RE: Afghanistan Command Change

RE: Afghanistan Command Change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/13/2009 5:23:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Keep on quoting but these were never the reasons given for invading Iraq. The only reasons given were the WMD issue, which the leaked Downing Street memo proved Blair and Bush knew that no WMD`s would be found. And the claim Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda, which your own links show wasnt the case. I do not know what happened in the UK. You seem to not know what happened in the US. So what are we arguing about, exactly? Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/13/2009 5:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I'm sorry, but you are in error. The actual US Resolution gives these additional justifications for the use of force: * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. * Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. All of these points were accurate, and valid. Yes, they were. But you miss my point. The primary justification and the so-called imminent threat was Iraq's possession of WMD's. Remember Colin Powell at the United Nations? Remember Rumsfeld saying we know they have them, and we know where they are? quote: This may be all good and fine and correct. But it is a blindness to who Saddam really was. You remember the Duelfer Report? I'm sure you read it, and probably quoted it, because some parts support your contention. However, here is the key issue from that reports "Key Findings" that you and others seem to avoid: Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. It pretty clear, even if one accepts your argument that WMD's were not a valid reason to invade, that justification was certainly valid in the long term. I tend to be a long term thinker when it comes to politics and international events. Accepting that WMD's were not a valid reason is short-sighted, and wishful thinking. Well, again you are making two different arguments. First, you told me that WMD's were not the primary reason, now you seem to be asserting the opposite. As for Saddam's intentions and future capabilities, that was not something that should have been a valid concern at that time. Reference the IAEA report I posted earlier. The U.N. inspectors could not have been clearer or more emphatic that Iraq did not have any current WMD capability, but Bush chose to ignore that report which was delivered a full three weeks prior to the invasion. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Neo-conservatives like Wolfowitz and the members of the Heritage Foundation had written position papers advocating the invasion of Iraq for years. September 11th provided a convenient excuse for preying on a fearful public. Or have you conveniently forgotten the Bush administration's failed attempts to link Saddam to the attacks? quote: ORIGINAL:FirmhandKY shrug So? The "so" is that many of these people ended up in the Bush administration. Including Wolfowitz who was one of the prime architects of the war. Remember his claims that the war would be fully funded by the grateful Iraqis who would shower us with their oil profits for liberating them. Or Cheney's claims that the Iraquis would welcome us as heroes. quote: You do believe that all men are created equal, and have inalienable rights given by our Creator, don't you? Or do you believe that freedom, democracy and rights are something that only the US and the West should enjoy? Are you your brother's keeper? No, what I believe is we have no business meddling in any other county's affairs unless they are a direct threat to us (note the direct as opposed to imminent). quote: "Full support?" I don't think so. At best, the US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was a Morton's fork. Choosing the lesser of two evils, but hoping for the failure of both. Life (and international politics) often presents us with less than desirable options. Well, that is pretty much what I said, but we did give Iraq both economic and weapons support during that period. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife As far as the rest, you are basically supporting two different viewpoints. Iraq was justified because we thought Saddam "might" have nuclear weapons capability but taking on the Taliban, which harbored and supported those that attacked us, you advocate other than a military solution. That didn't work too well when Pakistan recently tried it. I've done enough with you today, but if you really need me to explain this, ask me again some other time. Firm Ok, this is some other time, so explain.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/13/2009 5:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And, while I can't speak for him, I think the point he was trying to make was the idea of preemptive attack has been historically opposed by this country. I really don't think most people realize what a fundamental shift in U.S. policy this was and how far-reaching the ramifications are going to be. We've opened the door for any other nation to attack based on a perceived threat with as little evidence as we had going into Iraq. I can't argue that you are wrong in this case. It was and is a change in US military strategy, and it may well have been a disastrous change in the long run. I'm not sure it is, however. Personally, my gut reaction to a "pre-emptive" war is negative, as yours is. This is one of those topics that deserves deep consideration, discussion, and will take some historical time to render a final judgment. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Wait, don't tell me, liberal media bias, which the Sun article claimed so right there I have to become skeptical. I'm not willing to claim it was "liberal news bias". I am prepared to claim that it was considered "not news" by many pundits and news services, for whatever reason. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/13/2009 6:46:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife The primary justification and the so-called imminent threat was Iraq's possession of WMD's. quote: ORIGINAL: Firm This may be all good and fine and correct. But it is a blindness to who Saddam really was. You remember the Duelfer Report? I'm sure you read it, and probably quoted it, because some parts support your contention. However, here is the key issue from that reports "Key Findings" that you and others seem to avoid: Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. It pretty clear, even if one accepts your argument that WMD's were not a valid reason to invade, that justification was certainly valid in the long term. I tend to be a long term thinker when it comes to politics and international events. Accepting that WMD's were not a valid reason is short-sighted, and wishful thinking. Well, again you are making two different arguments. First, you told me that WMD's were not the primary reason, now you seem to be asserting the opposite. As for Saddam's intentions and future capabilities, that was not something that should have been a valid concern at that time. Reference the IAEA report I posted earlier. The U.N. inspectors could not have been clearer or more emphatic that Iraq did not have any current WMD capability, but Bush chose to ignore that report which was delivered a full three weeks prior to the invasion. As we discussed earlier, there are several different issues. The first is the claim that some people make (politesub) that the issue of WMD's were the exclusive reason ever given for the war. It wasn't. The second issue is whether or not that there was a danger that WMD's would find their way into terrorist hands through Saddam. The answer appears to be that this danger wasn't immediate, because he didn't have them on-hand. However, the fact is that Saddam would have had the WMD's sometime after the inspectors left, and sanctions lifted, and we would have been back to the same dangerous situation, but without many of the tools and systems in place to do something about it. But the narrow issue of whether or not a Saddam with WMD was a valid issue. He didn't have them when we invaded, but there is little doubt he would have had them shortly after our forces would have left the area, and we would have been right back where we started from, in a more disadvantaged condition. And, yes, I'm certainly open to a discussion about the difference between "direct" and "imminent", "preventive" and "pre-emptive war" In fact, I think it is a separate issue to address this comment of yours: As for Saddam's intentions and future capabilities, that was not something that should have been a valid concern at that time. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife As far as the rest, you are basically supporting two different viewpoints. Iraq was justified because we thought Saddam "might" have nuclear weapons capability but taking on the Taliban, which harbored and supported those that attacked us, you advocate other than a military solution. That didn't work too well when Pakistan recently tried it. ... Ok, this is some other time, so explain. I don't think I "advocated an other than military solution" for the Taliban. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/13/2009 6:48:05 PM)
Done for the night. I'll address the other issues separately, when I've the time. Firm

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/13/2009 7:02:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY As we discussed earlier, there are several different issues. The first is the claim that some people make (politesub) that the issue of WMD's were the exclusive reason ever given for the war. It wasn't. Red herring, Firm. Whether it was the only reason cited by the Bushers is irrelevant; the point is, it was the only valid reason, and it was a lie. It doesn't matter how many other reasons the Bushers through out there to muddy the waters, this reason was the only one that would have been sufficient to justify a war of aggression. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The second issue is whether or not that there was a danger that WMD's would find their way into terrorist hands through Saddam. The answer appears to be that this danger wasn't immediate, because he didn't have them on-hand. However, the fact is that Saddam would have had the WMD's sometime after the inspectors left, and sanctions lifted, and we would have been back to the same dangerous situation, but without many of the tools and systems in place to do something about it. But the narrow issue of whether or not a Saddam with WMD was a valid issue. He didn't have them when we invaded, but there is little doubt he would have had them shortly after our forces would have left the area, and we would have been right back where we started from, in a more disadvantaged condition. What do you base that on? Our own weapons inspectors (not the UN's, but the American inspectors who scoured the country after the war) agreed that his weapons programs had deteriorated badly after the first war, and were declining more with each passing year. The post-war consensus was that the sanctions had been working all along, and would have continued to work as long as they were left in place. Your argument seems to depend on the assumption that the sanctions would have been lifted at some point for some reason, and I see no reason to believe that would have been the case.

Kirata -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/13/2009 11:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda the point is, it was the only valid reason, and it was a lie If Hitler had stuck to just killing Jews without presenting any threat to his neighbors, would there have been no valid reason for military intervention there either? I'm not looking to argue or justify the Iraq excursion, I'm just curious how your thinking works here. K.

Politesub53 -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/14/2009 2:09:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I do not know what happened in the UK. You seem to not know what happened in the US. So what are we arguing about, exactly? Firm Just because I disagree with you it means I dont know what goes on in the US ? Thats a bit far fetched I think. In the media, both print and TV, the whole Iraq invasion thing was widely reported. We kept seeing statements from both Washington and Downing Street that Saddam had WMD`s ( We were even told he could launch them within 45 minutes ) We were also told that Saddam was linked to 9/11. The memo I mentioned shows both Blair and Bush knew both of these issues were likely to be untrue. It also showed Bush, and finally Blair, were intent on regime change at any cost. Since the invasion, there have been many claims of documents being found that prove this, that or the other. Yet still we have no concrete proof that there are WMD`s or links to OBL. My viewpoint on each and every thread on the subject has been the same. The Iraq invasion took troops and effort away from what should have been the real theatre of operation, Afghanistan. While the world watched the Iraq war on TV and then the events that followed, the whole focus was lessened in Afghanistan. I can only guess but I would bet that most Americans think the invasion of Iraq was all about WMD,s and Saddams link with 9/11 and AQ. Im not arguing for the sake of it, just poining out what I see as the relevant link between Iraq and Afghanistan. On the question of the new commander, m not sure it matters who is in charge. Politically there needs to be a decision to hold areas once they are cleared of the Taliban. This means a massive increase in troops, so im not sure it will ever happen. The only alternative is to hold talks with the more moderate Taliban leaders and hope for an agreement. I really see this as an either/or outcome.

Politesub53 -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/14/2009 2:23:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If Hitler had stuck to just killing Jews without presenting any threat to his neighbors, would there have been no valid reason for military intervention there either? I'm not looking to argue or justify the Iraq excursion, I'm just curious how your thinking works here. K. I think thats a moot point, Germany had invaded its neighbours before most of the killings started. You do raise another issue here though, where do we stop ? Do we invade every Country with terrorist links, Saudi, Syria, Iran Yemen, to name just a few. Do we invade where there are WMDs in the hands of people that are not our allies ? Russia China, North Korea ?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Afghanistan Command Change (5/14/2009 8:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda the point is, it was the only valid reason, and it was a lie If Hitler had stuck to just killing Jews without presenting any threat to his neighbors, would there have been no valid reason for military intervention there either? I'm not looking to argue or justify the Iraq excursion, I'm just curious how your thinking works here. K. Yeah. The Holocaust. Boy, that's the exception that blows the rule right out of the water, isn't it? This is where the issue gets complicated. In general, of course, my personal view is that sovereign countries need to be left alone to work out their own destinies, for the most part. But in my opinion, that end of the spectrum represents a no-brainer. Yes, the Holocaust would have been an entirely valid reason for military intervention by the international community. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia during the mid-to late-70s was another such example, and Vietnam did the right thing even if it wasn't necessarily for all the right reasons. At the very least, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, and Darfur all lie close to that end of the spectrum as well, and a strong argument could be made for each of them being in the same category as the Holocaust. There's a point where civilized human beings just can't continue to stand by and watch innocent people be slaughtered. And I know some would put Saddam's Iraq into the same category. I happen to think it's a valid argument, and one that would have been worth having. But that's not the argument that was made. That's not the way the issue was framed. If it had been, it would have resulted in a different discussion, perhaps with a different outcome. A discussion that might have brought forth more alternatives, other options than invading a country on false pretenses. Options which may, in turn, have led to a very different result than the one we have. Perhaps better, perhaps even worse - but with at least a chance of being better than the complete (and very predictable) clusterfuck we're drowning in now, and without having set the precedent we set by launching a war without justifiable provocation. Edit: And yes, I recognize you weren't using the Holocaust as an argument to justify the invasion of Iraq. But I know others will take it in that direction, so i figured i might as well save everyone a lot of keystrokes and get it out of the way at the beginning.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.027344E-02