Iraq Situation is Bullshit
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:11
VIEWED: 28270
PAGE 7 of 17
Quote:Hey Kaythryn, can you teach me the lesson you just learned from Signym?
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
If you need anymore lessons just ask...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*stretch...* Don't mind me.. just plotting down a little bit of random, but slightly related info...
From the "Nuremberg Diary", a few thoughts from Nazi leader, Hermann Goering:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
...did I miss something? Only Congress can declare wars... umm Congress... Did you declare any war?
-Nope-
But the newspaper says "War In Iraq"... uh-oh... looks like a president overlooked his powers again
... tsk tsk tsk...
LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?
Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There are times it is necessary to go to war. This was not one of those times. Saddam did NOT have WMD. He did NOT pose an imminent threat to either us or his immediate neighbors. He was NOT involved in terrorist acts against the USA. We were NOT "fighting for our survival" when we invaded Iraq,"
This is the crux of the debate right here. Whether Saddam was a threat or not. The problem is, well, its the problem of smoking guns. They only smoke after they've been fired. And when you are talking about WMDs, thats a lot of peoples lives you are betting on here.
If Saddam did not have WMDs, why did he continue to jerk around the UN inspectors? Why did not a single foreign intelligence agency call the Bush administration on it, tell us that he had none? 1441 passed unanimously. The French, the Russians, the Chinese, all of them voted for the continuing of the inspections, which would be pointless if he had none. Hans Blix and Elbarade (? Head of the IAEA) reported that Saddam had not adequetly explained what happened to his arsenal after the first gulf war. No one gave him a clean bill of health.
We have not found them, and that is troubling. But then not long ago, several Chinese farmers uncovered some drums of mustard gas, that the Japanese had buried during WW2. That was 50 years ago, and they were simply buried in the dirt all this time. I hope that is all that is going on with them.
As to the oil, that does not make sense. Why not just deal with Saddam, like the French and the Russians did? A lot simpler, easier, heck of a lot less risk, both militarily and politically.
With the situation still fluid in Iraq, abandoning to the Saddam dead enders and terrorists from other nations is not an option. It is easy to see what would happen then, Saddam would come back to power, and we would end up with another 9-11.
You don't believe there were any WMD. You are betting a hell of a lot on your faith in Saddam. If it was just your life in the pot, I would not care one way or the other. But it ain't.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"We didn't bomb Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we went to remove weapons that don't exist."
Again, you are betting a ton of lives on your faith in Saddam.
But getting to the first point, they do go hand in hand. Was it humane to remove Saddam? I think it was, and something that should have happened after the invasion of Kuwait. A lot of Iraqis seem to think the same way. The stories of mass graves, children's prisons, plastics shredders used as execution devises, all that is gone.
It is not the intentions that make an action moral, its the consequences. In this case, our intention was to remove a potential threat to the US. As part of removing that threat, we need to stablize Iraq, help them make the transition from tyranny to democracy. In the end, the Iraqi people are better off, and so are we.
Whether the intention was humanitarian or not, the consequences will end up being just that. And ain't that what matters? Good intentions are called asphalt in Hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Why don't you people wake up and use your brains instead of sit around and say, "Oh well, what happened, happened." Good hell."
The assumption is that simply disagreeing with your views indicates a lack of brain usage. That comes across as a bit arrogant.
We have a fundamental disagreement of fact here. You are in essense claiming as a fact that as of March 2003, Saddam had no WMDs, nor programs for developing any. Considering Saddam's past actions with the UN inspectors, this does not seem reasonable. This is at odds with the opinion of almost every intelligence agency in the UN, especially the Permenent Security Council. This is at odds with Blix and El-Baradae's reports prior to the campaign in Iraq.
I don't know. I am not in the CIA, I am not part of Saddam's inner circle. Those are the only folks who would know for certain one way or the other. I do know he had them, he had used them, and had not explained what happened to them as required by the armistice following the First Gulf War.
To conclude that Saddam simply did not have them, well, that does not seem reasonable, or logical. Just because we have not found them yet, after only 5 months? 12 years to hide, and you expect him to hide them where they can be easily found?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Honestly! You'd think that we were tryin' to make the world safe for capitalism instead of safe for freedom!"
You seem to see these as unconnected. The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create. It is your right to sell it, keep it, throw it away, scribble on it, whatever you want.
What you call land reform quite often was little more than theft. The government confiscates, or steals your land that you had been working on for years, and hands it over to someone else. You no longer own the fruits of your own labors.
And if they can do it to him, what prevents them from coming around in a couple years and do it to you?
I don't know what you mean by economic justice, but it sounds a bit like stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Its something to do if you are Robin Hood, but you really want the sheriff deciding who is too rich and who ain't?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's pretty logical to assume that if Saddam had WMD, than he would have used them on us. The reciprocal is prolly true too. Since he didn't use them on us, he prolly didn't have them. Why didn't he use them Drakon? Cause he's so nice?
I have to say too that our methods for gathering intelligence are far superior to those of Saddam. Unless the WMD are buried about 2 miles below ground, than we would have found them by now, with satellite imaging, which can easily penetrate buildings, bunkers, and even the ground itself to a certain depth.
Those weapons just ain't there folks.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"did I miss something? Only Congress can declare wars... umm Congress... Did you declare any war?"
This is a legal/semantic problem. Congress authorized both the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. For Iraq it happened back prior to the elections in Nov 2002. The authorization of military force in Iraq is the equivalent of a declaration of war.
The War Powers Act gives the President 90 days from the commencement of military operations before asking Congress's approval. Sometimes things happen so fast that immediate response is required. But that does not apply when the president gets approval beforehand, like happened here.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon and all others in this thread, let me start out by saying this has been one of the most enjoyable discussions I've ever had on this hot-button topic! I think we deserve an award for being logical, staying on-point, and responding to each others viewpoints with a minimum of as hominen arguments.
YAAAAY!!! 
Why did Saddam jerk the UN inspectors around? There are a couple of possible answers. I heard- but haven't looked it up- that USA troops destroyed several football-fields worth during the Gulf War. Exact amounts and types were not recorded because too much of the materials had "made in America" stamped on it. Saddam destroyed the rest, but also didn't record the destruction. It wasn't that there was evidence of an ongoing program, it was more of an accounting issue. But that was years ago. Most of the WMD have finite lifetime- Sarin, liquid anthrax, etc would have all deteriorated by now.
So why didn't he just open his country for inspection? I think that he may have been trying to keep his restive population and Iran guessing. As long as he MIGHT have weapons he believed that attack/ insurrection would be avoided. From what everything I've heard about Saddam, it would tempting to call him a paranoid schizo but his actions pretty accurately reflected Baathist Party politics. They took the art of backstabbing quite literally!
---------------------------
"The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create. It is your right to sell it, keep it, throw it away, scribble on it, whatever you want.
What you call land reform quite often was little more than theft. The government confiscates, or steals your land that you had been working on for years, and hands it over to someone else. You no longer own the fruits of your own labors."
Oddly, I think that people SHOULD own the fruits of their labors! It is one of my passionate and abiding beliefs! So if we're starting out with the same premise- how in h*ll did we get 180 deg out?? 
Perhaps we have different definitions? What do you define as "labor" and what do you define as "own"? I know it sounds trivial but would you humor me and let me know?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And if they can do it to him, what prevents them from coming around in a couple years and do it to you?"
This is what I think bothers the world about current US policy.
Who will be safe? Where will it stop? Are you next?
These are questions that can be asked by other nations, or even by the citizens of this very country. National Security is a broad sword. So is Terrorism. So is Suspected Activity. So is Temporary.
You know... like Temporarily suspend civil liberties in the face of this Terrorist threat to National Security, based on your Suspected Terrorist Activities.
It is not un-American to wonder how broad these swords are, or when they will stop swinging.
It certainly isn't inappropriate for other nations to wonder the same thing.
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME