Vacating Hell: Iraq

[Totenkopf]

No I don't (Prime), and yes I could (Nancy).

 

Perhaps our next President will have a new Plan for Iraq that will actually work, I don't know. But right now, I don't see much of a point in staying there. I guess the oil could be a reason, but I wouldn't fuss if we lost it.

 

As I mentioned before, our staying or leaving will make no difference to the region. People are still going to be killed, kidnapped, raped, bombed, ect. It's the frickin' Middle East. By pulling out we'll save money, and no more of our soldiers will be killed.

 

 

Just curious, but would it be fair to say you think we should w/drawl from the Balkans and that we should stay out of Darfur (assuming anyone ever really wades into that mess)? You sound like a bit of an isolationist and was just wondering if that's the case.

[Spider AL]

Isolationism would be a preferable attitude for the US (and all nations) to take... At least compared to their current position.

 

International intervention is practically always self-interested in nature. The US and UK for instance do not interfere in the affairs of other countries unless they can gain something from that interference.

 

The number of instances in history where a nation has sent troops into another country for altruistic reasons can literally be counted on one hand.

 

Therefore, while being BENEVOLENT would be optimally moral... being isolationist would certainly be an improvement, since we are effectively malevolent, currently.

[swphreak]

Just curious, but would it be fair to say you think we should w/drawl from the Balkans and that we should stay out of Darfur (assuming anyone ever really wades into that mess)? You sound like a bit of an isolationist and was just wondering if that's the case.

 

I guess you could say I'm isolationist. I'd rather the US was self-sufficient and kept to itself. A "Prime Directive" of sorts, leave everyone the heck alone. But, of course, we rely on other countries for all of our luxeries and oil. So my viewpoint is rather futile.

 

 

Africa is probably worse than Iraq, and it's the same deal. The stuff that goes down over there will not stop. The moment we leave, the problem will resume. I'd rather not waste resources and lives in a futile attempt.

[Totenkopf]

I'd have to say I'm pretty much in agreement with your sentiment. Autarky would be an optimal situation. Economic self-sufficiency and a strong defense would be quite ideal.

[Heavyarms]

Ooh, an Iraq thread. I remember when the war started and we had debates. Oh, and hi Rogue15. I'm apparently back from the dead...

 

The United States can never be isolationist. For one, it would damage our economy irreparably if we did that and we'd fall on our faces and take at least several dozen countries with us. Two, September 11 showed us, or at least me, that even if we try our best to stay out of some peoples' business they'll still want to kill us, so we need to be proactive. I'm always a lead-by-example kinda guy, anyway.

 

That being said, Iraq's been an interesting country over the last several years. I do think the President has screwed up in places, I think we shoulda had more troops in there like McCain thought. It might have stopped this from the start.

 

But it didn't. And here we are. As for your comments Spider, I think about it this way: The U.S. Army can in the end not guarantee anyone's safety. Your local police department can't do that either. What good security requires is helpful citizens and residents to stop the bombings, shootings, and kidnappings. I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. Bush made his mistakes and stuff. But the Iraqi government (which was elected by the iraqi people, and is not a puppet government) can't get its own sorry collective butts together and make progress. Couple that with a weak PM who likes Iran, and we're in trouble. That has to change, but the people have to want it to.

 

I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. It's their country. They have to invest in its future for us to make a difference. I think they are maybe coming around now. But time will tell. I think part of the blame is the government didn't take a broader approach to fixing the problem besides the military one. People seem fixated on the troops and the body counts. Please don't take it the wrong way because every death is another tear from the U.S.A., but that is not the primary concern.

 

I understand what the dems want, which is pressure on the Iraqi government. I don't think we should do that by removing troops, it should be by cutting aid. In the long run, that gets everyone to shape up, when they don't get the $$.

 

Ok, that's enough for now. Big post!

[Nancy Allen``]

Don't forget that a large part of the blames lies with the Sunni's warring with the Shi'ites, insurgents trying to drive the invaders out and Al Qaeda who have travelled there to kill Americans as well.

[Vaelastraz]

 

I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. It's their country. They have to invest in its future for us to make a difference. I think they are maybe coming around now. But time will tell. I think part of the blame is the government didn't take a broader approach to fixing the problem besides the military one. People seem fixated on the troops and the body counts. Please don't take it the wrong way because every death is another tear from the U.S.A., but that is not the primary concern.

 

I think you can't blame the Iraqi for not instantly adopting to our western democracy. The development of democracy in the western world was a result from many things...it was a slow process until it reached what we know today.

 

The middle east never went through a comparable development, and therefore you can't expect them to embrace the system of government we forced on them within a day..

 

For me it's hard to imagine that someone would not want democracy and personal freedom, but if you're raised in one form of government (dictatorship), wouldn't you hesitate to accept a "new" system too?

[Spider AL]

Ooh, an Iraq thread. I remember when the war started and we had debates. Oh, and hi Rogue15. I'm apparently back from the dead...

Hahaha, hello there Rogue, welcome back. Did you forget your password? You never used to post this much text, either. What have you done with the real Rogue15?

 

The United States can never be isolationist. For one, it would damage our economy irreparably if we did that and we'd fall on our faces and take at least several dozen countries with us.

The US might indeed suffer from an economically isolationist policy (though you're incorrect regarding "several dozen countries" following the US down the pan, that would seem to be a vast overestimate of America's worth on the world stage) but that doesn't mean that the US couldn't follow a militarily isolationist policy. And that would, as stated before, be morally superior to their current policy.

 

Two, September 11 showed us, or at least me, that even if we try our best to stay out of some peoples' business they'll still want to kill us, so we need to be proactive.

Actually Rogue, if you do a little research on the subject, (and I do mean only a little research,) you'll find instantly that the stated motive for the 9/11 attacks (stated by the US government, the 9/11 commission AND al-qaeda) was that it was retaliation against perceived injustices caused by US foreign policy.

 

So it wasn't a case of "The US was minding its own business and was then attacked", it was a case of: The US was acting as an oppressive imperialist power worldwide, some people didn't like it, and so they decided to resort to acts of immoral terrorism.

 

Attacks on civilians are always immoral, there's no debate about that. But to say that there was no REASON for the attacks is abject nonsense.

 

As for your comments Spider, I think about it this way: The U.S. Army can in the end not guarantee anyone's safety. Your local police department can't do that either. What good security requires is helpful citizens and residents to stop the bombings, shootings, and kidnappings.

Rubbish. It is nothing to do with "guaranteeing anyone's safety". It's to do with providing basic security to the Iraqi people.

 

If you want to discuss the relationship with Iraqi people, fine. Since the US and UK invaded Iraq illegally and immorally, it's OUR responsibility to engage with the Iraqi people and provide security, help and support to the public. It's OUR responsibility to endear ourselves to Iraqis, not the other way around. We have not done so. That's not the Iraqi public's fault, it's our fault. We're an invading force. It's not their responsibility to "like us" or to work with us.

 

Secondly, you're sitting there quibbling over WHY we aren't providing security to the Iraqi people. But that's hardly the overarching point. The point is that we AREN'T providing security. You can blame that on innocent Iraqis if you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that we aren't doing very much good there. Hence, my earlier point stands, we should leave.

 

I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. Bush made his mistakes and stuff. But the Iraqi government (which was elected by the iraqi people, and is not a puppet government) can't get its own sorry collective butts together and make progress. Couple that with a weak PM who likes Iran, and we're in trouble. That has to change, but the people have to want it to.

1. Bush didn't make any mistakes, except when reading from his autocue. Bush had little to do with it, he's a figurehead. It's doubtful that he has any meaningful impact on US national policy.

 

2. You say the Iraqi government was democratically elected by the Iraqi people? The list of candidates was vetted by the US. (And anyone the US didn't like was prevented from standing). The Iraqi people had no advance knowledge of who they were voting for (and therefore had no idea of the candidates stances on any issues) and much of the Iraqi populace was either too resentful of US/UK forces to vote in such a sham, or too afraid of violent retaliation to risk voting.

 

You call that democratic? You call that "elected by the Iraqi people"? That's madness. The only thing one CAN call it, is a US puppet regime. It doesn't even qualify as a proper "government", frankly.

 

Couple that with a weak PM who likes Iran, and we're in trouble.

Hah! the US picked him, blame them.

 

I really place a lot of the blame on the Iraqi people. It's their country. They have to invest in its future for us to make a difference.

Once again you foist blame onto the Iraqi people. But they weren't to blame for:

 

1. US support, funding and arming of Saddam, the brutal dictator and his brutal regime during the eighties, support that cost the Iraqi people their lives and infrastructure
   
2. The decades of economic sanctions that crippled the Iraqi people and made them even more dependent on Saddam, the brutal dictator and his brutal regime, meaning that the Iraqis were incapable of overthrowing his government
   
3. The US policy that drew Iraq into Kuwait, in the early nineties, causing the first Gulf War, which further impoverished the Iraqi people and caused the deaths of civilians and soldiers on both sides
   
4. The repeated bombings of Baghdad that further butchered an already ailing people
   
5. The recent illegal invasion of Iraq by the US and UK, which has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and has destroyed what little was left of Iraq's national infrastructure
   
6. The continued occupation of Iraq which acts as a focus for violence and will undoubtedly lead to more pointless death and destruction.
   

 

So what exactly ARE you blaming the Iraqi people for? It seems to me as if the US and the UK have the whole "culpability" thing sewn up.

[Nancy Allen``]

And the added problem with bringing democracy to the Middle East is their strong beliefs, possibly stronger than anything in the west. People are killed for not following Islam over there, neither through peace or war are their beliefs going to be easily solved.

[Spider AL]

First of all Nancy, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "bringing democracy" to the middle east. It was never our governments' intention to install democracy in Iraq. It was their intention to install a friendly regime, a puppet regime.

 

Also, we don't have a functioning democracy in OUR OWN nations, so there's little likelihood of giving it to anyone else.

 

Secondly, before we blundered in, Iraq was one of the most secular, non-religious societies in the region. Saddam's regime had removed Islam from the criminal court system, for instance. And Sunni and Shia were cohabiting with a remarkable degree of non-violence. Religion is a problem wherever you find it, but Iraq? Iraq was remarkably secular.

 

So sitting around blaming Islam for our inability to pacify the state we illegally invaded is ridiculous. The reason we haven't brought peace to Iraq is threefold:

 

1. Our governments were never interested in bringing "peace" or "democracy" to Iraq in the first place.

2. We never put enough money into Iraq to rebuild it, and corrupt US officials essentially squandered what little cash we DID put into Iraq.

3. When you invade a country and act as an occupying force of invaders... the people aren't going to like it. Some of them will attack you. It's obvious.

 

These are some of the reasons that people like myself opposed the war from the get-go. These were all predictable consequences of the illegal invasion.

[Heavyarms]

First off, I am not Rogue15. I just said hi.

 

This isn't meant to flame, but you really sound like one of those secular-progressive socialists, Spider.

 

Lemme try to respond to several posts now...

 

There has never been any resolution from anyone in writing as far as I know stating that the invasion of Iraq is illegal. If you believe it is illegal, please find some evidence that states it as illegal. Did we invade and learn that the intelligence was wrong? Yes. Did we invade and have no exit strategy: yes. Was the invasion illegal? No. Did we invade for oil and prop up American oil companies? No.

 

Please also define oppressive imperialism. I don't see the U.S. annexing anyone for their own personal benefit. We did several interventions in locations that showed that we were paper tigers and could be attacked, like Beirut in 1983, Iraq in 1991 and Mogadishu in 1993, and Bosnia, and unwilling to intervene in really disgusting areas like Rwanda.

 

And if the President doesn't set national policy, who does? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? "The Man?" In the end, the buck stops with the President. He's responsible. He's the elected official, as well as the VP. It's their responsibility.

 

And I don't know much about corrupt bargains in Iraq, I'm assuming you mean the Halliburton thing. Definitely wasn't a great idea, but we still are sending aid to Iraq.

 

Okay, the United States did not pick the government. Maliki was not picked by the United States. IF he was, you need some evidence to back that up. The Sunnis boycotted the election, that's their problem. The point is there was a free and open election, and intimidation and violence was very low during that time. You at points like to give the U.S. every reason for wrongs, including everything bad Saddam did and that we absolutely destroyed the Iraqi people when Saddam did a much worse job. He's a bad guy. You realize if he wasn't there, a lot of these things wouldn't have happened probably. I see what we did was effective policy tools. Sanctions are designed to change a leader's policies.

 

My problem with the Iraqi people now is they don't want to help the American forces, whether or not they are an occupying force. They do realize if they help the country be secure the occupying force leaves sooner.

 

So, my question to you spider, is what should we have done? Iraq was a problem at the time. What should we have done to solve the problem before the war, with intelligence (that turned out incorrect, but was believed true by the entire world community for the most part) that says they have WMDs present. What'ya going to do?

[Nancy Allen``]

Killing unarmed people, as Saddam set out to do, sounds mighty close to terrorism. So given the atrocities he committed one would have to be amoral to allow it to happen.

[Spider AL]

First off, I am not Rogue15. I just said hi.

Oh, I beg your pardon Heavy, I thought you WERE Rogue15.

 

This isn't meant to flame, but you really sound like one of those secular-progressive socialists, Spider.

Ah, now I understand why I confused you with Rogue15.

 

First of all, the fact that you seem to regard the terms "secular" and "socialist" to be negative enough to warrant an "isn't meant to flame" disclaimer... is ludicrous. Because:

 

1. secularism is a fine, laudable ideal. Keeping religions out of state issues is... well, it's GREAT! After all, organised religion is absolute nonsense, used throughout history as a tool to control people's minds and make them do awful things. Note that the United States was originally envisioned as being governed by an essentially secular administration. Unfortunately over the years some religious power-seekers have gotten their claws into what was once a promising national character and have warped it. "One nation indivisible", anyone?

 

2. As for socialism, there's nothing particularly negative about socialist ideals. They're certainly as laudable as any other political ideals. Like democracy, it would be nice to see what would happen if socialism was ever employed to any meaningful degree...

 

As for my own political proclivities, I don't identify myself with any particular political label. If we were to discuss classical political principles, you'd probably find that I was simultaneously more conservative than you, as well as more liberal. But political labels of this sort have been so debased by misuse over the years (calling the Soviet Union "communist", and the United States either "capitalist" or "democratic" are all good examples of flagrant misuse of political terminology) that they've become essentially meaningless.

 

My "politics" is merely based on two things: An ongoing attempt to think about the world logically, and some sort of innate desire to ensure the wellbeing of a majority of the world's population. Labelling it any other way would simply be inaccurate.

 

There has never been any resolution from anyone in writing as far as I know stating that the invasion of Iraq is illegal. If you believe it is illegal, please find some evidence that states it as illegal.

I'm happy to provide evidence: It was illegal, because under international law (which the US signed up to) a United Nations resolution is required to approve such an invasion... or it remains illegal.

 

There is of course one exception defined by the UN charter, that is if a nation is attacked, they can retaliate militarily without first seeking UN approval. Of course this never applied to the United States, as Saddam was no danger even to his neighbors in 2003. Let alone the US.

 

So it was illegal. By definition. Do you have any cogent response to this undeniable fact?

 

Did we invade and learn that the intelligence was wrong? Yes. Did we invade and have no exit strategy: yes. Was the invasion illegal? No. Did we invade for oil and prop up American oil companies? No.

1. My dear Heavyarms, the "intelligence" you're referring to was intentionally fabricated through a process of cherry-picking and outright falsification. We have plenty of evidence from official memoranda and whistle-blowers from inside US/UK administrations to support this (fairly obvious) conclusion.

 

This is so well known that it's no longer even an issue and yet people like yourself still feel comfortable denying it? That's beyond me, it really is.

 

Everyone KNEW that Iraq was no danger to anyone. In 2001, representatives of the US government made

declaring that they were pretty certain that Saddam's regime had no capacity to seriously harm any other nations in the region, not even with conventional weapons, let alone with WMDs. The UN weapons inspectors confirmed this judgement a little over a year later. Knowing this, can you really expect anyone to believe that the US government was so stupid that it invaded Iraq to find WMDs that everyone (including them) knew did not exist? I certainly don't believe them to be that stupid.

 

2. As for the exit strategy... I'm sure the US government had plenty of exit strategies in place. Will they be able to use any of them? Time will tell. I'm certain that all the exit strategies rather depend on achieving sufficient "stability" (public quiescence) for a US puppet regime to survive against the populace.

 

3. Of course the invasion WAS illegal, by definition. As stated before.

 

4. Did we invade for oil? Well let's ask the question: Why DID we invade? It wasn't to "find WMDs". That's been established. So why invade a backwater, ailing country like Iraq? The most obvious explanation in this case is that Iraq has some of the largest energy reserves in the world, in a world that is rapidly running out of viable energy sources. And it was invaded by a nation that drinks oil like it was Coca-Cola.

 

So you tell me. Did we invade so that we could plant a friendly regime in Iraq and thus ensure our consumption of energy for the next few years? Of course we did. There's no other realistic reason on the table, Heavy.

 

Please also define oppressive imperialism. I don't see the U.S. annexing anyone for their own personal benefit.

I'll be happy to define it!.. and you certainly see the US attacking, invading and persecuting MANY nations for its own benefit, by the way.

 

1. For the past fifty years or so, the US has been constantly expanding its network of entrenched military bases worldwide, often at the cost of the indigenous population of the areas they move into. I could give the Chagos Islands fiasco as a notable (and ongoing) example.

 

2. Economic imperialism is one aspect of US foreign policy. The threat of economic sanctions is often used as a sort of bludgeon to bring other nations in line. And in fact, US sanctions have probably killed significantly more civilians in Iraq than US bombs have.

 

3. Thirdly, the US has been funding violent, oppressive regimes that butcher countless people worldwide (The Suharto regime in Indonesia is one good example, Saddam's regime in Iraq is another good example, but of course there are many... MANY more) just because those regimes are ostensibly friendly to the US.

 

4. Last but not least, the US has been both directly and by proxy invading weak, defenceless nations in amoral attempts to INSTALL (and maintain) such friendly regimes, for the past few decades. Vietnam, various places in South America... Iraq... etcetera.

 

This is exactly the pattern that previous major imperialist powers followed, the British Empire being a notably similar example. We even invaded the same places using the same propaganda! The parallel with Iraq is bizarrely exact, if you look at the record. So does the US qualify as an oppressive, imperialist power? Of course it does. It oppresses people economically, by proxy AND directly, and with its immense international influence and multiple military garrisons worldwide, it's most definitely an empire. Whether you wish to call it one or not.

 

And if the President doesn't set national policy, who does? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? "The Man?" In the end, the buck stops with the President. He's responsible. He's the elected official, as well as the VP. It's their responsibility.

You seem to have some sort of ingrained urge to believe that one person has to be "the boss". An innate urge to believe that somewhere, if you go high enough up the chain, one middle-aged guy in a leather chair smoking a Cohiba Robusto and stroking a white cat "calls the shots".

 

It's just not the case, Heavy.

 

On a national scale, decisions are formed by a massive conglomerate of very slightly varying financial interests, each sensitive to the pressures exerted on them by all the rest. In short, the US has an oligarchic arrangement going on. Decisions are made both consciously and unconsciously by the opulent minority en masse. There's no "one guy". The President, the Vice President... they're just mouthpieces. Spokesmodels. Figureheads. In fact it's arguable that national policy is pre-determined WELL before it gets to the governmental stage.

 

That's the net effect of our undemocratic system of governance, you see. Or perhaps one could say that our undemocratic system of governance is the effect of natural human weakness en masse.

 

And I don't know much about corrupt bargains in Iraq, I'm assuming you mean the Halliburton thing. Definitely wasn't a great idea, but we still are sending aid to Iraq.

Very few people who support the US government in its illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq seem to know much about America's corrupt dealings worldwide, Heavy.

 

In this case I was referring to the nine billion dollars from the reparation fund lost in the shuffle by the American occupation authority (the CPA), under Paul Bremer's administration.

 

ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

 

And as stated in previous threads... We're giving a PALTRY amount of money to Iraq. It's totally insufficient to rebuild what we've destroyed. It took us over fifteen years to bring the country to its knees like this... it's not going to be solved by a pathetic few billion dollars.

 

Okay, the United States did not pick the government. Maliki was not picked by the United States. IF he was, you need some evidence to back that up.

Ack! Of course the US "picked" the government! The US vetted the list of candidates prior to the election. By definition, that means they selected those that could run. Therefore, it was NOT democratic. Secondly, the whole "elections" were a clear violation of the Hague Convention (which the US is signed up to, by the way) which forbids an occupying military force from making any permanent changes to the government of the occupied country.

 

As for Maliki, the US exerted massive pressure on Jafaari (Maliki's predecessor) to step down as PM. (Presumably because they considered Jaffari to be too pro-Iran.) They (both the US and the UK) then publically approved of Maliki assuming the office, from that day to this. That's about as "picked" as you can get, short of physically lifting the man into the PM's chair.

 

The Sunnis boycotted the election, that's their problem. The point is there was a free and open election, and intimidation and violence was very low during that time.

"Free and open"? A minority of the population voting for candidates selected by an invading force, candidates who in most cases were completely unknown to the voters ANYWAY, because the list of candidates was not released to the Iraqi people before the election... In a nation where half the country was still deep in armed conflict...

 

Is that what you call "free and open"? That's madness! It was about as far from "free and open" as it was from "democratic". Be serious.

 

As for the Sunnis... Frankly I'd have boycotted such a sham, such a grim parody of an election, if I were an Iraqi.

 

You at points like to give the U.S. every reason for wrongs, including everything bad Saddam did and that we absolutely destroyed the Iraqi people when Saddam did a much worse job. He's a bad guy. You realize if he wasn't there, a lot of these things wouldn't have happened probably. I see what we did was effective policy tools. Sanctions are designed to change a leader's policies.

I don't understand much of this paragraph, but I'll try to address some points:

 

1. Yes, Saddam was indeed a "bad guy". He was a bad guy who was funded and armed by the US and UK. He was funded and armed by us because he was killing our ideological enemies (Iranians). Therefore, our states share responsibility for his evil acts. End of story.

 

2. You say: "If Saddam wasn't there a lot of these things wouldn't have happened probably"... And that's nonsense. Do you think there's a shortage of evil people in the world? If it wasn't Saddam heading up the regime, it would have been someone else, and the US and UK would have funded and armed them too, as long as they were fighting OUR ideological enemies, as Saddam's regime was.

 

3. The sanctions were effective at starving Iraqi civilians, and forcing them to depend on Saddam's regime even more than they depended upon it before. That is ALL they were effective at doing. Such sanctions aren't meant to "change a leader's policies", but to harm innocent civilians in the hope that they'll pressure their leaders into going along with US policies. Therefore, they're immoral.

 

My problem with the Iraqi people now is they don't want to help the American forces, whether or not they are an occupying force. They do realize if they help the country be secure the occupying force leaves sooner.

So your problem with Iraqi people is that they're not rushing to help a violent and self-interested occupying power, that invaded their country without cause and without concern for the effect on the civilian population? Yeah, they're an ungrateful bunch, those Iraqis.

 

And to the US regime, "secure" means "under the control of the US". That wouldn't be in the interest of the Iraqi people either.

 

So, my question to you spider, is what should we have done? Iraq was a problem at the time. What should we have done to solve the problem before the war, with intelligence (that turned out incorrect, but was believed true by the entire world community for the most part) that says they have WMDs present. What'ya going to do?

1. Iraq wasn't a "problem", for its neighbors or for us. So what "problem" are you referring to?

 

2. The pseudo-intelligence dredged up prior to the illegal invasion wasn't believed to be true by "the entire world community", nor even "for the most part". This is a classic fallacy always squeakily wheeled out in all debates of this type. Almost everyone conceded prior to the invasion that Iraq might have some old fashioned chemical weapons material lying around somewhere. But virtually nobody believed the US/UK lies stating that this possibility constituted a meaningful and imminent threat to anybody, and of course only a minority of countries supported the illegal war. So your assertion is meaningless.

 

-

 

Killing unarmed people, as Saddam set out to do, sounds mighty close to terrorism. So given the atrocities he committed one would have to be amoral to allow it to happen.

Of course it was terrorism! It was terrorism not only allowed, but also essentially funded by the US and UK. We approved of Saddam's evil actions for YEARS, until he fell out of favour with our governments. So are our governments amoral? Of course.

[Nancy Allen``]

What about those who still cry that Saddam should have been left alone? It would have been amoral not to take action against him.

[Nancy Allen``]

Excuse the double post, since when has America supported the killing of innocents? Can you provide one example of an American approved mission? Just one? Just one time they had set groups such as the Taliban not against the invading Soviet forces but against defenceless civillians? Just one shred of evidence, that's all I'm asking. Some secret docuement, some stolen covert operations profile, anything.

[Spider AL]

What about those who still cry that Saddam should have been left alone? It would have been amoral not to take action against him.

It would have been perfectly moral to pursue peaceful, political action against Saddam. There were plenty of options of this type.

 

It was IMMORAL to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, as we did! End of story.

 

Excuse the double post, since when has America supported the killing of innocents? Can you provide one example of an American approved mission? Just one? Just one time they had set groups such as the Taliban not against the invading Soviet forces but against defenceless civillians? Just one shred of evidence, that's all I'm asking. Some secret docuement, some stolen covert operations profile, anything.

I can give you two examples just off the top of my head, without doing any research.

 

US direct training of, and massive financial support for the Salvadorian death squads, responsible for the assassinations of civilians and human rights activists in the 1980's... Because the death squads purported to be "anti-communist".

 

And of course the decades-long US political support of the Suharto regime in Indonesia, a regime that butchered the people of East Timor. The US armed and supported the Suharto regime before, during and after the genocide, once again for oil interests.

 

Go and google 'em. Most depressing reading.

[Nancy Allen``]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. We tried for a decade peaceful political barganing with Saddam. You suffer from the delusion that Saddam is an innocent party.

 

I did search for them on Google and it says they killed political dissidents, but nowhere does it say that America set them out to kill them. And even if some group is armed to fight, such as Saddam against the Soviets, and they kill innocents, it's deluded to say that the people armed with the weapons are not to blame but America is.

[Spider AL]

We tried for a decade peaceful political barganing with Saddam.

No Nancy, we didn't. We starved and bombed the Iraqi people for over a decade, that's what we did. Peaceful negotiation was never employed in any meaningful way.

 

You suffer from the delusion that Saddam is an innocent party.

Uh?...

 

Go and get me one single quote where I even IMPLY that Saddam was in any way innocent. You will not find one. End of line.

 

I did search for them on Google and it says they killed political dissidents, but nowhere does it say that America set them out to kill them.

Well go and search again, because you've clearly missed a whole lotta pages there. The "School of the Americas" was essentially set up to train people to go and kill "commies" or any other ideological enemy of the US government. It's famous for it.

 

And even if some group is armed to fight, such as Saddam against the Soviets, and they kill innocents, it's deluded to say that the people armed with the weapons are not to blame but America is.

Er... Go and find a post in which I've said that "they're not to blame but America is". I never have.

 

It's obvious that BOTH the gunman AND the man who armed him are to blame. Therefore, both the US, the UK and Saddam's regime share the blame for the regime's atrocities.

[Nancy Allen``]

Do we blame the inventor of the handgun for murder? Gerald Ford for vehicler homicide? The man who cut down the tree that made the paper for a book on bombs for suicide bombings? Where does accountability end?

[Spider AL]

We blame the man who sees a gunman taking aim at innocent people, and then runs up and gives him an even more expensive gun.

 

That's like Saddam and the US/UK. The US/UK had no illusions about what Saddam was doing. They gave him weapons and cash because it was in their interests to do so. And that's immoral, and they share the blame for the evil acts they facilitated.

[Totenkopf]

If we were to discuss classical political principles, you'd probably find that I was simultaneously more conservative than you, as well as more liberal.

 

And vice versa, no doubt....

 

It would have been perfectly moral to pursue peaceful, political action against Saddam. There were plenty of options of this type.

 

What EFFECTIVE means did you exactly have in mind?

[Spider AL]

And vice versa, no doubt....

Ummm... No, highly doubtful.

 

What EFFECTIVE means did you exactly have in mind?

What would have been the most effective means of freeing the Iraqi people? Why, peaceful political support, of course. The cessation of crippling sanctions that made Iraqis dependant on Saddam's regime would have been a good start. Then perhaps increased financial & political support for popular movements in Iraq.

 

Brutal dictators have been overthrown by their own people all over the world, when those people had a decent chance. It could have happened in Iraq, if the Iraqi people were given a chance by the US/UK. Starved, bombed and with their infrastructure crippled by the US/UK, they never were given that chance.

[Totenkopf]

Unfortunately, al, you're long on generalizations and short on specifics. It's highly doubtful anything you allege would have realistically worked. Nice try though....

[Spider AL]

What, "stop the economic sanctions, stop the bombings and send large wads of cash to democratising organisations and pro-human rights groups within Iraq" Isn't specific enough for you? It's hardly a "generalisation". It's practically a blueprint.

 

As for your claim that it wouldn't have "realistically worked"... Sheer nonsense. Why wouldn't it have worked? There are many historical examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown through popular struggle throughout history. You've got the British being thrown out of India, Indonesia's overthrow of the horribly violent, US/UK supported Suharto regime... and many more.

 

So why wouldn't it work in Iraq? Do you have ANY reasons to back this claim up? At all?

[Heavyarms]

What, "stop the economic sanctions, stop the bombings and send large wads of cash to democratising organisations and pro-human rights groups within Iraq" Isn't specific enough for you? It's hardly a "generalisation". It's practically a blueprint.

 

As for your claim that it wouldn't have "realistically worked"... Sheer nonsense. Why wouldn't it have worked? There are many historical examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown through popular struggle throughout history. You've got the British being thrown out of India, Indonesia's overthrow of the horribly violent, US/UK supported Suharto regime... and many more.

 

So why wouldn't it work in Iraq? Do you have ANY reasons to back this claim up? At all?

 

So, if we hadn't done all that, you are saying that Saddam's regime would have fallen on its own? I doubt it. He was way too oppressive and cruel for people to try against it. We supported bad people, yes, and America is not a heaven saint like you're pretty adamant at saying.

 

There has not been a case of an extremely repressive regime and the people rebelling against him and it succeeding. Or at least I don't know of one off the top of my head. Trust me, the people would have been killed, much like Josef Stalin or Mao Zadong. Josef Stalin's regime didn't collapse until fifty years later and millions died, and that was after Gorbachev was a much weaker leader than Stalin. Look at North Korea. There's a case where his country has pretty much crippled itself, but they aren't getting rid of him. The Nazis weren't overthrown, either.

 

I understand your dislike of what we did during the cold war at times. I think we made some mistakes, including supporting Saddam. But we're responsible for what we've done, aren't we? And I think sanctions are appropriate tools to correct what we've done. I know why you dislike sanctions, and that's ebcause you believe they hurt the people and not the leader. They hurt the leader, trust me. They usually target items that the leaders want, such as weapons and high luxury goods (like the ones that have been placed on North Korea, as well as other ones). Humanitarian aid is given to the people.