Ship of Fools: Shock and Horror, Ten Years Later

Thread: Shock and Horror, Ten Years Later Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025217

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Ten years ago we watched with shock and horror the start of the Iraqi War on real time television.

Americans were sold a bill of goods.

We were told Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was willing to use them on his neighbors.

He didn't and the neighbors really did not want our help.

We were told that Saddam was sheltering Al Qaida and was involved with 9/11.

He wasn't on both counts. Al Qaida did not have a foothold in Iraq until after our invasion.

We were told Iraqis would welcome us with open arms.

Not really.

We were told it would be a quick in and out operation.

Eight years later we finally got out.

We were told we could do it on the cheap, the war would cost no more than $80 billion dollars.

Officially, it cost $750 billion along with 4,700 coalition forces killed and 36,000 wounded. 150,000 Iraqis were killed

A once vibrant nation is now in ruins

Peace would have been so much cheaper.

I would like to thank those who bought the Bush Administration selling of the war hook, line and sinker.

Have we learned anything?

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A once vibrant nation is now in ruins

Well, I imagine the mortality record keeping is better now so it's not ALL bad.

You never could trust Saddam's numbers.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ten years ago we watched with shock and horror the start of the Iraqi War on real time television.

Some of us watched with some excitement. For a while there at the beginning it looked like everything was going to be a success.

quote:
We were told Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was willing to use them on his neighbors...I would like to thank those who bought the Bush Administration selling of the war hook, line and sinker.

What some people seem to overlook is that it wasn't just the Americans and her allies who thought Saddam had WMD, it was a widely-held view amongst the intelligence community. The Russians, French and Germans all thought that Saddam had WMD, though they still opposed the war.

quote:
We were told that Saddam was sheltering Al Qaida and was involved with 9/11.

I know some nutcases have made this link, but have any serious people done so? Would be interested to know.

quote:
A once vibrant nation is now in ruins

While accepting that there's a debate to be had about whether the whole thing was worth it, can we really say that Saddam-era Iraq immediately before the invasion was 'vibrant'? When discussing the merits or otherwise of occupation, that's surely what we're comparing present-day Iraq against?

quote:
Have we learned anything?

I assumed that politicians were competent. I won't make that mistake again.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A once vibrant nation is now in ruins

You might be referring to Iraq there, or the U.S. In either case, you'd have a point (without suggesting that our woes are anything like what the Iraquis went through).

I'm amazed at how Iraq dropped out of the news as soon as our troops left. The idea was that we would make it into a democracy that loved us. I've a sneaking suspicion that this is so much not the case that no one wants to talk about it.

The invasion was terrible Realpolitik (as I suspect Bush Sr. was smart enough to realize that he did not march into Baghdad and eliminate Saddam when it would have been so easy.) The Baathists being Sunni, our success required cultivating the good will of Shi'ites (the Ayatollah's brand of Islam). How was that for stupid?

quote:
Have we learned anything?

I'm afraid not. Polls show that the voters today most likely to approve of the Vietnam war are the youngest. If history doesn't repeat itself, at least it rhymes.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Gramps49, what you seem to forget is that Saddam was playing the same silly ass games as North Korea and Iran are doing today--the yes we are, no we aren't developing horrific weapons now, and wouldn't your inspectors like to see? Oh never mind, we won't let you in, we've changed our minds. Oh wait... For months and months and years. If the international community finally freaked out, it was hardly unexpected. Tapdancing on the edge of possible disaster while singing "Neener neener neener" tends to bring out the worst in people.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
We were told that Saddam was sheltering Al Qaida and was involved with 9/11.
I know some nutcases have made this link, but have any serious people done so? Would be interested to know.

George Bush II certainly did --- oh, but wait, you said "serious".

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Did he, though? I'm probably wrong, but I don't remember that being the case.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

See, for example, this.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

It is noticeable that George Bush and a number of his cronies don't travel out of their country and keep rather a low profile. I suspect they must, or create international incidents. There is iniquity and a river of blood running from Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski through Ronald Reagan and the Mujihadeen to George Bush and the Taliban, with people who should know better like Colin Powell also worthy of prosecution.

While we're at it, who was the USA diplomat who gave Saddam the idea that the USA and the international community would not respond when he, their ally and friend, invaded Kuwait in 1990? Well I guess regardless of the human cost, the oil is in safe hands now.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Gramps49, what you seem to forget is that Saddam was playing the same silly ass games as North Korea and Iran are doing today--the yes we are, no we aren't developing horrific weapons now, and wouldn't your inspectors like to see? Oh never mind, we won't let you in, we've changed our minds. Oh wait... For months and months and years. If the international community finally freaked out, it was hardly unexpected. Tapdancing on the edge of possible disaster while singing "Neener neener neener" tends to bring out the worst in people.

Hmmmm... I seem to recall that Saddam kept denying that he had WMD and turned out to be correct, while North Korea keeps making it clear that they really, honestly, truly DO have WMDs and "What are you going to do about it?".

[ 20. March 2013, 00:13: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Anglican't, i don't want to give the impression that i'm running away from addressing your response to my assertion. i'm pretty sure of my assertion, but in honesty right now i can't give you a citation -- i will continue to search. I seem to clearly recall accounts of meetings of the President and other officials immediately post-9/11, and that some witnesses at the meetings were surprised that Iraq was brought up. Although it might have been that Cheney and/or Rumsfeld were the principal pushers of this.

Again, i have to keep researching the link as i have the time.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
While we're at it, who was the USA diplomat who gave Saddam the idea that the USA and the international community would not respond when he, their ally and friend, invaded Kuwait in 1990? Well I guess regardless of the human cost, the oil is in safe hands now.

Madeleine Albright, I think.

[ 20. March 2013, 00:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Anglican't, i don't want to give the impression that i'm running away from addressing your response to my assertion. i'm pretty sure of my assertion, but in honesty right now i can't give you a citation -- i will continue to search. I seem to clearly recall accounts of meetings of the President and other officials immediately post-9/11, and that some witnesses at the meetings were surprised that Iraq was brought up. Although it might have been that Cheney and/or Rumsfeld were the principal pushers of this.

Possibly, the confusion is between linking Iraq and Al Qaeda and linking Iraq and 9-11. This article documents references to the former, namely

quote:
In Nashville on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of a Saddam "armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror" who could "directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And, in Cincinnati on October 7, President George W. Bush warned, "The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." Citing Saddam's association with Al Qaeda, the president added that this "alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Linking Iraq with Al Qaeda, while also linking Al Qaeda with 9-11 can easily give the impression that Iraq was linked to 9-11...without ever actually having to say that! As Anglican't's link shows, a direct denial of such a link didn't come until September of 2003--after almost a year of simply implying that such a link existed.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What some people seem to overlook is that it wasn't just the Americans and her allies who thought Saddam had WMD, it was a widely-held view amongst the intelligence community. The Russians, French and Germans all thought that Saddam had WMD, though they still opposed the war.

Look, if the German's code-name for their source is "Curveball", it's a pretty good indication they consider him a fabulist. There was a lot of propaganda along the lines of 'everyone really knows Saddam has WMDs, but no one will admit it because they're all cowards'. Do you have a reliable citation that any of the governments you named sincerely believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs capable of attacking other countries in 2003? Or was even capable of putting together such a capability in six months time in 2003?

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Linking Iraq with Al Qaeda, while also linking Al Qaeda with 9-11 can easily give the impression that Iraq was linked to 9-11...without ever actually having to say that! As Anglican't's link shows, a direct denial of such a link didn't come until September of 2003--after almost a year of simply implying that such a link existed.

And only six months after the war. Oopsie!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here is a useful blog post from 2004 detailing why the blogger in question was right about Iraq. It's one of those "read the whole thing" posts (and not that long), but the short version boils down to:

Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance.
Fibbers’ forecasts are worthless.
The Vital Importance of Audit.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
While we're at it, who was the USA diplomat who gave Saddam the idea that the USA and the international community would not respond when he, their ally and friend, invaded Kuwait in 1990? Well I guess regardless of the human cost, the oil is in safe hands now.
Madeleine Albright, I think.

Albright worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations, but not under Reagan or GHW Bush.

It was the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, who (supposedly) gave the green light. According to Wikipedia:

quote:
On the 25th [of July, 1990], Saddam met with April Glaspie, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, in Baghdad. According to an Iraqi transcript of that meeting, Glaspie told the Iraqi delegation, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts."[39] According to Glaspie's own account, she stated in reference to the precise border between Kuwait and Iraq, "(...) that she had served in Kuwait 20 years before; 'then, as now, we took no position on these Arab affairs'."[40] Glaspie similarly believed that war was not imminent.[38]

Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Threads about war bring out the the worst in me, and among the most intense reactions.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Gramps49, what you seem to forget is that Saddam was playing the same silly ass games as North Korea and Iran are doing today--the yes we are, no we aren't developing horrific weapons now, and wouldn't your inspectors like to see? Oh never mind, we won't let you in, we've changed our minds. Oh wait... For months and months and years. If the international community finally freaked out, it was hardly unexpected. Tapdancing on the edge of possible disaster while singing "Neener neener neener" tends to bring out the worst in people.

Except the international community didn't freak out. It was the USA, with Britain chiming in, and most of us were against it. Remember the French, the USA began to call them "cheese eating surrender monkeys" and renamed "french fries" into "freedom fries"? Remember Hans Blix the UN weapons inspector who actually called the USA bastards? Remember that the UN security council voted against the American war in Iraq? Remember the fake documents that the UK produced to support the unholy Blair-Bush lies?

The neener neener neener is the USA dropping bombs and killing. There will be more I'm sure. Particularly by drones. Though they've moved on to other countries. Figures like these make the invasion soldier death numbers seem pretty meaningless.

And no, we're not going to join you in another stupid invasion, whether North Korea, Iran or Albania.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Have we learned anything?

Yes.

That it's not to late to prosecute George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfield, and Richard Cheney for war crimes.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have more innocent blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden ever did.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Albright worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations, but not under Reagan or GHW Bush.

It was the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, who (supposedly) gave the green light.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it was an example of the military dictum at work, in response to 9/11. Muscle-flexing. We gotta show this world they can't mess with us without getting a bloody nose.

"We must DO something
THIS is something
So lets DO it"

As a response to Al Qaeda, it was inappropriate, and I think it damaged the reputation of both US and UK governments. Saddam Hussain was a sadistic bastard who used fear and brutality to sustain himself in power. Maybe Iraq was more orderly then. But cowed people tend not to make waves. I don't mourn his passing, and I don't doubt that any overthrow of him and his oppression would have been costly in terms of loss of life and social mayhem. Brutal dictators rarely go quietly. My gut feel is that it may have been quicker this way, but it has probably been more costly to the people living there than an internal overthrow would have been. But I think Iraq will emerge better. Mixed signals at present, but some hopeful ones as well.

What I hope we've learned are the real counter-productive and destructive dangers of attempting regime change and subsequent nation-building by means of military force. Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated those dangers clearly, even when there are real reasons (rather than concerns over risks) to see these failed or brutalised states as endangering peace and stability beyond their borders.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have more innocent blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden ever did.

How so?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have more innocent blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden ever did.
How so?

OBL: a few thousand people in the World Trade Centre.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq alone.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have more innocent blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden ever did.
How so?
OBL: a few thousand people in the World Trade Centre.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq alone.

I have trouble drawing an equivalence between the two. Bush & Co.'s actions were intended to save lives (by removing a tyrannical ruler, creating democracy, etc.). A number of innocent people died in that process and some of them made have done so as a result of Bush & Co.'s negligence, but that wasn't the intention.

Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, did intend to kill lots of people. Indeed, the only reason he did anything was to kill lots of people.

Given that the two groups start from such different positions, I not only find a comparison a little bit distasteful but I'm also not sure if it's in any way useful.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Not sure how mens rea (guilty mind) works over war crimes. The old "just war" principle of proportionality comes into play at some stage, as does the issue of the loss of life of civilians.

That's the slippery slope of intervention by means of force. Do the ends justify the means? We shouldn't kid ourselves about Al Qaeda et al. They also see good ends (in their own terms) and so justify extreme means.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Anglican't:

quote:

Some of us watched with some excitement.

....and some of us watched through tears.

quote:

A number of innocent people died in that process..

Almost 7,500 civilians died that night while I sat in the comfort of my armchair at home with a cup of tea and watched it happen. I will question my motives for sitting down to watch that event unfold until my dying day. It was something I felt it would be important to see regardless of how difficult it would be to watch, yet I will forever rue the day I did it. It's the closest I ever want to get to snuff.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Somebody made the point about Realpolitik - the thing that always puzzled me was that a sixth former could tell you that Iraq and Iran balanced each other. So the invasion of Iraq made Iran the main player in the area, and also, of course, turned Iraq into a Shia stronghold.

Did the intelligence bods actually work this out, and approve it? Maybe. But why?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Anglican't, regarding comparison of bin Laden and Bush:

quote:
Given that the two groups start from such different positions, I not only find a comparison a little bit distasteful but I'm also not sure if it's in any way useful.

Well, I don't think it's a useful comparison either and you have just clarified why. Basically what you're saying is that bin Laden set out to kill lots of people - and was successful. Bush et al. may have *intended* to save (American) lives, but actually ended up killing even more people (including some Americans) and making the world rather less safe for Democracy.

Whichever way you look at it, they failed. If they set out with good intentions it's tragic, but it doesn't alter the fact that 150,000 people were killed in a country that they did not *have* to go to war with.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whichever way you look at it, they failed.

I suppose in a narrow sense it was successful in that Saddam was overthrown. But that was always going to be the easy part. I'm still shocked that everyone (particularly politicians in Britain) seemed to think that someone else had a plan to deal with post-war Iraq when in fact post-war planning was wholly inadequate. Such a tragedy.

quote:
If they set out with good intentions it's tragic, but it doesn't alter the fact that 150,000 people were killed in a country that they did not *have* to go to war with.

While I agree that the post-war occupation failed in quite a fundamental way, it's perhaps worth pointing out that had we not gone to war some other people - perhaps just as many, perhaps more - would have died, not as a result of unintentional 'collateral damage' but as a result of a deliberately cruel and oppressive government.

Yes, the incompetent prosecution of the Iraq War cost lives, but 'peace' would have cost lives too.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have more innocent blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden ever did.

Based on sheer numbers alone, that is blatantly obvious.

When a huge entity with vast military resources (and corporate backing) do it, it is called legitimate war.

When an outlaw group without access to such resources does it, it is called terrorism.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Have we learned anything?
Yes.

That it's not to late to prosecute George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfield, and Richard Cheney for war crimes.

And sadly (since I voted for him twice), Obama might have to join their number unless he repents of and totally ceases from the hellishly immoral drone killings of innocent civilians.

Would that the civilized nations of the world would consider imposing measures such as sanctions on the world's biggest aggressor nation, the U.S. of A., the sort of measures the US has gotten them to employ on nations it doesn't like, e.g., Iran.

[ 20. March 2013, 11:21: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A once vibrant nation is now in ruins.

'Vibrant'? There were horrible human rights abuses under Saddam. Also, the nation is rebuilding itself. The BBC gave a fairly balanced report the other night.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are grave questions about the war. I am certainly not an apologist for Bush/Blair. But are we forgetting that Saddam Hussein dragged his people into the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-88, in which half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers died?

He should have been taken out in 1990, to put it bluntly.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The idea that we should be able to intervene in other countries, to 'take out' people we don't like is itself pretty scary. I'm not saying that it's always wrong - I think it was OK to invade Germany!

But one problem with it, is that it's reversible, or extendable to other countries, who might want to take out other leaders.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I have trouble drawing an equivalence between the two. Bush & Co.'s actions were intended to save lives (by removing a tyrannical ruler, creating democracy, etc.). A number of innocent people died in that process and some of them made have done so as a result of Bush & Co.'s negligence, but that wasn't the intention.

I am going to date myself with this one, from the Vietnam era: "Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity".

The point is that it is not acceptable to claim you're removing a bad dictator (particularly when he was your pet and puppet for years), say you're bringing freedom and democracy while knowing that what you're really doing is to corner the country's supply of oil. The additional point is that the USA has virtually no interest in democracy in countries with oil. It is interested in governments that will comply, full stop. Freedom as the word has been used within the USA seems to follow its definition. Elsewhere it means its opposite and economic enslavement. Like the Borg of StarTrek, 'your culture will serve our's'.

quote:

Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, did intend to kill lots of people. Indeed, the only reason he did anything was to kill lots of people.

That's a little simplistic. He and his followers articulated all sorts of reasons for what they did. If we simply say he was a demon, we are no further along in understanding why people are angry at the current world order that they would do such things. Better is to understand the reasons that people feel so alienated.

quote:

Given that the two groups start from such different positions, I not only find a comparison a little bit distasteful but I'm also not sure if it's in any way useful.

Ibid. A dead person doesn't care whether a freedom fighter from one side or another killed them. Neither do their families. So, yes it is useful and distaste is absolutely required. Preferably distaste of the level that you are vomitting ill and rather angry. An American soldier dropping bombs and a terrorist blowing up a vehicle are identical unless we're talking body count, here the Americans and allies win the contest. If you see either and they are coming for you, run.

(edit, fix code]

[ 20. March 2013, 13:26: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
But are we forgetting that Saddam Hussein dragged his people into the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-88, in which half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers died?

Yeah! I wonder why the U.S. didn't do anything then? Oh right!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Anglican't:

quote:
...not as a result of unintentional 'collateral damage'...

It's only 'collateral damage' if Our Brave Troops do it. Done by anyone else it would be called massacring unarmed civilians.

And as noprophet says, whatever you call it and however pure your motives may be, the victims are just as dead.

[ 20. March 2013, 13:44: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Anglican't, Let's see if if i can help ease your troubles.

(1) "Bush & Co.'s actions were intended to save lives (by removing a tyrannical ruler, creating democracy." Bullshit. It was about oil. (Plus Shrub probably felt like he had to finish what Poppy hadn't)

(2) It is much more than a bit distasteful to refer to the unprovoked slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children as merely "a number of innocent people" and describe it as "negligence."

(3) As for the myth that the Iraqis are better off since the aggression of U.S./U.K. and allies, the following might help put things in a more moral perspective for you:

Watching as Iraq crumbled

Post-Saddam Iraq defined by division

[ 20. March 2013, 13:55: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

Except the international community didn't freak out. It was the USA, with Britain chiming in, and most of us were against it. Remember the French, the USA began to call them "cheese eating surrender monkeys" and renamed "french fries" into "freedom fries"?

The French were right (IMO) to stay well away from Iraq, but their motives shouldn't be painted into overly glowing terms. To put it bluntly: the French didn't join in with invading Iraq because Saddam was Jacques Chirac's mate and he didn't want to invade his buddy's country.

Also France has a very large Arab population, and is generally on quite good terms with much of the Arab world (or at least, better terms than most Western countries). Faced with a choice between pissing off the Arabs or pissing off the Americans, Jacques Chirac decided that it was in the French national interest to give Washington the finger.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
An American soldier dropping bombs and a terrorist blowing up a vehicle are identical unless we're talking body count.

No. No. No.

American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.

Personnel are subject to rules of engagement. Their intention is to destroy pre-defined military targets. If they breach or disobey their orders they are subject to court martial and discipline. They are accountable for their actions.

Terrorists, by contrast, are accountable to no-one except the small band of adherents to their crazy ideology. They choose their targets amongst themselves and their aim isn't to further some idealistic end but to kill anyone and everyone who doesn't subscribe to their view of the world, regardless of whether they're soldiers or civilians. Indeed the more innocent people the better.

I'm not defending the US military here, I'm really not. Sometimes they did horrible things. But to start from a position of saying that a US soldier and a terrorist are morally equivalent is in my view - and to use a term I first heard on this board - batshit crazy.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Your example contradicts your assertion that US soldiers are accountable for their actions. How many of those who murdered those people in cold blood served a day in prison for their crimes?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Obama might have to join their number unless he repents of and totally ceases from the hellishly immoral drone killings of innocent civilians.

Why is the drone part relevant? A drone is just a weapon. There is no difference between killing people with a drone and killing people with an Apache helicopter, or with a SEAL team.

Either a particular assembly of people is a legitimate military target, or it isn't.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
It's only 'collateral damage' if Our Brave Troops do it. Done by anyone else it would be called massacring unarmed civilians.

I put 'collateral damage' in inverted commas for a reason - I dislike the phrase very much but used it in that instance because I was trying to express myself succinctly. On reflection I perhaps shouldn't have used it at all.

quote:
[H]owever pure your motives may be, the victims are just as dead.

I agree. It's horrible. But I don't think that this is a situation with pleasant outcomes, whatever you choose to do or not do.

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Bullshit. It was about oil.

I've never really understood the whole 'it was all about oil' argument. Are you saying that the West needed to secure new oil reserves because existing reserves were running out? Or was it just about opening up Iraqi reserves to the world and using western contractors to do that? If so, has this actually happened? I've no idea.

Lots of people talked about 'it's all about oil' in the UK. I really don't think that was Tony Blair's motivation (which is not to say that he was right).

quote:
It is much more than a bit distasteful to refer to the unprovoked slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent men... as "negligence."

I don't know about you, but I consider negligence to be quite a serious charge to put to a politician. Particularly when it concerns the most important foreign policy decision of his career.

quote:
As for the myth that the Iraqis are better off since the aggression of U.S./U.K. and allies, the following might help put things in a more moral perspective for you.

Thanks - I'll read these when I have a moment.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your example contradicts your assertion that US soldiers are accountable for their actions. How many of those who murdered those people in cold blood served a day in prison for their crimes?

My mistake - I really thought some people had gone to prison for that.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Your example contradicts your assertion that US soldiers are accountable for their actions. How many of those who murdered those people in cold blood served a day in prison for their crimes?
My mistake - I really thought some people had gone to prison for that.

And I'm sure in other cases they have, to be fair. But the pattern of plea bargaining and charge reducing, sometimes to the point that the court virtually ends up apologising for taking up the accused's valuable time, in these cases is sadly familiar.

It does somewhat smack of "yeah, some innocent people got killed, shouldn't really have happened, but what they hey, these things happen. Sorry chaps. Blokes involved are terribly sorry."

[ 20. March 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea that we should be able to intervene in other countries, to 'take out' people we don't like is itself pretty scary.

Yes, yes, it is. Please don't think that I'm on board, generally, with that! But since Saddam had invaded Kuwait, and our forces were repelling his forces, probably we should have finished the job then (or taken him captive and had him tried for war crimes), perhaps saving thousands of people a lot of grief further down the line.

quote:
I'm not saying that it's always wrong - I think it was OK to invade Germany!

We didn't invade Germany. Hitler was hell-bent on invading us. Different situation.

quote:
But one problem with it, is that it's reversible, or extendable to other countries, who might want to take out other leaders.

Which is why I don't support the principle.

We didn't start the first Gulf War.

[ 20. March 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: Laurelin ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Obama might have to join their number unless he repents of and totally ceases from the hellishly immoral drone killings of innocent civilians.
Why is the drone part relevant? A drone is just a weapon. There is no difference between killing people with a drone and killing people with an Apache helicopter, or with a SEAL team.

Either a particular assembly of people is a legitimate military target, or it isn't.

Basically you are right. I only mentioned drones because that is what is being used in Pakistan to kill any innocent folks who happen to get in the way of them. And there is, I think, something cowardly about sitting safely afar while you are killing people as if it were a video game. Plus, if we are not in a state of war with Pakistan, that's also, in international law, an illegal way of doing things. How would the U.S. like it if a someone sent drones to kill people in U.S. cities? Oh, wait, that was hijacked planes, wasn't it?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
While I agree that the post-war occupation failed in quite a fundamental way, it's perhaps worth pointing out that had we not gone to war some other people - perhaps just as many, perhaps more - would have died, not as a result of unintentional 'collateral damage' but as a result of a deliberately cruel and oppressive government.

Yes, the incompetent prosecution of the Iraq War cost lives, but 'peace' would have cost lives too.

You sound like you've never heard of "Shock and Awe", which is rather surprising given that the title of this thread is based on the term.

For those who seem to have forgotten in the last ten years, "Shock and Awe" was the doctrine that an enemy nation could be forced to a quicker surrender by the use of overwhelming force. This force was to be applied not just to military targets, but also any civilian target which might be militarily useful to the enemy nation (e.g. factories, bridges, power plants, dams, etc.). Of course, once you start directly attacking civilian targets, civilian casualties are an almost certain byproduct. So it's incredibly dishonest to make the claim that such casualties are "unintentional".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

I'm not defending the US military here, I'm really not. Sometimes they did horrible things. But to start from a position of saying that a US soldier and a terrorist are morally equivalent is in my view - and to use a term I first heard on this board - batshit crazy.

It is not simple. I am not apologising for terrorism, but it is not intrinsically more evil than conventional war.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A once vibrant nation is now in ruins.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are grave questions about the war. I am certainly not an apologist for Bush/Blair. But are we forgetting that Saddam Hussein dragged his people into the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-88, in which half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers died?

He should have been taken out in 1990, to put it bluntly.

Let's keep in mind that the U.S. encouraged and supported Saddam to the tune of billions of dollars in that 1980-1998 Iran-Iraq War. Saddam, being a secularist, was seen as preferable to the Shia regime in Iran. We were perfectly okay ignoring his human rights abuses then.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
We didn't start the first Gulf War.

Saddam didn't declare war against the U.S. It was a land dispute. Without passing judgement about who was correct in this, if you look at a map you can see why some think Kuwait was intended to be part of Iraq. After all the borders were drawn by the European colonizers.

And, certainly it was not about democracy. Kuwait was an undemocratic regime. Kuwaiti citizens, an elite minority of the actual population of Kuwait, used its vast oil wealth to sit on their fat asses (figuratively) in luxury, while the work was done by the majority of the population who were immigrants without getting an equitable share of the riches or any political rights.

It was not a case of the West going in to save poor little Kuwait. It was about oil. Saddam wanted the oil and the West wanted the oil. The West had more firepower.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And there is, I think, something cowardly about sitting safely afar while you are killing people as if it were a video game.

I've heard this argument before, and I don't find it convincing. If I'm in an M1 Abrams, and you're in a T-55, is that cowardly? If you have an AK-47, and I shoot you with an M4 from beyond your effective range, am I cowardly? If I hide behind a bush and detonate a bomb when you drive past, am I cowardly?

If there's ten of me, and five of you, should half of my squad put their weapons down and wait for the other half to duke it out according to the Marquis of Queensberry rules?

What if you're in a destroyer, and I'm launching missiles from a ship over the horizon?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I'm ashamed to say that 10 years ago I was on this site fully justifying it and more.

I fully repudiate that, but not the blood on my hands for saying 'In my name.'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

I'm not defending the US military here, I'm really not. Sometimes they did horrible things. But to start from a position of saying that a US soldier and a terrorist are morally equivalent is in my view - and to use a term I first heard on this board - batshit crazy.
It is not simple. I am not apologising for terrorism, but it is not intrinsically more evil than conventional war.

Yes, this is an interesting argument. The normal point is that the terrorist targets civilians, whereas the army does not. However, some guerillas don't target civilians, and some armies do.

Then you have to decide if killing civilians is worse than killing soldiers. I suppose the usual argument is to say that the former are innocent, therefore it is more reprehensible. However, killing is killing.

I suppose we are talking partly about the conventions of war, whereby armed and uniformed soldiers are entitled to kill each other (in law) in hot combat, but not afterwards. Thus killing POWs is also considered highly reprehensible and illegal.

I suppose morality and legality make uneasy bed-fellows!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.

Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Quetzalcoatl,

There is also an additional dilemma. "Terrorism" is often a weak force attacking a strong force with whatever means possible. If one sees this as wrong, then oppression is de facto right.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Quetzalcoatl,

There is also an additional dilemma. "Terrorism" is often a weak force attacking a strong force with whatever means possible. If one sees this as wrong, then oppression is de facto right.

I vaguely recall some Christian stuff written justifying guerilla warfare in the 70s and 80s. I suppose it was based on just war theory, but then probably the rise of Islamism has tended to shut it down.

Well, the West just tends to assume its own rightness in invading other countries, and 'taking out' their leaders. But, surprise, surprise, the locals are often not too keen on this, and fight back. These are the bad guys, by the way, so we are justified in killing them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?

Yes, you could whisper to a Vietnamese orphan, or Iraqui orphan, 'remember, your parents' deaths are the result of centuries of democratic accountability. And in addition, your parents were bad people. Now run along and play'.

[ 20. March 2013, 16:41: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whichever way you look at it, they failed.

A few years ago I was working with an Iraqi doctor on translating a medical book. Even despite the violence still present in Baghdad where he lived, he considered the regime change to have been a good thing, and was very pleased that it had happened.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Yeah. The regime change was great for Christians living in Iraq, and for the various Muslim factions, and for those who have died in car bombs, and those dead in bombs, and those shot, and those beaten up, intimidated and abused, and those who can't feed themselves or their family because someone else controls all their resources. I bet they think it's just fan dabby doosey. It changed from being shit to being shit with the added bonus of the long term benefit being totally shit; but hey, the word of one doctor overrides all of that I'm sure. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

Well it's the first testimony from an actual Iraqi citizen that's been posted on this thread. That's why I thought it might be interesting to share.

But I suppose your personal opinions are of much more value than those of the people who actually live there. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Exactly which 'personal' opinions did you spot in my post?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?

This is not in itself an excuse for military action, of course not, but it's one of the factors that puts a Western soldier in a morally superior position when compared to an Al-Qaeda terrorist. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how anyone could consider these two things in any way equal.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?
This is not in itself an excuse for military action, of course not, but it's one of the factors that puts a Western soldier in a morally superior position when compared to an Al-Qaeda terrorist. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand how anyone could consider these two things in any way equal.

Doesn't it depend on what they are both doing? If the Western soldier is torturing somebody, is he still morally superior?

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Well it's the first testimony from an actual Iraqi citizen that's been posted on this thread. That's why I thought it might be interesting to share.

But I suppose your personal opinions are of much more value than those of the people who actually live there.

In any large group, one can always find an exception. What might have been the motivations of that particular individual?

But, again, here are the views of others who have been there. I gave the following links up-thread, but here they are again for your convenience:

Watching as Iraq crumbled

Post-Saddam Iraq defined by division

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

Lots of people talked about 'it's all about oil' in the UK. I really don't think that was Tony Blair's motivation (which is not to say that he was right).

As someone put it recently on another thread -- If Saddam was ruler of Zimbabwe he'd still be there . Nuff said .

Some say blair was motivated by the thrill of war itself , having gained a taste for it as Prime Minister during the Serbia conflict. The reality is probably that his hands were tied , the UK has been beholden to the US since WW2.

I'm no fan of blair but have to say he was visibly aging as the Iraq campaign started to resemble the blood-bath it turned out to be.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Doesn't it depend on what they are both doing? If the Western soldier is torturing somebody, is he still morally superior?

I am still having issues understanding how a regular military soldier is inherently moral superior to an irregular soldier.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
We were told Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was willing to use them on his neighbors...I would like to thank those who bought the Bush Administration selling of the war hook, line and sinker.
What some people seem to overlook is that it wasn't just the Americans and her allies who thought Saddam had WMD, it was a widely-held view amongst the intelligence community.

That's one of the scariest things, if true. Apparently me and my friends had a better idea of the real military capability of Iraq, and the likely outcome of a war there than the intelligence services of every major country in the world [Eek!]

Were they really all that deluded? Or were they just saying what they thought their bosses wanted to hear? Or were they telling the truth and the governments they were working for twisting it? I know which seems the most likely. (And also the least scary)

quote:

The Russians, French and Germans all thought that Saddam had WMD, though they still opposed the war.

Everyone knew that they had "weapons of mass destruction" in that they had, and had used, nerve gas and medium-range ballistic missiles. Everyone who was paying attention knew that they had very few of them left. The British goverment used "WMD" as a weasel word to scare people into thinking they were going to get nuked.

quote:
We were told that Saddam was sheltering Al Qaida and was involved with 9/11.

I know some nutcases have made this link, but have any serious people done so? Would be interested to know.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

American and British governments at the time. Why pretend they didn't?

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Bullshit. It was about oil.
I've never really understood the whole 'it was all about oil' argument. Are you saying that the West needed to secure new oil reserves because existing reserves were running out? Or was it just about opening up Iraqi reserves to the world and using western contractors to do that? If so, has this actually happened? I've no idea.

The 1990/91 war was about oil from Iraq's point of view. A simple land grab to get the oil wells, followed by a deliberate attempt to destroy them to hurt the attackers when they knew they had lost.

Less so from the American point of view, although oil is what gives the area its importance to them. They could perfectly well continue to buy oild from an Iraq-ruled Kuwait as from a Sultan-ruled one. After all they did heaps of business with Iraq already.

Whether or not it was a good idea for us to attack Iraq, in legal terms we had a pretty unassailable reason to do so in that war because they had attacked an ally, oil or no oil. Very differrent from ten years later.

quote:

Lots of people talked about 'it's all about oil' in the UK. I really don't think that was Tony Blair's motivation (which is not to say that he was right).

2003 was quite different. Blair's motivation was to do anything possible to stay in bed with the Americans. When it because obvious the Americans were going to invade, they British government wanted us to join in. I have no idea whether or not that is because they had some fantasy of ameliorating or modifying American policy, or just because they liked being part of the biggest gang, I don't know. Maybe it just let them carry on feeling important.

Bush's government wanted to invade because of 9/11. Its not that they thought Saddam had anything to do with it - though they did try to pretend that he did - but that they wanted to be seen to be doing something, preferably something that involved killing a lot of Arabs, because it would go down well with the voters. And Iraq was in the shit, and had a very nasty government, and they were under pressure from the old neo-cons and Israel and Russia to hurt Iraq, so they did. Because they knew they coudl get away with it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Blair's motivation was to do anything possible to stay in bed with the Americans. When it because obvious the Americans were going to invade, they British government wanted us to join in.

Well, only Blair actually knows and possibly not even him. Blair had a history of humanitarian interventions: Sierra Leone and Kosovo. There were left-wing neo-conservatives outside the government who bought into the idea that Saddam could be toppled and easily replaced by a democracy. I think it's quite possible given Blair's past actions that he was one of them. I don't say that it meant snuggling up to the Americans would have hurt.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Perhaps of interest

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And, certainly it was not about democracy. Kuwait was an undemocratic regime. Kuwaiti citizens, an elite minority of the actual population of Kuwait, used its vast oil wealth to sit on their fat asses (figuratively) in luxury, while the work was done by the majority of the population who were immigrants without getting an equitable share of the riches or any political rights.

If you replace "oil wealth" with "fraud and exploitation wealth" and "citizens" and "immigrants" with "2%" and "98%" it sounds just like the United States.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I wonder how much the Rwanda genocide changed the thinking that European governments had about direct intervention.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Not every intelligence service in the world believed Iraq had wmd. The Russians denounced the argument. The French Doubted it. The Germans questioned it. Only two agencies claimed there was, the CIA and MI6 claimed there were wmds. However they were told by several other agencies there were no wmd in Iraq. Not everyone got it wrong.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I wonder how much the Rwanda genocide changed the thinking that European governments had about direct intervention.

Considering they have jumped to help fight oppression since then, oh, wait.....

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... But I think Iraq will emerge better. Mixed signals at present, but some hopeful ones as well. ...

Is there any evidence at all for that statement of bizarre optimism?

And even if there were now any such green shoots of hope, how long ago was the Iraq invasion now?

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't
No. No. No.

American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions. ...

So invading a foreign country wantonly and without cause, is OK as long as it is done by a government which happens to have been elected by its own people?

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000
"Bush & Co.'s actions were intended to save lives (by removing a tyrannical ruler, creating democracy." Bullshit. It was about oil. ...

Sorry, but that is as dissuasive of the opposite cause as the two above that I've just quoted.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
American military personnel are sent to theatre because of a policy set by a democratically-elected government which is accountable for its actions.
Accountable to whom? Certainly not the people they're killing. What kind of bullshit justification says that it's OK for the military of one country to level another country so long as the voters of the first country agree to it?
Yes, you could whisper to a Vietnamese orphan, or Iraqui orphan, 'remember, your parents' deaths are the result of centuries of democratic accountability. And in addition, your parents were bad people. Now run along and play'.

You know, my family does speaking engagements every so often; and it's happened several times that some excessively dovish person has come up to apologize to Mr Lamb for "Americans destroying your beautiful country." They are taken aback when he grabs them by both hands and says enthusiastically, "Thank you, thank you for coming to help us." Then fixes them with a reproachful gaze and adds, "Why did you go home too early?"

Your Iraqi orphans may have a spectrum of opinions as well. It's certainly not clearcut that everything we did was evil, or that all the effects are bad. And local people are notsimple minded--at least, not more so than human beings anywhere else on the planet.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Doesn't it depend on what they are both doing? If the Western soldier is torturing somebody, is he still morally superior?
I am still having issues understanding how a regular military soldier is inherently moral superior to an irregular soldier.

Yes, your word 'inherently' is the key. If he is taking part in an illegal war, which might be seen as a war crime, or a group of war crimes, how does his morality stand then? Quite honestly, I have no idea. How about the morality of an Iraqui insurgent, who saw himself as a patriot?

I'm not sure if one can actually measure such things, as they are going into very grey areas. I suppose it's nice to think of the men with white hats as good, and the ones with black hats as bad. Shane, come back!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the West just tends to assume its own rightness in invading other countries, and 'taking out' their leaders. But, surprise, surprise, the locals are often not too keen on this, and fight back. These are the bad guys, by the way, so we are justified in killing them.

Interestingly, this is roughly the argument the Germans used against the Belgians when they invaded their country in 1914. "You're shooting at us, so you're bad guys, so we can kill you with impunity."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Also used in the Indian Mutiny, no hang on, correct that, used in the British Empire extensively. How dare the little brown buggers be patriotic?

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

The only mildly uplifting thing to happen in the whole Iraq war debacle was watching Baghdad Bob; the sheer lunacy was strangely compelling.

Everything else turned to shit really quickly.

[ 21. March 2013, 02:46: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have more innocent blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden ever did.
How so?
OBL: a few thousand people in the World Trade Centre.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld: hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq alone.
I have trouble drawing an equivalence between the two. Bush & Co.'s actions were intended to save lives (by removing a tyrannical ruler, creating democracy, etc.). A number of innocent people died in that process and some of them made have done so as a result of Bush & Co.'s negligence, but that wasn't the intention.

Osama Bin Laden, on the other hand, did intend to kill lots of people. Indeed, the only reason he did anything was to kill lots of people.

Given that the two groups start from such different positions, I not only find a comparison a little bit distasteful but I'm also not sure if it's in any way useful.

The fact that Bush and Co. killed civilians out of indifference rather than malice doesn't cut much ice as far as I'm concerned. They had a political objective and it was fine with them if many thousands of people who were no threat to anyone died for it. They're terrorists, just as much as bin Laden, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Dafyd said:

quote:
There were left-wing neo-conservatives outside the government who bought into the idea that Saddam could be toppled and easily replaced by a democracy. I think it's quite possible given Blair's past actions that he was one of them.

I suspect he may also have been influenced by the fact that the UN/EU/international community was widely criticised for dithering over Kosovo and failing to prevent the genocide. Perhaps that made him more inclined to jump first and ask questions later in 2003.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Well it's the first testimony from an actual Iraqi citizen that's been posted on this thread. That's why I thought it might be interesting to share.

But I suppose your personal opinions are of much more value than those of the people who actually live there.
In any large group, one can always find an exception. What might have been the motivations of that particular individual?

But, again, here are the views of others who have been there. I gave the following links up-thread, but here they are again for your convenience:

Watching as Iraq crumbled

Post-Saddam Iraq defined by division

I don't know what my work colleague's motivation was. But the first link you posted was from a peace activist who isn't an Iraqi. The other is an Australian lawyer. But he does mention he has spoken to Iraqis. He admits that it depends on whom you speak to whether they think it is better now than before invasion. Some people think it isn't, quoting the uncertainty, and anarchic style of the violence. Some, like my colleague are willing to overlook such uncertainties and focus on the fact that oppression and violence are no longer legitimised weapons of the state against the people.

The second link says that professionals are leaving Iraq. My colleague was a doctor and was happy to remain, in fact telling me that he was finding it easier to work in Iraq's Health Department than before. He was involved in translating educational books into Arabic, with a grant from the Iraq government, so that doctors could educate their patients about health issues in the patient's own language (most medical books in the Middle East are currently in English). He was very positive and enthusiastic about the project, with a great deal of hope for the future.

Yes there are always exceptional opinions. But to discard any opinion that doesn't follow your expectations is hardly the way to get to the truth. Maybe my colleague was the one person in the entire country who wasn't beating his chest and shaking his fist at the sky. But you don't know that. It is more likely that it is an opinion shared by many others. Give the opposing view the credence it deserves.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And there is, I think, something cowardly about sitting safely afar while you are killing people as if it were a video game.

Join the armed forces and see if you agree then!

I think there is something cowardly about making comments like yours in the safety and comfort provided for by your armed forces.

Be a pacifist if you like but do so with gratitude and humility please.

Soldiers are (certainly used to be) told to shoot the enemy in the back if possible on an ambush, so ensure the ambush was a success, and they could be court marshalled if they gave the enemy a "sporting chance".

Have you ever heard the expression "All's fair in love AND WAR"?

If we are in a war then we do what we can to kill more of them than they kill of us. It's one of the basic rules.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The fact that Bush and Co. killed civilians out of indifference rather than malice doesn't cut much ice as far as I'm concerned. They had a political objective and it was fine with them if many thousands of people who were no threat to anyone died for it. They're terrorists, just as much as bin Laden, as far as I'm concerned.

If Bush & Co. hadn't invaded Iraq, some other other Iraqis would have died - not through indifference but through Saddam's malice. If Osama Bin Laden hadn't decided to hijack some planes, no-one would have died. Does that not make a difference?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Dafyd said:
quote:
There were left-wing neo-conservatives outside the government who bought into the idea that Saddam could be toppled and easily replaced by a democracy. I think it's quite possible given Blair's past actions that he was one of them.
I suspect he may also have been influenced by the fact that the UN/EU/international community was widely criticised for dithering over Kosovo and failing to prevent the genocide. Perhaps that made him more inclined to jump first and ask questions later in 2003.

Reading a biography of the UK's Ambassador to the US at the time, the main thing I got from it, was that the US was heavily influenced by the Iraq exiles lobby. These dissafected exiles who had fled the Saddam regime, were constantly lobbying Washington, and telling them such overblown truths like there was a massive opposition movement in Iraq just waiting to be liberated, that Saddam definitely had WMDs, that it would be easy and everyone would welcome them with open arms and stick flowers in their hair and so on. This was very wrong but these voices were the ones that the US had been listening to since the 90's.

American foreign policy is usually IMO far too heavily influenced by lobbying groups of exiled nationals. They obviously have a very biased view coupled with very little first-hand knowledge about the area since it's often been decades since they were there. But since the US intelligence network is so awful and incompetent, having almost no information from the ground itself, they give far too much weight to whatever scraps of information they can get, even when its so fundamentally flawed. Hence the Curveball source.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Threads like this reveal to me that there is a definite culture of "if you are not for us, you are against us".

I get vilified for saying it, but I make no apologies; I don't mind "them" dying if it keeps "us" from being killed.

Some will say "oh but from the other side they say the same thing..."

I care nothing for that argument. I'm on THIS side.

Saddam deserved everything he got and so did those who supported him.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
The only mildly uplifting thing to happen in the whole Iraq war debacle was watching Baghdad Bob; the sheer lunacy was strangely compelling.

So you DO understand.

I take back what I just posted in Hell, and consider you a brother (or sister or some combination - whatever).

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Threads like this reveal to me that there is a definite culture of "if you are not for us, you are against us".

I get vilified for saying it, but I make no apologies; I don't mind "them" dying if it keeps "us" from being killed.

Is there a tariff? Like, is it worth 10 foreign deaths to keep you safe? 100? 1000? Or is there no limit?

quote:
Some will say "oh but from the other side they say the same thing..."

I care nothing for that argument. I'm on THIS side.

Saddam deserved everything he got and so did those who supported him.

And those tens of thousands who died who may or may not have supported Saddam Hussein but were in the wrong place at the wrong time? They deserved what they got - death - as well?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Hawk:

quote:

Yes there are always exceptional opinions. But to discard any opinion that doesn't follow your expectations is hardly the way to get to the truth. Maybe my colleague was the one person in the entire country who wasn't beating his chest and shaking his fist at the sky. But you don't know that. It is more likely that it is an opinion shared by many others. Give the opposing view the credence it deserves.

It also depends greatly on the question that's being asked. At one stage not long ago I knew a large number of Iraqi Christians who fled to this country because of the state of Iraq some time after the war and toppling of Saddam. They left family and friends behind and they were deeply concerned for their safety. Most of them were professional people with the means and money to get out. Now if you asked them if the regime needed to be toppled, I think most of them (if not all) would have said 'yes'. If you asked them if the war was necessary to do it - just like on these boards, you would have a mixture of opinions, but if you had asked them if the war was 'just' I think they would look at you like you were stupid. If you asked if things were better in Iraq, I think they would have found that an equally stupid question, being where they were. But I did ask it once, and it was interesting to note that they responded in terms of their concern for others, and those of other faiths, and not only from their own personal perspectives and experiences.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think there is something cowardly about making comments like yours in the safety and comfort provided for by your armed forces.

Safe from what? Iraq's massive arsenal of WMDs? The Balsa Drones of Death?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
And those tens of thousands who died who may or may not have supported Saddam Hussein but were in the wrong place at the wrong time? They deserved what they got - death - as well?

Of course they deserved what they got. If they did not wish to be associated with Saddam, they should have chosen to be born somewhere else.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Have we learned anything?

No.

Same thing is happening with Iran.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Have we learned anything?

No. The U.S. is still allied with regimes that are every bit as dictatorial and oppressive as Iraq under Saddam was, like Saudi Arabia.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
And those tens of thousands who died who may or may not have supported Saddam Hussein but were in the wrong place at the wrong time? They deserved what they got - death - as well?
Of course they deserved what they got. If they did not wish to be associated with Saddam, they should have chosen to be born somewhere else.

It's just collateral damage, I'm afraid. After all, in the grand sweep of strategic planning, the deaths of a few thousand people is not very important, as long as our strategic planning is shown to be working.

And this plan has definitely worked - we intended to make Iran more powerful, turn Iraq into a Shia stronghold, and alienate many Arab and Muslim people.

Success!

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Deano, your above 2 posts indicate to me just how profoundly un-Christian are the views you express (despite your signature). The Christian concept of "just war" apparently has no meaning for you.

PS - I am not a per se pacifist (i.e. 100% Ghandian pacifist). I believe that on (very) rare occasions there can be a just cause for a war, and there is nothing in my posts that indicates otherwise.

I'm not being Hell-ish; this is not intended as an attack on you as a person -- I cannot read your innermost thoughts. I'm just stating what a reading of your posts strongly indicate.

[ 21. March 2013, 16:39: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hmmm, a warmongering universalist. I suppose the more we kill the quicker the infidel get to heaven.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Gramps49, what you seem to forget is that Saddam was playing the same silly ass games as North Korea and Iran are doing today--the yes we are, no we aren't developing horrific weapons now, and wouldn't your inspectors like to see? Oh never mind, we won't let you in, we've changed our minds. Oh wait... For months and months and years. If the international community finally freaked out, it was hardly unexpected. Tapdancing on the edge of possible disaster while singing "Neener neener neener" tends to bring out the worst in people.

You do have a point, but I've always thought it was more than a coincidence that the international community (well, the US and UK anyway) freaked out at just about the time 9/11 happened.

And one way in which America was sold this bill of goods was by the suggestion that Saddam Hussein was connected in some way with Al-Qaeda--even though it beggared belief that Saddam would have anything to do with an Islamist group that would have been happy to topple his government and institute a theocracy in its place.

So yes, Saddam Hussein's antics certainly played a role, but to paint the invasion as being solely (or even primarily) conditioned by his provocations would leave the picture incomplete.

In my most cynical moments I've wondered whether GWB's motivation wasn't to prove that his pee-pee was just as big as Daddy's.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.

Like I said, if you ain't for us you are against us.

You are tryiong to vilify me, but in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.

My conscience and Christian beliefs are intact in spite of those who would take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them isn't A True Christian(tm)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.

Like I said, if you ain't for us you are against us.

You are tryiong to vilify me, but in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.

My conscience and Christian beliefs are intact in spite of those who would take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them isn't A True Christian(tm)

Removing Saddam was a good thing in itself, but the problems as I see it are :

1) Our motives were far from pure. Getting rid of a despot makes a great slogan, but that's not why we were there; there are despots all over the Middle East who were just as bad, if not worse (the House of Saud comes to mind), so clearly there were other reasons.

2) As I stated above, Iraq was one of the few more-or-less stable secular states in the region. Destabilizing that state makes an Islamist power grab much more likely. In fact, once we're fully pulled out of Iraq, I give it 10 years tops before some mullah is sitting in Baghdad running the show.

So yes, it's probably a good thing, in isolation, that Saddam is no longer the boss. The problem is that he is very likely to be replaced by something much worse.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.

From the Washington Post article five myths about Iraq.

quote:
3. Iraq is a democracy.

It is — on paper. It has held successive national elections; it has a parliament and a modestly functional court system. In practice, however, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is exercising authority and centralizing power in ways that remind many Iraqis of Hussein. His security agencies have rounded up numerous Sunni leaders in recent months, accusing them of supporting the insurgency. Sunni officials contend that Maliki is using terrorism as a pretext to neutralize political foes.

Since he first won election in 2006, Maliki has moved to consolidate control over the country’s security forces. He also has presided over the dismantling of the Sons of Iraq, the Sunni tribal militia that was instrumental in the fight against al-Qaeda. The militia was supported by the U.S. military, which urged Maliki to integrate its members into the army and police force. Although he pledged to do so, only a fraction of Sunni militiamen have been given positions in the security services.

"Changing despots" is not the same as "free[ing] people from a despot".

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
He admits that it depends on whom you speak to whether they think it is better now than before invasion. Some people think it isn't, quoting the uncertainty, and anarchic style of the violence. Some, like my colleague are willing to overlook such uncertainties and focus on the fact that oppression and violence are no longer legitimised weapons of the state against the people.

I think a lot depends on who you are and where you are.

Life has got a lot better for most people in Iraqi Kurdistan, which isn;t a particualrly dangerous place any more (or at least wasn't until the Sysrian civil war started to spill over the border), and a lot more prosperous than most of the region. Though part of the reson for that is its effective indepoendence from the rest of Iraq. The peace of the north depends on everybody pretending that it is in fact still a normal part of Iraq when in fact it isn't.

Things have also got a lot better in the far south. Not that that is saying much seeing as things were so bad there before.

Life is a lot easier for radical Sunni Islamicists and the friends of Al Qaida as well. Saddam Hussein's mob used to kill people like them much more efficiently and in larger numbers than the new regime does.

In central Iraq, not so much. Yes, its probably better if you are well-off and live in a nice well-defended compound. And probably better if you are a Shia (unless you are unlucky enough to go to the mosque on one of the days those Sunni loonies decide to blow everyone up) But the streets are no longer safe. And women are even less equal than before. And minority religions are openly persecuted in many areas.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
... in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.

Oh come off it! Who got rid of what death squads? Not you, and the have just been replaced by others (or the same ones with Islamicised camouflage) More people have been murdered each year in Iraq since we made the place safe for Islamic terrorists than ever were before.

You seem to think that if a bloke is a silly green toy soldier uniform shoots five innocent men that's a "death squad" but if a bloke in a thawb blows up fifty that's just bad luck.

And not at all our fault, oh no.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I get vilified for saying it, but I make no apologies; I don't mind "them" dying if it keeps "us" from being killed.
Is there a tariff? Like, is it worth 10 foreign deaths to keep you safe? 100? 1000? Or is there no limit?

Which news would upset you the most: that a terrorist nuclear bomb had killed a hundred thousand people in Khazakhstan? Or that someone had shot your daughter?

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Have we learned anything?
No.

Same thing is happening with Iran.

Not really. I think even the US government realised that Iran is a lot bigger deal than Iraq. The British certainly does.

Though they have to pretend ther eis a real possibility that they might start a war because if they don't they think everyone else will take advantage of them. What's the point of being a gigantic military superpower you let people know you aren't going to kill them? Look what happend to the Soviet Union. As soon as it became obvious that they weren't going to start World War Three just to keep Poland and Lithuania and Hungary and and Armenia so on in their camp, everyone stopped doing what they were told! We can't be having that can we? We've got to let these uppitty little countries think we might attack them, just so they know who is boss.

(Of course Iran isn't really an uppitty little country, which is part of the problem)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, this is an interesting argument. The normal point is that the terrorist targets civilians, whereas the army does not. However, some guerillas don't target civilians, and some armies do.

Then you have to decide if killing civilians is worse than killing soldiers. I suppose the usual argument is to say that the former are innocent, therefore it is more reprehensible. However, killing is killing.

If there are gradations of evil then blowing up babies to get your way is more evil than shooting back at soldiers who are shooting at you. Regardless of the merits of your cause.

Which brings us back to the previous question:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not apologising for terrorism, but it is not intrinsically more evil than conventional war.

Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.

Its how you fight that makes you a terrorist, not what you are fighting for or whether you wear a uniform. Government troops can be terrorists as well, whether out of uniform (the pogroms in 19th century Russia or the various "disappearances" and "dirty wars" of 20th century South America) or in (area bombing, mass rape, nerve gas)

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.

Isn't that a fairly good 'back of the envelope' summary of the Shock and Awe doctrine applied by the U.S. during the Iraq War?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not apologising for terrorism, but it is not intrinsically more evil than conventional war.
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.

Its how you fight that makes you a terrorist, not what you are fighting for or whether you wear a uniform. Government troops can be terrorists as well, whether out of uniform (the pogroms in 19th century Russia or the various "disappearances" and "dirty wars" of 20th century South America) or in (area bombing, mass rape, nerve gas)

Please tell me you are not ignoring the terror spread by the British, Americans, Belgians, South Africans, Australians, etc.

The more I learn about how civilised nation prosecute war, the less I can differentiate.

How would you free yourself, bring pause to a massive nation's atrocities or corrosive foreign policy, etc. if you have no army, little wealth or no recognized state?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, this is an interesting argument. The normal point is that the terrorist targets civilians, whereas the army does not. However, some guerillas don't target civilians, and some armies do.

Total war as practiced for the past 70 years certainly does not seem to discriminate between civilians and soldiers. Consider USA nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombing in the central Asian republics by the Russians, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. This list could be very lengthy.

As has been suggested, "terrorist" is a relative term, depending on your perspective. The American revolutionaries were terrorists by the definition of instilling terror and their behaviour in colonies like New York if you were a royalist. "Shock and awe" by definition were designed to terrorise the population of Iraq.

It might be interesting to know the definition of a "rogue state", or perhaps this term is only used by "mavericks".

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.
Isn't that a fairly good 'back of the envelope' summary of the Shock and Awe doctrine applied by the U.S. during the Iraq War?

No, I don't think that's fair. The aim of "Shock and Awe" was to pulverise the Iraqi armed forces (ie. the actual enemy) in such a dramatic and rapid fashion that everyone just rolls over and gives up. This is not the same as pounding civilians into dust and scaring the other civilians into removing their government so they won't get pounded.

Whether it was successful is debatable, though.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This is probably going off topic really, but how do people know when something is more evil than something else? I am curious how this works. Is there some system of measurement? Or is it about emotional horror? I think the point above was that killing babies in war was more evil than killing a uniformed soldier (if one is also a soldier), and I am just wondering why/how that is.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is probably going off topic really, but how do people know when something is more evil than something else? I am curious how this works. Is there some system of measurement? Or is it about emotional horror? I think the point above was that killing babies in war was more evil than killing a uniformed soldier (if one is also a soldier), and I am just wondering why/how that is.

I'll bite: The degree of evil is many dimensional, some of which are comparatively easier to measure and some of which are rather difficult to measure. Some of the dimensions include the number of victims, the amount of harm to each victim, the degree of intent to cause harm, the amount of premeditation, the defenselessness of the victims, and the innocence of the victims with regard to the situation. Torturing to death a lot of infants as a pastime would be extremely evil. Killing an enemy soldier in combat before s/he has a chance to surrender would not be. When all but one or two of the dimensions are the same in two cases being compared, it can become easier to decide which is more evil. In the example you mention, most of the dimensions are the same (e.g. number of victims and amount of harm), so the primary features that distinguish the two cases are the defenselessness and the innocence of the babies.

However, something tells me that I've misunderstood your question. Do you believe that there is no value in trying to distinguish between degrees of evil?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is probably going off topic really, but how do people know when something is more evil than something else? I am curious how this works. Is there some system of measurement? Or is it about emotional horror? I think the point above was that killing babies in war was more evil than killing a uniformed soldier (if one is also a soldier), and I am just wondering why/how that is.
I'll bite: The degree of evil is many dimensional, some of which are comparatively easier to measure and some of which are rather difficult to measure. Some of the dimensions include the number of victims, the amount of harm to each victim, the degree of intent to cause harm, the amount of premeditation, the defenselessness of the victims, and the innocence of the victims with regard to the situation. Torturing to death a lot of infants as a pastime would be extremely evil. Killing an enemy soldier in combat before s/he has a chance to surrender would not be. When all but one or two of the dimensions are the same in two cases being compared, it can become easier to decide which is more evil. In the example you mention, most of the dimensions are the same (e.g. number of victims and amount of harm), so the primary features that distinguish the two cases are the defenselessness and the innocence of the babies.

However, something tells me that I've misunderstood your question. Do you believe that there is no value in trying to distinguish between degrees of evil?

That's a good reply. I'm just curious how people decide, and you have given a reasonable explanation. I'm still not convinced, as to me it seems to boil down to emotional repulsion. It just seems more repellent to kill a baby. But does that mean it is more immoral?

This comes up with people like the Yorkshire Ripper, and again, I'm not sure that he's evil. To me he seems bonkers.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes it is more evil. The whole point about terrorism is that instead of, or as well as, attacking your actual enemies, you attack thrid parties, non-combatants, in order to terrorise them, to scare them into doing what you want.
Isn't that a fairly good 'back of the envelope' summary of the Shock and Awe doctrine applied by the U.S. during the Iraq War?
No, I don't think that's fair. The aim of "Shock and Awe" was to pulverise the Iraqi armed forces (ie. the actual enemy) in such a dramatic and rapid fashion that everyone just rolls over and gives up. This is not the same as pounding civilians into dust and scaring the other civilians into removing their government so they won't get pounded.

You may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.

[ 22. March 2013, 13:21: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.

Sorry, that would be up. The revisiors need to shove that up their "memory" hole.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.

Like I said, if you ain't for us you are against us.

You are tryiong to vilify me, but in the end, I'm on the side that got rid of Saddam and his death squads. You ain't.

My conscience and Christian beliefs are intact in spite of those who would take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them isn't A True Christian(tm)

and re the last point [Projectile]

[ 22. March 2013, 17:02: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Kill the fuckers! Praise the Lord!

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We invaded Iraq to liberate and free people from a despot.

No we didn't. Certain dubiously elected officials decided to convince the people that it was in their (the people's) best interest to do so, when what they (the officials) really wanted was to secure vast oil reserves for their own monetary gain.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Certain dubiously elected officials decided to convince the people that it was in their (the people's) best interest to do so, when what they (the officials) really wanted was to secure vast oil reserves for their own monetary gain.

I think I asked this before - did this actually happen?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

We may never know.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

How could we not know? If you're going to occupy a country for monetary gain, you're not doing it for a fiver, you're doing it for millions (if not billions) of dollars. Who owns large industrial facilities and who is contracted to extract oil from a particular area are bits of information that tend to be in the public domain.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Certain dubiously elected officials decided to convince the people that it was in their (the people's) best interest to do so, when what they (the officials) really wanted was to secure vast oil reserves for their own monetary gain.
I think I asked this before - did this actually happen?

One of the first buildings secured by the allied forces when they took Baghdad: the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
Not secured: many of the places cited as WMD facilities by the allies before the war.

It's not proof, but it's highly suggestive.

Here's a list of many of the Iraq War's architects and boosters on the subject.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kill the fuckers! Praise the Lord!

Doing them a favour, really. Get to meet god sooner. Humanitarian it is.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How could we not know? If you're going to occupy a country for monetary gain, you're not doing it for a fiver, you're doing it for millions (if not billions) of dollars. Who owns large industrial facilities and who is contracted to extract oil from a particular area are bits of information that tend to be in the public domain.

Before the war Saddam had indicated a reluctance to award oil extraction contracts to British or American firms. (Those were the two countries maintaining the No Fly Zones.) French or Russian firms were considered the favorites to get oil contracts when the sanction regime ended, as was looking increasingly likely. Fast forward a bit and oh look!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kill the fuckers! Praise the Lord!
Doing them a favour, really. Get to meet god sooner. Humanitarian it is.

And don't forget the 70 virgins.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's not proof, but it's highly suggestive.

I'm not sure it's suggestive of anything. The only real export that Iraq has is oil. To get cash after the invasion, the only thing that Iraq can sell is oil. Therefore, it seems logical to safeguard the oil ministry so that the process of extracting oil is disrupted as little as possible. As the army officer says in the article:

quote:
The United States, he said, is only safeguarding Iraq's potential which would otherwise be considered game for looters.

quote:
Here's a list of many of the Iraq War's architects and boosters on the subject.

I'll look at this in more detail. I suppose when people say 'the war was about oil' it could mean two things:

i) politicians gaining access to oil supplies for personal gain (which seems to be the implication made above); or

ii) ensuring that a certain oil supply is available for use by other nations and does not fall into the hands of those with hostile aims.

While (i) appears to have been alleged, I haven't seen any evidence for it (though I'm open to be convinced that there is evidence for it).

On (ii), I think this could be a justifiable war aim. The West needs oil. We all use motor vehicles and plastics. If there is a danger that oil supplies to the West are being interfered with or are likely to fall into nefarious hands, I think there can be a case for doing something about it. Admittedly, the case for doing this wasn't set out before the invasion.

[ 22. March 2013, 18:04: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Surely the oil debate could be settled if someone had access to records which showed where Iraqi oil was going before the 03 invasion and, more significantly , where it is going now.

When pulling up to my local fuel station I sometimes wonder , do *I* really give two hoots as to where the petrol and diesel comes from ? Or indeed who gets killed of injured in order to ensure there is a constant supply .

The Iraq war wasn't just about oil it was about the security of the Middle East as a whole , (the oil-rich Middle East that is ).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
On (ii), I think this could be a justifiable war aim. The West needs oil. We all use motor vehicles and plastics. If there is a danger that oil supplies to the West are being interfered with or are likely to fall into nefarious hands, I think there can be a case for doing something about it. Admittedly, the case for doing this wasn't set out before the invasion.

Yes, for some reason "we need to use our military to loot another country of its natural resources" doesn't poll well with the general populace, despite some considering it "a justifiable war aim".

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And don't forget the 70 virgins.

Who was the comedian who said that he preferred to disappoint one woman at a time?

--Tom Clune

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fast forward a bit and oh look!

And it seems China, Malaysia and India were major beneficiaries of these contracts too, who I don't remember being lead members of the Coalition of the Willing.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, for some reason "we need to use our military to loot another country of its natural resources" doesn't poll well with the general populace, despite some considering it "a justifiable war aim".

I would say 'ensure availability' and 'loot' are two very different things, but I agree that either are a difficult sell to the public (even though it might be in their interests).

[ 22. March 2013, 18:32: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, for some reason "we need to use our military to loot another country of its natural resources" doesn't poll well with the general populace, despite some considering it "a justifiable war aim".
I would say 'ensure availability' and 'loot' are two very different things, but I agree that either are a difficult sell to the public (even though it might be in their interests).

I'm not so sure. "Ensuring availability" at gunpoint after a massive military invasion (and during the subsequent occupation) can be very difficult to distinguish from "looting". For instance, Iraq tried to "ensure the availability" of Kuwait's oilfields in 1990, but that was considered "looting" by the Western powers (and most of Iraq's neighbors).

Here's a transcript of President Bush's "ultimatum speech", given about two days before the outbreak of war. The key bits:

quote:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

<snip>

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

This is kind of the official "mission statement" of why the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq and what they (officially) hoped to accomplish. In bullet point form they essentially boil down to:

Eliminate Iraq's stockpile of WMDs
Break the ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qæda
Establish a peaceful (implied "democratic") government in Iraq

Given the weakness of the evidence supporting the first two and the fact that the third was rarely talked about until ~3 weeks before the invasion (and was tacked on to the end of Bush's speech like an afterthought, only one paragraph up from "God bless America") the idea that the Bush administration (and its allies) were operating from ulterior motives is not unreasonable.

So, how well did they accomplish these goals?

Eliminate Iraq's stockpile of WMDs: As it turns out, this one was kind of a "gimme". It had already been accomplished before the first bomb was dropped. A generous grader would give half credit. Someone not so generous would point out a whole lot of people died needlessly because of it.

Break the ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qæda: This one gets negative credit. Not only did Iraq not have any ties to al Qæda before the war, removing Saddam Hussein actually gave them the opportunity to start up their "al Qæda in Iraq" branch office. It took a lot of blood and treasure to get that shut down.

Establish a peaceful/democratic government in Iraq: Not so far. Iraq remains an incredibly violent and dangerous place, and the Maliki government seems to be consolidating power in a very undemocratic manner.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would say 'ensure availability' and 'loot' are two very different things, but I agree that either are a difficult sell to the public (even though it might be in their interests).

I don't doubt that any of us living in the luxury of Developed Countries would deny that it's in our interest to have plenty of oil to fritter away as we please .
Question is , can it be morally justifiable to send an army into someone else's country for our own material gain ? I suppose yes , seeing as how it used to be seen as morally OK to bless slave ships.

My own assessment of the 2nd Iraq war is that it was extremely dubious from the start .
I shamefully admit to being Churchillilian myself in the beginning . When the hunt for WMD's turned up zilch and a torrent of internal violence was unleashed I , like many , thought -- this is total shit .

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I was deadset against it, and remember telling people, this is going to be another Vietnam-style quagmire. I was assured (glibly) we'd be in and out in no time. I wish I'd written down the names and emails of the people who told me this just so I could throw it in their glib conservative faces.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was deadset against it, and remember telling people, this is going to be another Vietnam-style quagmire. I was assured (glibly) we'd be in and out in no time. I wish I'd written down the names and emails of the people who told me this just so I could throw it in their glib conservative faces.

And if they decide to invade Iran -- hoo boy! -- it's going to make Iraq and Vietnam look like playground spats.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
And if they decide to invade Iran -- hoo boy! -- it's going to make Iraq and Vietnam look like playground spats.

For Iran, the Iraq War was a fairly important object lesson. Along with Iraq and North Korea, Iran is a charter member of the "Axis of Evil". As such, they pay particularly close attention to how the other two have been treated by the U.S.

North Korea has nuclear weapons and has been subjected to economic sanctions and six party talks.

Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and was invaded by the U.S. and its leadership executed or imprisoned.

Given the two alternatives that seem to be open to it, why wouldn't the Iranian leadership choose to develop nuclear weapons? It seems to be the only thing that's guaranteed to keep the Americans from invading. This is a prime example of a perverse incentive.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was deadset against it, and remember telling people, this is going to be another Vietnam-style quagmire. I was assured (glibly) we'd be in and out in no time. I wish I'd written down the names and emails of the people who told me this just so I could throw it in their glib conservative faces.

Clearly, they were glib in their assessment, but pointing that out to them might seem like a tacit acceptance that it's a valid justification, as though the war would have been fine if only it had been fast and easy.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You] may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.

The wikipedia text you cite talks about targeting civilian infrastructure. I think there's a difference between targeting infrastructure and the intentional civilian killing exemplified by the Dresden raid or Hiroshima. Shock and awe is supposed to be an attempt to get the psychological effects of Hiroshima without the actual civilian death-toll. That's the supposed aim. Whether it works out that way in practice is another thing.

Really, I think the doctrine is merely War-Lite for voter consumption. New Diet-War: none of the messy body bags; same great macho posturing.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You may not think it's fair, but the expansion of bombing targets to include civilian targets is what distinguished "Shock and Awe" from other formulations involving overwhelming force. Revising history to shove this fact down the memory hole is wrong.
The wikipedia text you cite talks about targeting civilian infrastructure. I think there's a difference between targeting infrastructure and the intentional civilian killing exemplified by the Dresden raid or Hiroshima. Shock and awe is supposed to be an attempt to get the psychological effects of Hiroshima without the actual civilian death-toll. That's the supposed aim. Whether it works out that way in practice is another thing.

Very much another thing. I'm not sure it's realistic to bomb civilian infrastructure on the massive scale required for Shock and Awe without expecting civilian casualties. I'm also not sure there's a moral distinction between dropping bombs on civilians and dropping bombs on municipal power and water stations in a desert city.

quote:
A: You pushed him off the roof. You killed him!

B: Technically, it was gravity that killed him.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

The U.S. will never do anything about North Korea because of China. China invests $6 billion/annually, both publicly and privately, in the North Korean economy to keep it afloat because they don't want it to collapse, unify with South Korea and possibly have U.S. troops on China's doorstep. China is also afraid that a unified Korea might make territorial demands on China's Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and they have enough trouble with fractious provinces already (Tibet, Taiwan, Uyghur, etc.).

North Korea is never going to be a serious player in the 6 party talks because the government gets legitimacy by casting Japan and the US is imminent threats. While the regime uses over-the-top language about attacking the U.S., etc. the rhetoric is mostly produced for internal consumption - to show their strength at home. All that regime cares about is maintaining power.

South Korea doesn't want North Korea to collapse because of the cost of integrating North Korea into the South Korean economy is prohibitive. The income gap between North and South is 50 times greater than Germany's when they unified, and the populations between the two Koreas are much closer than the two Germanys. There is also a historical rivalry between northern and southern Korea that existed long before they were divided that West and East Germany never had; this serves as a subtle barrier to warm relations.

Also, as bad as the war in Iraq was, the population density of the Koreas is much greater so any death tolls will be far higher; Seoul is only 50km from the DMZ and South Korea is far too big a world economic power to have its economy disrupted by a war without global implications.

This is why North Korea can be as provocative as it wants, even building WMDs and shelling South Korean territory, without a response. I don't foresee much chance of military action against North Korea by the west anytime in the future.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The U.S. will never do anything about North Korea because of China. China invests $6 billion/annually, both publicly and privately, in the North Korean economy to keep it afloat because they don't want it to collapse, unify with South Korea and possibly have U.S. troops on China's doorstep. China is also afraid that a unified Korea might make territorial demands on China's Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and they have enough trouble with fractious provinces already (Tibet, Taiwan, Uyghur, etc.).

"Fractious provinces"? Is that what the PRC calls independent nations?

I begin to see the root of the problem... [Smile]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
China is also afraid that a unified Korea might make territorial demands on China's Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and they have enough trouble with fractious provinces already (Tibet, Taiwan, Uyghur, etc.).
"Fractious provinces"? Is that what the PRC calls independent nations?

I begin to see the root of the problem...

Independent non-nations, in the case of Taiwan. Both the Peoples Republic of China and the government in Taiwan officially maintain that Taiwan is part of China. They just disagree as to which is the legitimate government of China. That the reality as it exists on the ground bears no relation to the reality that exists on paper is a bit of a vexation.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

rolyn - I was worse, I KNEW there were no WMDs. And I was ALL for it. Said both here 10 years ago. God forgive me. I even argued for more war, that we weren't bellicose enough by half.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

reading this thread makes it starkly clear just how many people hate "The West" and all it stands for.

We got rid of Saddam. I don't give a rat's arse about oil-based conspiracy theories. At best it meant that we also protected the west's economy, which is "A Very Good Thing" in it's own right. But getting rid of Saddam was the most important thing.

I don't want to see a nuclear bomb detonated in London, New York, Jerusalem, Paris, Berlin or indeed for that matter, anywhere on the planet. To ensure that we need to pressure states like North Korea to give them up, and make states that want to develop them - Iran for example - think twice, and if that means using military muscle on them, so be it.

Is there a tariff to keep my family safe from terrorism? No, of course not! What a stupid question.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
reading this thread makes it starkly clear just how many people hate "The West" and all it stands for.

Reading your post gives me a clue too.

quote:

We got rid of Saddam. I don't give a rat's arse about oil-based conspiracy theories. At best it meant that we also protected the west's economy, which is "A Very Good Thing" in it's own right. But getting rid of Saddam was the most important thing.

And who is filling the void by Saddam in Iraq? That left by Gaddafi in Libya? That which will be left in Syria in the near future too for that matter? These will be more closely aligned to the forces you fear than were the previous regimes.

quote:

I don't want to see a nuclear bomb detonated in London, New York, Jerusalem, Paris, Berlin or indeed for that matter, anywhere on the planet. To ensure that we need to pressure states like North Korea to give them up, and make states that want to develop them - Iran for example - think twice, and if that means using military muscle on them, so be it.

Is there a tariff to keep my family safe from terrorism? No, of course not! What a stupid question.

Don't worry about North Korea. The Chinese will keep the nutjobs that run that place in check because any serious action will fuck-up the Asian economic miracle in seconds. I worry much more about Pakistan, as that already has the Bomb, and it won't take many more stupid acts by Western governments to cause a revolution which would put a very different type of government in power there.

If you don't want terrorism, then locking people up or killing them without anything resembling due process is a lousy course of action, albeit a popular one amongst the hotheads.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you don't want terrorism, then locking people up or killing them without anything resembling due process is a lousy course of action, albeit a popular one amongst the hotheads.

The implication being, of course, that if we stop locking them up or killing them, then they will stop the terrorism.

I disagree. I think they will continue to engage in terrorist acts. In fact they will engage in more of them.

So if they are going to keep on killing us anyway, then we have a moral duty to kill them first.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That's what Jesus said and did after all.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you don't want terrorism, then locking people up or killing them without anything resembling due process is a lousy course of action, albeit a popular one amongst the hotheads.
The implication being, of course, that if we stop locking them up or killing them, then they will stop the terrorism.

Read the bit I have italicised, for full comprehension.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it's realistic to bomb civilian infrastructure on the massive scale required for Shock and Awe without expecting civilian casualties.

For various reasons, I do think there's a distinct of moral significance between intended results and merely expected results. I think it's worth anti-war protestors saying that killing civilians on purpose is worse than killing them as a side-effect, even if one thinks that killing them as a side-effect is also something that one shouldn't do.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it's realistic to bomb civilian infrastructure on the massive scale required for Shock and Awe without expecting civilian casualties.
For various reasons, I do think there's a distinct of moral significance between intended results and merely expected results. I think it's worth anti-war protestors saying that killing civilians on purpose is worse than killing them as a side-effect, even if one thinks that killing them as a side-effect is also something that one shouldn't do.

If the side-effect is 100% guaranteed, can it really be said to be a side-effect? If you could bomb a power station (say) without any civilian casualties, and took care to try to do it during a time of day when there wouldn't be any civilians around to be casualized, then maybe I could give you the "unintended results" thing. But is that a reasonable expectation, and do they really take that kind of care? If not then what is happening is that they are bombing infrastructure+civilians, and using the infrastructure destruction as an excuse for taking out civilians. Seems to me.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's what Jesus said and did after all.

He did indeed. Kill the enemy before they kill you. Can't quite find the quote, but I know it's somewhere.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
reading this thread makes it starkly clear just how many people hate "The West" and all it stands for.

What a silly generalization. Reading comments such as yours makes it starkly clear how myopic some viewpoints are, a myopia that reflects paranoia, fearful arrogance and utter inability to put oneself in another's shoes.

Personally I do not hate the western part of the world in which i live and am a product of. However, I do hate ignorant and willful disregard of people out of one own's self-defined culture set. It has been by and large some Western powers (or their economic and political elites) that have colonized and humiliated other peoples for said powers own selfish benefit, not the other way around.

Though the last time any part of Europe was "conquered" by a non-European power (and, horrors, Islamic power to boot) i.e. Spain in the early Middle Ages, that part was the most culturally advanced part of Europe. (and, by most accounts, the only halfway sanitary part as well.)

[ 24. March 2013, 03:54: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

@Deano. Oh yes you do.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

But getting rid of Saddam was the most important thing.

An assassin's bullet could have achieved that.

I don't want to see a nuclear bomb detonated in London, New York, Jerusalem, Paris, Berlin or indeed for that matter, anywhere on the planet.

Nice to know we can all agree on one thing then.
--------------------------------------------------

The 2nd Iraq war has happened , we can't unhappen it . It didn't seem to go to plan , but then show me a war that does . We always seem to fall for that -"It'll all be over by Christmas"- every single time .
Now, as with all wars, the only thing to be done is pick up the pieces and try to prevent future wars . The last point usually proves the most difficult .

Empires will always have barbarians rattling the gate. I don't hate the empire in which I have the good fortune to live , although I'd rather it didn't have the appearance of an empire to those who are outside of it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

Though the last time any part of Europe was "conquered" by a non-European power (and, horrors, Islamic power to boot) i.e. Spain in the early Middle Ages...

The last time? Well the Magyar conquest of what is now Hungary wasn't much later and they came from somewhere round the Urals so might just have passed as European. But even if we count the Ottoman Empire as an Islamicised but culturally European successor state to the Roman Empire ruled by a small Turkish elite (which you could sort of get away with with a lot of handwaving) we still have the Mongol conquest of Russia.

Well known for being European, the Mongols...

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

You are right on the historical chronology, Ken, and, as someone who claims to be a history buff, i should have known better. I stand corrected.

Perhaps Western Europe would be more accurate. (And after straining my brain to make sure i haven't overlooked something else, i hope i haven't!)

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
An assassin's bullet could have achieved that.

There are two things at fault here…

1) The assumption that Saddam Hussein could have been targeted. Just hours before the first Gulf War started CentCom received intelligence that Saddam was in a particular palace, so they launched a cruise missile strike on the palace.

It was a dry hole of course. He wasn’t there when the missiles hit.

This was intelligence received when the whole might of the US and UK intelligence gathering forces were focused on him and his military, hours before the coalition was due to start the bombing campaign.

If they couldn’t target him with that level of capability, what makes you think he could have been targeted by an assassin?

It is not easy to do in a completely dictatorial police state like Saddam’s Iraq. Which of his body doubles would have been killed instead?

It’s easy to SAY of course, but not easy to do, no matter how appealing it is.

2) Even if it could have been made to happen, it would have left the Ba’ath party in power, which would have meant that someone else with a vested interest in remaining in power would have taken the reigns, possibly one of his sons.

Either way it would have liberated no-one. The Ba’ath Party structures would still have been in place and would have been used to oppress the population just as badly as under Saddam. Possibly even worse because the leadership would realise that they could be targeted like Saddam, and may well have redoubled their efforts to suppress any kind of anti-Ba’athist activities.

Simplistic “solutions” like yours only work in Hollywood films I’m afraid, and never do in the real world.

The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.

I’m comfortable with that. Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn’t mean they WON’T come. I’ll be happy if Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous democracy in fifty or a hundred years. The timescale doesn’t matter, only that the first steps along the road have been taken.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.

I’m comfortable with that. Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn’t mean they WON’T come. I’ll be happy if Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous democracy in fifty or a hundred years. The timescale doesn’t matter, only that the first steps along the road have been taken.

Keep digging! There must be a pony in there somewhere. Doesn't it seem self-serving to say you can increase human suffering by quite a lot provided that at some distant point a century hence things might be better?

It also seems fairly unrealistic to hypothesize that the Baath regime would still be in power a century from now, but not that the Maliki government will continue on its current trajectory for the same timespan. Why the difference?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Originally posted by deano:
Simplistic “solutions” like yours only work in Hollywood films I’m afraid, and never do in the real world.

I accept that mine was a simplistic comment. No doubt borne out of the simplistic propaganda we were all exposed to in the inter-Gulf-war period . IE. the demonisation of Saddam.

The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.

I agree in part with that statement .
Odd that we didn't apply the same token of logic to China after Tiananmen Square . It's also worth noting that regime change was brought about in the USSR without the West firing a shot.

Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn't mean they WON’T come.

Let us keep hoping then . Ten years of bloodshed with casualties running into hundreds of thousands are well outside the parameters most were working on, not just me .
Maybe I'm just the sensitive sort but I find that more a source of regret than comfort.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The only way to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people was to dismantle the whole of the Ba’athist regime, which meant regime change, which meant a full-scale war.

I’m comfortable with that. Just because the results haven’t come in the timescale YOU want doesn’t mean they WON’T come. I’ll be happy if Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous democracy in fifty or a hundred years. The timescale doesn’t matter, only that the first steps along the road have been taken.
Keep digging! There must be a pony in there somewhere. Doesn't it seem self-serving to say you can increase human suffering by quite a lot provided that at some distant point a century hence things might be better?

It also seems fairly unrealistic to hypothesize that the Baath regime would still be in power a century from now, but not that the Maliki government will continue on its current trajectory for the same timespan. Why the difference?

It reminds me of the way some communists used to talk - yes, comrade, we acknowledge that life is shit right now, and that hundreds of thousands of people have given their lives, and there is corruption in government, but comrade, remember! In 20, 50, 100, years' time, we can be assured that life will be good, and it will be all worthwhile. Meanwhile, comrade, if you would just sign this confession, you will have helped us advance just a little more.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For various reasons, I do think there's a distinct of moral significance between intended results and merely expected results.
If the side-effect is 100% guaranteed, can it really be said to be a side-effect?

Yes.
Example: Jobsworth has been employed by the Nazi occupation to pump water to the Nazi HQ. He has inadvertently overheard that there is a plot by La Resistance to poison the water. He's decided that the all-around safest thing to do is keep his head down, pretend he knows nothing, and do what he's paid for.
I think it's reasonable here to say that because he's doing exactly what he would be doing if he didn't know about the plot he doesn't intend to poison the Nazis. (There are various other counterfactual conditions that come into play.) This despite him knowing that he is poisoning the Nazis. Note that this does not make his attitude morally neutral.

quote:
But is that a reasonable expectation, and do they really take that kind of care? If not then what is happening is that they are bombing infrastructure+civilians, and using the infrastructure destruction as an excuse for taking out civilians. Seems to me.

I think there are distinctions to be made between using infrastructure bombing as an excuse to bomb civilians, bombing infrastructure without caring whether you bomb civilians, and bombing infrastructure while trying to minimise the harm to civilians. The middle one is still culpable, but not quite as culpable as the first.
Which one the Allied war effort was up to in the Gulf War I am not privy to; there doesn't seem any great effort to be made to avoid civilian casualties.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

To be frank, I don’t really know why I’m arguing here. I’m on the side that won!

We did invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam and secure the oil.

Why am I trying to defend it to people who are (a) on the losing side and therefore irrelevant, and (b) will never countenance that Western, democratic, free-market principles are the right ones for everyone.

I'm off to fill up the 4x4 with diesel (hope it's from Iraq, I do like to feel I'm doing my bit).

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Deano, i can't read your innermost thoughts and so this question is based on the reading of the content of the posts in this thread. Why do you have the signature you have, when the views you express are a fist-smash and a spitting in the face of Jesus? (Starting off with an expression of views that are the 180 degree opposite of Jesus' Golden Rule -- "Do unto others ..." in case you forgot.)

Earlier upthread you alledge that there are some on the Ship who "really hate" the U.S. I countered that for my own case at least. But, expressing the views you express, if any take your views to be an expression of U.S. views in general, can you blame them if they do hate the U.S.? And if you don't care, i return to the original question -- how can the content of the views you express be reconciled with the content of your signature. The impression, at least, is one of blasphemy.

P.S. where in the Christian Bible does it same that "Western, democratic, free-market principles are the right ones for everyone."?

[ 26. March 2013, 12:33: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's a perversion of Christianity, isn't it? Of course, religion adapts to capitalism, and other social formations, and then pronounces that these things are 'Christian'. I just remembered 'these who have turned the world upside down', and laughed.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

I'm off to fill up the 4x4 with diesel (hope it's from Iraq, I do like to feel I'm doing my bit).

'It's an ill wind that blows no-one any good'- A deano [Smile]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Jesus' Golden Rule -- "Do unto others ..."

You know what, Malik? It seems to me that for me to walk more closely by Jesus' side and obey that teaching I am going to have to go and have my name removed from the voter registration. I've talked about it before and called the board of elections to ask how to do it, but I believe I need to go ahead and do it.

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What some people seem to overlook is that it wasn't just the Americans and her allies who thought Saddam had WMD, it was a widely-held view amongst the intelligence community. The Russians, French and Germans all thought that Saddam had WMD, though they still opposed the war.
Look, if the German's code-name for their source is "Curveball", it's a pretty good indication they consider him a fabulist. There was a lot of propaganda along the lines of 'everyone really knows Saddam has WMDs, but no one will admit it because they're all cowards'. Do you have a reliable citation that any of the governments you named sincerely believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs capable of attacking other countries in 2003?

Er, the German Foreign Secretary at the time, much as I dislike him, to his credit publicly answered to Colin Powell's famous WMD speech in the UN: I don't believe your intelligence sources.
He stopped short of saying he believed Powell was consciously lying (which seems rather likely to me, seeing Blair certainly did).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

But you're forgetting some of the teachings of Jesus, aren't you? For example, 1. leveraged buyouts are OK, but you have to watch the debt/equity ratio; 2. Don't let the rag-heads control the oil, they are totally unreliable. I am just checking these quotes in the Bible, and will get back to you.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

"He" who? Saddam or Bush?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't get the "secure the oil" thing. He was wanting to sell it on the open market, wasn't he?

Saddam invaded Kuwait and wanted to move on Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War in order to restrict the flow of oil to drive up prices. He was desperate to increase the revenue from his oil to rebuild Iraq's economy following on from the decade long Iran/Iraq war.

Kuwait and the other gulf states refused to raise the OPEC price of oil, and Hussein decided to force the issue by invading and controlling the supply himself.

Following on from that Hussein had the opportunity to sell as much Iraqui oil as he wanted but only to spend on food and medicines, not to go into his general treasury coffers to be spent on whatever such as building up his military again.

Hussein decided that he could take advantage of teh situation so he sold no oil, to deliberately inflict illness and starvation on his own people in the very real hope that some less "determined" types in the west would take the view that the sanctions ought to be lifted.

He almost succeeded.

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.

Thank goodness for strong politicians who ignore the siren call of "progressives" bleating, for they will give away everything of value and righteousness to save one baby, completely ignoring who is actually killing the baby.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

He did succeed. Tony Blair couldn't bear murdering 100,000 Iraqi children a year by proxy after 10 years. Rumsfeld was just bored. Capitalism had to DO something.

What would Jesus' foreign policy have been?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.

You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.

[ 27. March 2013, 10:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.
You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.

Which was all funded by debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war and which he couldn’t repay with the low oil prices!

Hence he needed to invade Kuwait & Saudi Arabia.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.

Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place? Are we engaged in a campaign to Christianise the place?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
To be frank, I don’t really know why I’m arguing here. I’m on the side that won!

We did invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam and secure the oil.

Why am I trying to defend it to people who are (a) on the losing side and therefore irrelevant, and (b) will never countenance that Western, democratic, free-market principles are the right ones for everyone.

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place?

You "won", remember? Iraq is now the democratic, free-market utopia you wanted to establish, right? The country's been remade in the image you wanted.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.
You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.
Which was all funded by debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war and which he couldn’t repay with the low oil prices!

Hence he needed to invade Kuwait & Saudi Arabia.

You'll find that the "Debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war" was mitigated to a great extent by US military and economic aid, and Saudi economic during that war. Most of the Western nations and Gulf oil states aided Iraq.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.
Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place? Are we engaged in a campaign to Christianise the place?

Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.

It's a strategy with a long history. For instance, I once came across an economist who estimated that the boost to the British economy from controlling the local government of Egypt was greater on a year-to-year comparison than was the direct rule of India.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.
It's a strategy with a long history. For instance, I once came across an economist who estimated that the boost to the British economy from controlling the local government of Egypt was greater on a year-to-year comparison than was the direct rule of India.

A very interesting example is the 53 coup against Mossadeq in Iran, leading to the installation of the Shah. Often cited today in intelligence seminars as a prime example of blowback, since Iranians of course, remember it bitterly, since Mossadeq was democratically elected. And of course it lead to the revolution.

I don't know if they talk about blowback in relation to Iraq, but maybe they should.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Of course they ignore the fact that even if the oil embargo had been lifted, he would have spent none of it on food and medicines and all of it on building up his military muscle.
You know nothing of the sort. And there is at least one data point that runs contrary to your argument - that prior to the embargo, there was no shortage of food and medicine of that magnitude in Iraq.
Which was all funded by debt incurred during the Iran/Iraq war and which he couldn’t repay with the low oil prices!

So? Even if it was - he didn't spend 'all of it on building up his military muscle'. You are arguing a counter-factual and the little evidence that exists points in the opposite direction.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can see that some right-wing people still defend the invasion of Iraq, for various reasons, nothing surprising there. What puzzles me, is, what on earth does this have to do with a Christian viewpoint? But then, I suppose the right to colonialize often had a Christian justification! We bring the Bible and the gun, one to convert you, the other to sort of reinforce it.
Err, sorry but are we still in Iraq? Do we still govern the place? Are we engaged in a campaign to Christianise the place?
Not to Christianize it, but you seemed to be arguing that it is valid to invade a country, in order to impose a free market economy. Isn't that your argument?

That is surely a kind of colonialism, in fact, a cleverer kind, as it avoids direct rule.

I'm just curious how this gels with Christian ideas, but, as I said, Christianity has some history in justifying colonialism.

No, I said it was okay to invade a country like Iraq to free the people there from a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. Anyone who disagrees with those sentiments needs to look at themselves.

Democracy and free-markets come as benefits!

And if you say "well, what about North Korea, Zimbabwe" etc. Then I agree and if it were up to me I would use military force there as well.

But one at a time eh.
To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I like that, 'a good war in Zimbabwe'. Why stop there? The world's your oyster. It's wot Jesus would do.

[ 27. March 2013, 16:56: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No, I said it was okay to invade a country like Iraq to free the people there from a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. Anyone who disagrees with those sentiments needs to look at themselves.

Yeah. Big improvement there. Remind me again why you're so sure Nouri al-Maliki is a non-murderous non-tyrant?

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Democracy and free-markets come as benefits!

Again, is Iraq a free-market democracy?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.

Are you serously advocating murdering large numbers of peope just so the Tory party can win an election? Or is this just a wind-up?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But one at a time eh.
To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.

What do you mean by 'finished'?

I don't think they've fully finished in Afghanistan, the place is still full of people hostile to us. Possibly even more so now we've marched up and down in front of them for a bit and shot their friends. That sort of thing tends to put people's backs up, even if they were pretty unbothered before.

Do you just mean, once they've invaded, taken a few towns, walked up and down a bit, shot some foreigners and blew up some buildings, that'll do. Time to go off and do the same with some different scenery.

What are you hoping to achieve with a 'good war'. Do you actually think its possible to march in, shoot the Bad Guys, replace them with nearby Good Guys and walk out to general applause.

Or do you think that causing death and destruction on a massive scale, ruining a countries infrastructure, government, and economy, somehow 'sorts them out' and stops them looking at us funny.

It'd be interesting to know what your view of the purpose of war is. What is your plan for fixing a hostile state, many miles from your own, just using a large number of soldiers who need to be constantly supplied at great cost and with extraordinary effort, who are in incredible danger just being there. What is the point of that cost, that effort, the deaths of our own soldiers? Has the invasion of Iraq made us safer by enough measurable difference to justify that cost. I didn't feel in any danger before we invaded them myself. They didn't have any weapons that could touch us, and no sign of wanting to. Did you feel you were in danger from them?

Personally I think war can be a necessary evil if its ends justify the means. You have to be very clear about what those ends are though, and how to get them, and if there is a quicker, cheaper and more efficient way of achieving those ends without war. Otherwise you're just killing people and making them suffer because you don't like them.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We did it in the Falklands ken.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Thank goodness for strong politicians who ignore the siren call of "progressives" bleating, for they will give away everything of value and righteousness to save one baby, completely ignoring who is actually killing the baby.

Many of us want to believe that what's happened in Iraq since 03 has been for the greater good . I think you may in the minority who do actually believe it.
So long as it's kept off our TV screens I imagine the silent majority don't give a stuff either way.

Like you say give it 50 or a 100 years . If the Middle East is still strife-ridden by then as least most of us won't be here to worry about it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We did it in the Falklands ken.

The Falklands and Afghanistan were and are very different.

The Falklanders were 100% behind the UK government and the troops sent to expel the Argentinian forces. The military operation succeeded, but wouldn't have done if either of the aircraft carriers been sunk.

That isn't so in Afghanistan. This is our fourth war there and while the outcomes of the Second Afghan War (1879-82) and the Third (1919) were nowhere near as bloody as that of the First (1839-42), which ended with the retreat from Kabul and the bloody slaughter of almost all the 4,500 British and Indian troops, and their 12,000 camp followers, it's clear that the Afghans, Pathans and others are not 'friendly' so the whole idea of winning a war in Afghanistan is pretty unlikely, whatever our military capabilities and resolve may be.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Not wanting to put words into bio-hazard's mouth but I wrote a similar comment to his and deleted after much patriotic deliberation .

What some of us remember from that time was severe job cuts, recession, urban riots, and a Tory government losing bi-elections across the country. Then Hey presto, along comes the Falklands war, (and no I'm not thinking cranky conspiracies).

Thatcher took one heck of a gamble . Indeed, what would have happened if a few of those heat-guided exocets had found their way to British aircraft carriers, and the weather had turned stormy ?
I know one thing that wouldn't have happened -- The 1983 Tory landslide election victory.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

To be honest, if I were Cameron, once the troops had finished in Afghanistan, then a good war in Zimbabwe would bump him up in the polls, and kill two birds with one stone.
Are you serously advocating murdering large numbers of peope just so the Tory party can win an election? Or is this just a wind-up?

Sorry Ken, but this has all the hallmarks of one of your "knock-door-run" posts. If I respond you probably wont be heard of again.

Maybe if someone else who does engage with debates asks the question on your behalf...

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
What some of us remember from that time was severe job cuts, recession, urban riots, and a Tory government losing by-elections across the country.

Plus ça change...

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
What some of us remember from that time was severe job cuts, recession, urban riots, and a Tory government losing by-elections across the country.
Plus ça change...

And how many more elections did we win afterwards?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Johnny English. ?

Margaret Thatcher guaranteed her continued premiership by going to war. I was a 1010% advocate of that. Couldn't sleep at night. I regard her as an awesome leader to this day. My 50 year armchair warrior is a powerful, visceral zombie this day.

In Christ we were wrong.

[ 30. March 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0