RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message


Pavel -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/2/2005 7:47:06 PM)

I try to avoid this kind of thinking. It's like asking what if the gas had done in Hitler during world war one, or would my GPA be better if my math 210 teacher had been struck down by a deuce and a half rather than going on to teach poorly.

That said, I'm bored. Yay for ranting!

I really would have liked to have seen this mess cleaned up in 1991. Given the imbalanced nature of the Iraqi military after it's rather nasty stomping in Kuwait, in addition to the groups that'd be quite willing and happy to see him gone at that point at time, I think given a few more months we could have rolled in, swept him from power, at a low loss of life (the wild cards being the deployablity of the WMD he had then, and the people controling such weapons, and the ability of loyalist Saddam forces to maintain an effective fighting force in the urban areas). International opinion likely would have still been on our side at this point, although given the middle eastern state's usual stance, they'd likely be pissed (apparently as long as you're Arab, and pay lip service to Islam, then you're an all right guy who deserves power). Of course, the other variables in this would be the willingness of the US people to continue the war to it's conclusion, and the possible post war issues (I'd say we'd stand a better chance at a favorable outcome then than today).

Beyond speculation, I think what the orginal poster gets back to is the that some of the farther left anti-war crowd, while not rallying around Saddam, have trying to paint the pre-war Iraq as a fairly peaceful and happy place. It's rather lousy now, it's just it's a different lousy than it was before the bombs started hitting.

Continueing on in good order, I think Hitler fell victim to his own sterotyped world views and misperceptions. Before and during the earlier phases of the second world war there was the perception that the American GI/Marine/Seaman etc, was unable to fight effectively, and was just as lazy, decedant and cowardly as the Nazis (and others) percieved American society on a whole. I'm sure he thought that given one or two bloody noses the Americans would sue for peace and withdraw from the war (this logic appears again in a lesser extent in the planning phases of what would become the Battle of the Bulge). Anyways, pardon the off topic blab.




JohnWarren -> WAR was RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/2/2005 9:48:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pavel
Beyond speculation, I think what the orginal poster gets back to is the that some of the farther left anti-war crowd, while not rallying around Saddam, have trying to paint the pre-war Iraq as a fairly peaceful and happy place. It's rather lousy now, it's just it's a different lousy than it was before the bombs started hitting.


I haven't seen that. He was certainly a bastard that treated his people terribly. My problem is that we were lied to. We weren't told "he might have WMDs and he's not a nice guy." The message was "He HAS them; we KNOW it and he's planning to attack us." Not one word about "making the people free." I knew the WMD thing was a lie when the US couldn't tell the WMD inspectors, who had full and free access to Iraq this time, (one of them is an old friend and very active in the scene Jack McGeorge) just WHERE we KNEW the weapons to be so they could just knock on a door and catch the bastard with his pants down.

As for it being a terrible place: Lots of the world is a terrible place. North Korea probably is a lot worse than Iraq ever was. Some of the former Soviet republics are hells on earth being run by monsters. Africa [shudder] do I have to even go there? Once we decide that we can make war on people who haven't attacked us we open a door that should be nailed shut and bricked over.

Aside, you wonder why oil is so expensive? Bush says he's dedicated to bringing democracy to the Middle East. As an exercise, name the democraticly run oil-producing countries. Many of the countries in this area are our allies and in effect we are saying we'd like to see them overthrown. That is NOT a good way to keep buddies.


quote:


Continueing on in good order, I think Hitler fell victim to his own sterotyped world views and misperceptions. Before and during the earlier phases of the second world war there was the perception that the American GI/Marine/Seaman etc, was unable to fight effectively, and was just as lazy, decedant and cowardly as the Nazis (and others) percieved American society on a whole. I'm sure he thought that given one or two bloody noses the Americans would sue for peace and withdraw from the war (this logic appears again in a lesser extent in the planning phases of what would become the Battle of the Bulge). Anyways, pardon the off topic blab.


Well, it was started by the OP. One of the blessings of not studying history is it gives a wonderful sense of security. Just think if Hitler hadn't declared war on us. He didn't have to. The Axis was a defensive alliance. Franco did just fine sitting out the war, stayed in power and died powerful and rich. If you are ever in Spain, check out his tomb.... impressive. Without us in the war, Hitler probably would have overrun England eventually giving him a nice wide "moat" behind which to develop atomic weapons.

Another turning point was the attack on Russia of course. Sheer madness.

Since we've wandered a bit, I'll move a bit further and talk about war in general. War is a terrible thing. It occasionally can be necessary, and I've got a litmus test for any leader who wants to start one.

Remember the photo of the naked little girl, her clothes blown off, running from American napalm? This is war. It's not clean; it's not "surgical". Innocent people WILL be killed. Little girls will be burned to death. Old women will be crushed under building. Little boys will stare uncomprehendling at the place where their arm used to be a few moments before. This isn't "might." These things will happen. It's the nature of war.

Here's the test, Mr or Ms Leader. Go to the mirror, look into your eyes and say to yourself, "My goal is so important that I'm willing to burn little girls to death, rip off arms, crush old women and kill innocent people. It is THAT important." Look deep into your own eyes and say that. If you can, maybe war is the solution.

I'm not "against war." I recognize that occasionally war is necessary because there are some pretty awful people in this world and some of them lead nations. But I don't forget and I don't want anyone to forget that it is never easy, it's never clean and is IS a last resort of decent people.




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/2/2005 10:27:30 PM)

quote:

For those of you opposed to the invasion of Iraq, given the first-hand accounts of the atrocities of Saddam's regime, would you undo what we've done, had you the power? To wit, were it within your power to roll back the clock and return us to the point immediately preceding the invasion and then prevent it, would you?
YES, I would oppose the invasion without even thinking twice about it now more than ever, because all we've done is piss off more muslims, squander American wealth and somehow increase the price of oil (sorry just speaking based on results here). We've lost thousands of poor unforunate American soldiers, we've probably killed just as many people or more being there than saddam did when he was in power, and there is no end in sight.
I support our troops and pray for their safe return home, but the longer we are there, the more people we will lose, and unfortunately, we now have no choice but to stay.

If you are saying we're there to help the overthrow a tyrant, I believe that it is first Iraqi people's job to revolt against their president before we decide to step in and help them. For Godssakes, we could have bought Iraqi people, their freedom and loyalty if we'd just thrown that money at them.
My $.02 worth, and believe me I know that is all it's worth. [8|] M




MadameDahlia -> RE: WAR was RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 2:18:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

Here's the test, Mr or Ms Leader. Go to the mirror, look into your eyes and say to yourself, "My goal is so important that I'm willing to burn little girls to death, rip off arms, crush old women and kill innocent people. It is THAT important." Look deep into your own eyes and say that. If you can, maybe war is the solution.



I'm thinking that test managed to elude Mr Leader this time around. Or perhaps he simply didn't give a rat's behind...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig

We've lost thousands of poor unforunate American soldiers, we've probably killed just as many people or more being there than saddam did when he was in power, and there is no end in sight.


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
26302 29625

There's one source. I'm sure there are countless others with an array of estimates.




pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 5:52:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

So, just to recap...

...Saddam back in power. Also he should be allowed to sue for false imprisonment - I think a $2-3 Billion settlement appropriate; lawyers would have no problem representing him. All the people who were killed or mangled were just not thinking politically correct for the greater good of Iraq. That $2-3 Billion will go a long way to the rebuilding of the palaces as well as the prisons and torture dungeons - you never can have enough of them. Perhaps next year beth and I will visit one of those instead of going to Amsterdam.

...Bush arrested.

...Military disbanded.

Then all would be right in the world. The US would be a "nice" country. While we're at it let's also open the borders. Then finally we'd all be safe.

I think that one of the parties should adopt this as their platform for the next presidential election to give everyone the opportunity to support this obvious solution to world peace.



I love your style!!!!! I'm not sure everybody gets you...but some of us do.




pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 6:02:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Even the President conceded that these statements are both false.




like I said...we wouldn't know... is not in all the newspapers...






pantera -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 6:14:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig

we've probably killed just as many people or more being there than saddam did when he was in power, and there is no end in sight.



This statement is false- and let's not forget that most civilian casualties have been caused by the insurgents....

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html





Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 9:00:09 AM)

OK, where is it then? If you know of WMD's in Iraq, you're the only person in the world who does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pantera

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Even the President conceded that these statements are both false.


like I said...we wouldn't know... is not in all the newspapers...





Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 11:57:45 AM)

quote:

We've lost thousands of poor unforunate American soldiers, we've probably killed just as many people or more being there than saddam did when he was in power, and there is no end in sight.


BTF,
You're stating that the US killed more than Saddam's regime? Per this site, obviously NOT pro-war the number is between 26,302 and 29,625. Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

It's estimated that between 300,000 - 400,000 Iraqis, Iraqi Kurds, Iranian and Kuwaiti were killed by Saddam per this account:
quote:

There was no end to the gruesome creativity of Saddam's secret police. Saddam's methods included using hammers to break bones, ripping out fingernails, amputating limbs with a chain saw, crucifixion, throwing live victims in acid baths and ovens, cutting loose wild dogs to attack victims, raping women in the presence of their children and husbands, cutting off a penis or a breast, and stripping children naked and forcing their parents to watch as they were stung by hornets and scorpions. The graves contain evidence of these and other sadistic crimes. Source: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-074010-1766r


But if you still long for the "good old days" of Saddam in power, you may want to first learn more about the regime you are supporting. Under Saddam, the old Roman oratory including the words "...lend me your ears." took on a literal meaning.
quote:

Razak, then 21 years old, had been swept up during one of Saddam Hussein’s periodic crackdowns on deserters from the Army. Razak says he was innocently on leave at the time, but no matter; he had been seized by some Baath Party members who earned bounties for catching Army deserters. At Basra Hospital, Razak’s ears were sliced off without painkillers. He said he was thrown into jail with 750 men, all with bloody stumps where their ears had been. “They called us Abu [Arabic for father] Earless,” recalls Razak, whose fiancee left him because of his disfigurement.

As part of the prison routine, Issa was tortured daily, sometimes twice a day. Battery acid was spilled on his feet, which are now deformed. With his hands bound behind his back, he was hanged by his wrists from the ceiling until his shoulders dislocated; he still cannot lift his hands above his head. The interrogators’ goal: “They just wanted me to say I was plotting against the Baath Party, so they could take me and execute me. If they got a confession, they would get 100,000 dinars [roughly $40].”

Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068571/


If you'd prefer a more formal report you could peruse this dossier, a declassified British government document, click on this link: http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/TortureDossier.pdf

But this of course can be misinterpreted as "cultural differences". The US prison conditions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are just as reprehensible. Putting a Koran in the same room as a toilet, serving non-Islamic food, and not letting the prisoners know which way it is to Mecca; equate to the Iraqi prison system under Saddam:

quote:

Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign;"
122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and
At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001. Source: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm


Just having an opinion or saying; "we've probably killed just as many people or more being there than saddam did when he was in power", doesn't make is so.

Yes indeed - let's bring Saddam back.




BlkTallFullfig -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 1:02:58 PM)

quote:

But if you still long for the "good old days" of Saddam in power
If you're going to read me, please try and avoid distorting my words to better fit your argument: I NEVER said Saddam was a great man who should be back in power. What I said was given what we know now (NO WMD, and the lives we've lost and continue to lose), I don't regret having opposed Iraq war, and in fact would oppose more vehemently today the beginning of this currently disaster we find selves in); and yes I do regret the blood in our hands now of all the people who have died.
I suppose according to your way of seeing things I should be proud our death toll is so much lower than Saddam's thus far, but my conscience which says the answer to this question
quote:

JohnWarren Here's the test, Mr or Ms Leader. Go to the mirror, look into your eyes and say to yourself, "My goal is so important that I'm willing to burn little girls to death, rip off arms, crush old women and kill innocent people. It is THAT important." Look deep into your own eyes and say that. If you can, maybe war is the solution.
Is an unequivocal NO (war was not the only option at that time), I would disagree with you, and oppose the war.
quote:

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596


quote:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
There have been 2,132 coalition troop deaths, 1,939 Americans, 96 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 26 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 17 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of October 3, 2005. (Graphical breakdown of casualties).

http://vitw.org/archives/745




Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 1:05:18 PM)

Come on, Merc--NO ONE said they "supported" Saddam's regime. You don't do well when you distort what people are saying and respond to strawmen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

But if you still long for the "good old days" of Saddam in power, you may want to first learn more about the regime you are supporting.





BlkTallFullfig -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 1:33:40 PM)

quote:

http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/TortureDossier.pdf
Can't open this on my puter unfortunately, not sure why




Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 1:41:38 PM)

quote:

If you're going to read me, please try and avoid distorting my words to better fit your argument:


Did I misquote this?
quote:

we've probably killed just as many people or more being there than saddam did when he was in power,


Do you still hold that opinion?

The last comment was direct cause/effect. If the US did not attack Iraq the consequence is the atrocities would still be occurring. No war in Iraq - Saddam is still there. So no, I didn't distort your words, I took them to their consequence. You see, in the world there are consequences to decisions, good or bad, there are consequences.

quote:

L&M: Come on, Merc--NO ONE said they "supported" Saddam's regime.


No decision, even the decisions to take no action, is without consequence. It's the result of linear logic. Everyone who answered the OP by saying that Iraq should not have been invaded by definition is saying that they'd prefer Saddam back in power. Is it skewering linear logic by pointing out the consequence of non-invasion would be that Saddam would still be in power? Where's the statement "distortion"? As always I plead guilty to pragmatism. If someone can point to any condition contrary to that conclusion, I'll reassess.

Only through perfect 20/20 hindsight is invasion of Iraq even debatable. I just want to point out the consequences of the other side of the debate. The purpose isn't to change anyone's mind, or to attack "straw-men". I firmly believe that most people think the job is done by just being contrary. For example, pointing a finger at the fact that no WMD were found PROVES they didn't/don't exist. Therefore the reason to invade was invalid. Therefore we should just say "we're sorry!" and leave. Ok - accepting that premise then what happens?

Sure it looks silly to consider that anyone "supported" Saddam's regime. But in lieu of invasion, or maintaining a current presence, isn't that exactly the position they are taking? Please point out the distortion.




Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 1:54:01 PM)

The whole point of what everyone said is precisely that this is an invalid inference. But it looks like this thread is going to degenerate quickly, because if you and Fangs think we are all supporters of Saddam's regime, and keep bombarding us with evidence of Saddam's cruelty, we're not going to have much to talk about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Everyone who answered the OP by saying that Iraq should not have been invaded by definition is saying that they'd prefer Saddam back in power.





BlkTallFullfig -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 2:03:13 PM)

quote:

we've probably killed just as many people or more being there than saddam did when he was in power,

Do you still hold that opinion?
No I don't, and that is why I didn't make it an affirmative statement: Didn't say I know we have...
The fact is I don't think anyone knows how many people have died as a result of this war.

quote:

Only through perfect 20/20 hindsight is invasion of Iraq even debatable. I just want to point out the consequences of the other side of the debate. The purpose isn't to change anyone's mind, or to attack "straw-men". I firmly believe that most people think the job is done by just being contrary. For example, pointing a finger at the fact that no WMD were found PROVES they didn't/don't exist. Therefore the reason to invade was invalid. Therefore we should just say "we're sorry!" and leave.
First of all, he meant that you used Strawman fallacy to discredit my statement, not that you were attacking moi and others (straw-men). Secondly I said
quote:

I support our troops and pray for their safe return home, but the longer we are there, the more people we will lose, and unfortunately, we now have no choice but to stay.

If you are saying we're there to help the overthrow a tyrant, I believe that it is first Iraqi people's job to revolt against their president before we decide to step in and help them. For Godssakes, we could have bought Iraqi people, their freedom and loyalty if we'd just thrown that money at them.
So, the second part of your statement does not apply to mine for the above stated reasons, and I pointed the finger at NO WMD because that was the reason Americans supported going to war. Do you think Americans would vote affirmatively for us to waste our lives and tax dollars on saving every anti-democracy nation, and removing every tyrant from power if that were presented as the reason?
Do you think the majority of Americans would have sent their kids to die in Iraq if anyone told them Saddam is a bad man who has killed his people, but since his people won't revolt against him, we should go save them and bring them freedom? Most Americans would laugh at me if I said that to them, and call me a bleeding heart liberal who needs to get a grip on reality; you are saying that should be good enough reason, but I don't think you believe that.

I'd like to save as much of the world as possible, but given that neither I, nor the US can do that, we should apply that strategy sparingly and equally among all of the worlds tyrants, and for all of the worlds victims than. M




Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 2:04:09 PM)

L&M,
Sorry for pointing out the obvious. I still don't know why addressing consequence of a position is invalid to the discussion but I'll accept that position. I guess I'm just as confused when I hear arguments from those supporting our troops but not the war. They seem to miss the consequences of their position too.

I apologize to all for my "bombardment".




JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 2:10:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig

I'd like to save as much of the world as possible, but given that neither I, nor the US can do that, we should apply that strategy sparingly and equally among all of the worlds tyrants, and for all of the worlds victims than. M


After what happened in several South American countries, the Philippines and the Soviet Union, I had considerable hope that freedom was really on the march. The thing is that in each of these cases the thrust behind the overthrow of the bad guys was internal.

I don't really know if freedom can be imposed by force of arms and I'm damned if I'm happy seeing American servicemen and women dying in an experiment to see if it can be done.

I suspect that with a bit more patience we'd have seen Saddam fall and then what happen, at least, couldn't be dropped right on our front door.





Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 2:14:07 PM)

The troops are just doing the job they signed up for. They didn't decide to go to war, and shouldn't be blamed for it. They're facing an impossible situation and frequently dying for it. That doesn't mean I condone the many documented instances of abuse. But I do support the ordinary soldiers who have had no choice in the matter and have fought honorably. I sympathize with their families, too.

I really don't think that's a self-contradictory position at all. In fact, I think it's pretty baseless to oppose the war AND denigrate the soldiers who are fighting it. That position would seem a lot less logical to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I guess I'm just as confused when I hear arguments from those supporting our troops but not the war.





Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 3:11:06 PM)

quote:

Do you think the majority of Americans would have sent their kids to die in Iraq if anyone told them Saddam is a bad man who has killed his people, but since his people won't revolt against him, we should go save them and bring them freedom? Most Americans would laugh at me if I said that to them, and call me a bleeding heart liberal who needs to get a grip on reality; you are saying that should be good enough reason, but I don't think you believe that.


BTK,
Interesting question.

You know, the conspiracy theorists say that FDR "allowed" the attack on Pearl Harbor for just the reason you point out. Without that focus point it's debated whether the US would have entered into WWII on either the Pacific or European fronts. There is some credible evidence to support that position.

As you know and point out there are other cruel dictators currently out in the world causing the same pain, and inflicting the same atrocities on their people as Saddam. Yet the US isn't invading, and I don't think there is much grass roots pressure to do so. Why Saddam? Well, I think one of the contributing factors was that George II wanted to "get even" for the failure of George I.

George II used 9/11 as his Pearl Harbor. Even if all this was absolute fact instead of a subject to debate, it doesn't change the basic facts of the conditions existing in Iraq prior to the US invasion. If there was no "evolution" in the 10+ years following Desert Storm, I don't see Saddam re-invented himself as a benevolent dictator on his own. His total control of the country and the fear he instilled in his supporters as well as his enemies was well founded in fact. If you read some of the personal accounts from the people living there prior to the US invasion, you'll see a revolution, even at glacier speed, could not happen.

Another question to consider is, do the Iraqi people have a better chance for living peacefully in the future now then they would prior to the US invasion? My answer would be no. The inherent problems in Iraq are founded in disputes that existed long before the US existed as a country. It's the fundamental problem that the US refuses to address. Because the US was formed as a "melting pot" most of the people don't relate to vendettas and religious "wars" that go back a thousand years or so. Unlike the US where a Mosque, Temple, Church, and Synagogue can exist on the same street and even share the same parking lot; wearing the wrong religious icon can get you killed in some parts of world. Being the wrong sect of the same religion can get the same result. (Should the "Has religion killed more than it's saved" thread be revived?) How can you "solve" that problem? One of the biggest problems of US foreign policy is the thinking that they can. In many ways as a country and as a people we have no reference point that compares to centuries of war between the people of the middle east.

All that said, remember that no US parent sent there child to die in Iraq. No parent was forced or even coerced into sending their child into the military. Everyone there signed up for the privilege of serving. I'll grant the argument that for many it was a financial decision more than it was a patriotic decision, but the pragmatic bottom line is that they are in the military because they wanted to be in the military. Signing up had the consequence of perhaps going to war, perhaps being shot at, perhaps being maimed or killed. No parent sent them.




Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/3/2005 5:02:12 PM)

BTK??? That's something else entirely. She's BTF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

BTK,
Interesting question.





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875