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by zirzird:
I challenge the notion that through perseverance our badly flawed war policy will somehow prevail in Iraq. That isn't will, that isn't resolve, and it isn't sacrifice. That is poor strategy. Many of the congressional supporters of the war like to portray the conflict as a test of US character. What it should be is a test of wartime tactics.
And we're not talking about people defending the homeland. While ~3000 civilians dead in NY may seem like a hefty toll, we've countered with >30,000 civilian dead in Iraq, a place which had no involvement in the 9/11 killings. That doesn't seem right to me. Every analysis conducted (and casual interest in unbiased news accounts will say the same) this activity is creating terror, not eradicating it, while making the world less safe for Americans. Go Team Bush. Thanks a lot.
We cannot defeat the terrorists through perseverance. We can only defeat them if we change our perception, our way of life, if we no longer care for human life. That’s the kind of sacrifice I’m talking about. Once we stop caring about our casualties, once we stop caring about human rights, once we sink below the level of our enemies, that’s when we have a chance to defeat the terrorists. If we no longer care about the people the terrorists kill then there will be no more reason for terrorists to kill us.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Your answer begs the question: Who ARE "our enemies"? In your mind, eveyone who is fighting us in Iraq is an enemy and "therefore" a terrorist. I know this is hard to keep in mind, but Iraqs were not "our enemies" until we invaded. Their interests are vitally different from the (less than 5% of) foreign fighters, who really are terrorists and who migrated into Iraq specifically to fight the great Satan. If you lump them all together, you will eventually find that every Iraqi becomes an "enemy" in any policy that you might propose, and you simply can't win that kind of fight.
So, in your mind... Do we have any FRIENDS in Iraq?
Anyone who tries to kill us is an enemy. It's too late for negotiations or peace and leaving them now will not help at all. The war has created a blood feud that will perpetuate for years. There’s no way we can “win.” The only way we can resolve this now is either to kill them all or to crush their spirits. If we don’t then we’ll end up like Israel, living in fear of terrorist attacks. Either way, we’re screwed.
There’s just no way for us to win by taking the high road. It won’t even matter if we somehow turn Iraq into a paradise with rainbows and pixies and unicorns and lollipops. The families and friends of those we have killed will never relent. This entire generation of Iraqis will hate us, there’s some hope that future generations will shrug off those shackles, but it’s this generation we have to deal with. It is death and destruction which we have wrought and it is death and destruction which will resolve this conflict. Pretty grim assessment ain't it?
"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the USA is making serious but (on the whole) reversible mistakes. Maybe we need to rid ourselves of some cherished but unrealistic goals in order to see our way.
Just after we invaded, I thought about the natural constituencies in Iraq and I realized that there was no natural constituency for a united, secular, democratic Iraq. Every major power had SOMETHING against that formula: The Kurds didn't really want unity, the Sunnis didn't want democracy, and the Shias didn't want secularism. It's not a winning formula. What happens if we jigger the goals?
Ooops I will have to finish this tomorrow.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Obviously I don’t think they are trivial, but are you going to believe that? You’ve already said that you assumed that I don’t care; so the question would seem to be rhetorical or rather loaded.
Of course it's loaded, but that doesn't make it an invalid question to ask. And it's not obvious that you don't think they're trivial, contrary to your opinion, because you keep talking about it in terms of a numbers game. It's bad if there are more than 30k killed, but okay if there are less? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, right? But I'll get to more of this later.
Quote:
You can assume that a person is a proponent of this war because they don’t care about the Iraqi causalities, but that’s not an assumption that you’re likely to find a lot of support for, since many, if not most of the proponents of this war generally hold Saddam’s brutal record as a major reason for their position.
Actually, that's total and utter bullshit, Finn, and it smells a mile away. Funny, when WJC was blitzing Kosovo, the right didn't think standing up for human rights was a good enough reason to go in. GWB even wanted a timetable (funny that now, to him, a timetable is out of the question). The right sits and watches as African nations spiral out of control and refuses to even label atrocities committed there as genocide. They've cozied up to the Saudis, let Iran get out of control, and thought diplomacy was the answer to Syria (by far a worse perpetuator of terror than Iraq ever has been). Yet you have the unmitigated gall to sit there and tell me this war is all about the wingnut concern for human rights? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.
Quote:
On the other hand, where you’re more likely to find a dismissal of innocent casualties is on the anti-war Left, where many have tried to downplay Hussein’s record or insisted that this wasn’t a reason for going to war.
I've never downplayed his record at all. I think he was a brutal dictator and a menace to his region and its peoples. However, I don't believe regime change, threat of terror (emphasis on threat, not action), or possession of WMD's are a legitimate excuse for a preemptive war, nor do I believe democracy can be created at swordpoint. That was how the war was sold to the American people; and Halliburton and Ahmad Chalabi's influence on the new regime lead me to belive "freedom" wasn't our ultimate goal in the region.
Quote:
US/UK to kill 10-30 thousands (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt)
Benefit of the doubt? Estimates of civilian causalties have gone well over the 100k range according to some sources. You're a smart guy; you can't possibly sit there and think that we've killed less that 10k civilians in this action.
Quote:
but I don’t think your argument in this case is a good one, and that is why I suggested that you rethink it.
I wasn't aware that I had made an argument (until this post) other than believing that cheerleading for deaths was morally bankrupt. That "asskicking for democracy" was a stupid chant made by people who need a little more moral fiber. Would you like to claim the opposite position? That we should send soldiers around the world to "asskick," or turn places into glass parking lots? If so, you see why I called your values into question in this thread.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which number is larger, 1.5 million or 30,000? Do you think that the death of 30,000 innocent civilians is worth the lives of 1.5 million?
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Of course it's loaded, but that doesn't make it an invalid question to ask. And it's not obvious that you don't think they're trivial, contrary to your opinion, because you keep talking about it in terms of a numbers game. It's bad if there are more than 30k killed, but okay if there are less? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, right? But I'll get to more of this later.
In any event, now you know why I was reluctant to answer your question to begin with. You never had any intention of believing anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived notion. I like you, but this is a waste of time.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME